FreelovesJJ

So...question, when you anticipate Janet coming back do you really feel she will just be picking up the Unbreakable tour or do you feel she's going to go a different direction?

I can't wait to see who he looks like. Joe has strong genes & Janet has them heavy. It will be interesting to see

That sounds closer to 80s Janet

She's looking great in that Why Did I Get Married fur. Can't wait to see more of her.

She's beautiful!

it was specifically referenced to you. It was for the people who tend to think so.

None of them are broke and it's a petty to think so. They're doing fine and able to maintain their lives. They travel internationally as well. They are fine.

The Jackson family is not poor.

This is epic! I'm so hype and I love the baby's name! I just knew that baby was here and walking around, and I have a feeling he wasn't born today. That would have been a long pregnancy. I know he's going to be beautiful, and I can't wait to see him!!

I guess it's like you pointing out you're a Capricorn as a sense of validation. It's a statement as irrelevant as yours. It's a conversation thread it wasn't directed at Janet, you're very sensitive and ridiculous.

Game shut up. You're so fucking sensitive. The statement FOR ME was said because not only have I seen it be disastrous but it was news to me that they were even supposedly compatible signs. Period. You assumed it to be for a negative purpose. I said it's not about Janet. Anytime someone says something that doesn't sit well with you it's just the worst thing. Go the hell on. You assumed my intentions.

Not speaking for Janet's relationship but I've seen this connection be disastrous to be honest.

Wow. I always thought he was an Aries. Cool.

I'm not going to continue going back and forth. I've said what I said. My opinion remains, and it seems to remain with the endorsement of Janet herself. Saying that DESPITE the bull shit that many here feels is grounds for abortion & adoption - she would never have a child and not allow them to know who their father is. Furthermore, Janet's deep loyalty characteristics ( from business to family) & family support history shows that she would keep her family (a hypothetical child) close & fight for them if she had to. Janet loved James in spite of, she's fought for her brother when he faced devastating allegations, she's constantly tried to rebuild with her father who at times had been called abusive, she's fought publicly with her sister & then mended the bond, she's gone through hell in the industry & she continuously discusses her strength. She also had always been known to be a fighter even if her public persona was meek. You keep discrediting the person Janet is when you create these reasons you think she could not have handled being a mother or accepting the responsibility of the person she married, loved, & continuously laid with DESPITE their demons. P.S. Mike's addiction started with Pepsi & lasted off & on until his death. Not just the 90s.

First those are not assumptions about Randy & Tito they are true. Randy was even in a car accident where he had been drinking, and that's not what it's based off that's just an example. Nonetheless, no one is comparing the Debarges as better or worse than the Jacksons I'm basically saying, Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. I personally don't see life as disposable whether abortion or whatever else. Janet would have known long before any pregnancy what she was up against. I have said countless times I do not think the rumor is true, but my initial response was to the person saying wouldn't it be funny if it was... no it would not be funny. And you better fucking believe if Janet went to court behind custody of her OWN child - they would not give custody to a grandmother over a stable mother. That's bull shit that she would have had a real battle to keep her birth child. Let's stop reaching and looking at the Debarge's as this intimidating family that could have snatched Janet's child and damaged the child while Janet would have been helpless - IF THE RUMOR WAS TRUE. You guys are really overstating the Debarge issue just to overlook the connection Janet herself had to it.

I might be wrong about it being Charlemagne but it was definitely a man who asked her during the Miss Jones interview the question was, "Janet I want to ask you something but I don't want to upset you." Janet replied, "if you think it will upset me then don't ask." He said, "but I have to, is it true about you having a secret baby? I'm sorry but those damn Debarages..." Janet cut him off & said, "“How many times do i have to tell everyone,no i don’t have a child. I have never had a child. I would never,never,have a child and not allow my child to not know who their father is.Please believe me that I do not have a child.”." Now all that being said, obviously Janet agrees with me. Because despite the laundry list of issues the family has...she STILL would never hide a child from their father. I'm so tired of ppl reading one side of my statements & defending them by discrediting whether or not James was worthy of being a father. IF! IF...this had been a true rumor the child being given up would not be to protect him from James it would be to distance it from Janet. Because, ALL courts would have favored Janet especially with all the insight you all are giving. And writing it off as, "if she would have had a child it would have been just another fatherless child..." but not seeing how challenging it would be to not only be fatherless but motherless too? For God's sake, addiction is not a new experience for the Jackson household. Michael was on drugs, Randy & Tito suffered with drinking. Jermaine's children were raised within the family despite some being from Randy's ex. Janet would have definitely been able to take care of the child with a VILLAGE of help. I DONT believe she ever had a child, but my point about denying a father - or lying to a father is trash still remains. Hell, even Janet finds it dishonorable so what are we even discussing?

