Richard Goldstein, writing in the Village Voice, posits that Jackson's difficulty is not the same as that of R. Kelly based on the gender of the victims:
Because fantasies of sex with minors are so common, age of consent laws are essential. But the obsession with these cases has unintended consequences. It focuses our attention on the sexuality of minors, and makes our fantasies about them even hotter. The more hysterical D.A.s get, the hipper these reveries seem. By now, a yen for the young is an emblem of roguish transgression. This spiral of arousal and repression was bound to produce a superstar - and R. Kelly is that man.
As for Jacko: If he wants to save his career, he'll have to start fooling around with 14-year-old girls.
I am not sure that I agree with all the assertions in this article, espcially this one:
Why does Jacko rate contempt while the Pied Piper gets a wink and nod? The answer lies in the widespread assumption that "awakening" a young lass is the mark of a potent man. When combined with the racist fantasy that black men are repositories of unbridled lust, sex with girls becomes the ultimate credential for a playa.
Based on a random sampling, mainly the people I know who are white, only a few can even pinpoint R. Kelly and most of them only know him as the guy who wrote that song for that Michael Jordan movie with Bugs Bunny. So, I have no idea if there is a racist fantasy in play, but I do recognize there was a time when "the black man" was feared in terms of sexual prowess. And, I always assumed the girls in the R. Kelly video were black, so, well, I just don't know.
I do agree with sentences that follow the above paragraph:
But Jacko will never qualify as a stud. He's violated the rules of both racial and gender identity by transforming himself into an alabaster androgyne. In a time when banality passes for subversion, Jacko is our Oscar Wilde.
The Oscar Wilde comparison may be a little off, but the point remains.
Towards the end of the article comes this:
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Thanks Chris, very interesting, and I too am perplexed by Goldstein's point about "homosexual panic."
I can't even imagine what he is talking about as there has been more real movement and fundamental change regarding the public's perception AND the legal status of gays in the very recent past than in the 50 years pervious. Imagine a serious debate on gay marriage just 10 years ago. The only panic is in Goldstein's brain.