Excellent!

The other rumor is that the child would be Steveanna Randy's daughter. I don't believe that Janet did that. Nonetheless, everyone is saying how terrible it would have been to have the child raised by the Debarge family but the child would not have been. It would have raised by the Jacksons custodial visits or anything else would have been worked out through them. If she gave the child away or just to a sibling it would have been so she didn't have to have the child. Not so James didn't get to have the child. All courts would have favored her.

It was a phone interview. Charlemagne worked with Miss Jones at the time. They were being very rude during the interview but Janet held her own. They even tried to put her on the spot and asked her to sing Young Love, and she told them "if you want to see the show you have to buy a ticket." This isn't an opinion this is a fact. You just missed the interview.

Yes I mean in public. She was asked on Miss Jones interview, and by Charlemagne if I'm not mistaken. Her response was, "No that is not true, I would never do that. I would never have a child and deny them from their father." - I believe that very much about her. I don't believe she would do that, because it is disrespectful & abandoning to publicly deny the child & deny it a family that is curious about it. Although, I am pro-life I also think that would have been a terrible decision...but no I would not call a person trash ass for it. I think to have experienced feelings of abandonment, and come from a family that is obviously accepting of more children & being a village then publicly deny the child would be trash. Especially if the rumor is someone close to her raised the child. Any scenario like that is disrespectful. Then you have a new child & celebrate it publicly...while this other child is watching you from within your own surrounding. At the end of the day, I think she lost the child one way or another. I do not believe she birthed it & denied it.

I've never heard a story of Joe telling him to jump. As a matter of fact I heard James tell that story and he never said Joe was there. I'd like to know more about him being there. Also, I'm not disputing whether Joe liked him or not. I never said I would be ok with Janet having aborted the child. I said I believe she either did that or miscarried. I'm actually pro-life, personally. I consider abortion murder as well, and do not agree with it. And it would be foul to do that without telling the father. Nonetheless it still has a different stain from having this child and denying it on so many levels in front of its face. So either way, I disagree with how it could have been handled but denial of an alive human is very very disrespectful to me.

You don't know any of these people, first. But here are some solid facts. The Jacksons did have drugs ruin their family, as a matter of fact the most socially prominent family member was killed behind a drug addiction & mistreatment. Also, they invited James & his addiction into their home to live. KNOWING he was an addict, so the idea that this family, or Janet, is so foreign to a lifestyle of drugs & substance abuse is BS. For God's sake, at 9 years old Janet was around coke snorting celebrities in Studio 54. By no means was she this saint who had no clue about the perils of drugs. Not to mention, other family members with substance abuse issues. The Jacksons are a family that also has their own demons. If you lay down with someone knowing who they are, you do not become so self righteous that you hide the child you create without giving ANYONE in the family an opportunity to know. You are doing the CHILD a disservice. Yes, one person can heal not only a family but the world. Some people have so much influence within them they are a blessing to everything they touch. Now granted can we say that would definitely be the case, no but if you hide the child you take a way the potential of ever knowing. Giving a child up is not a selfless act, that's your opinion. It can also be argued that it's a selfish act because you wanted to avoid the responsibility you created. So you leave that child in the hands of someone else, completely negating the inherent abandonment issues you may impact that child with. Especially to turn around at 50 & celebrate having your first - IF THIS WAS TRUE, Janet would be trash in my eyes. Hands down period.

If anything, no one has the right to rob a child from their family. That child COULD be the fix to generational issues. It's my belief, that every so often a special child is born in a chaotic family that tends to heal old wounds or bring peace to certain situations just because theirs something "special" about the child. Beyond all that, Janet would be a trash ass person to literally deny an entire human life. Completely devaluing them by making them no more than a rumor. That's trash as fuck. And trust me, the Debarges have skeletons but the Jacksons also have demons. Let's not forget some of the grandchildren are sibling-cousins. So I can't see how Janet having a child from James would be any worse. Let's not act like they're so high above that family. They're not. Birds of a feather... My biggest thought is, she either miscarried or aborted the child. Either way she kept it private but I do believe there is some truth to the pregnancy. I think she regretted whatever it was and how it went down.

Na I would lose all self respect for her.

I missed the retrospective thread but I hear you. I'm sure some fans are bandwagon and I'm sure some have valid feelings. Janet created a very good album that spoke to the new person she is, & that's amazing. It had more potential than it received.