No, but it has nothing to do with Michael Jackson or his guilt or innocence..
I wouldn't let my child(ren) stay over at anyone's house who wasn't a relative unless they had kids who were friends of my kid(s) and it was a slumber party or whatever. It has nothing to do with child molestation or anything like that.
The bottom line is that IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE to let your kid stay at a single or married non-relative's house who doesn't have any kids. For what purpose would they ever need to stay the night wiht a non-relative adult?
The only way my kid(s) would stay over at someone, anyone's house who is not a relative would be for a sleep over or slumber party with their friend.
With regard to Michael Jackson...
I think Michael Jackson is innocent in his own mind and truly doesn't understand the unusualness or malnormalcy of a grown non-relative sharing a bed with a child. Whether he did in fact commit any crimes on a few occassions will be proven or not proven but consider these facts:
1. Pedophiliacs/hebophiliacs when presented with the opportunity to indulge their urges will very often do so. In other words, the probability is very high that a pedophiliac who has the opportunity to act on their desire will do so.
2. By many accounts MJ has slept in a bed with a non-relative child OR slept in the same room with a non-relative child on many many occassions. I would guess the number to be more than two dozen occassions and probably the number could be as high as a couple of hundred times over the past two decades.
3. If MJ was a real pedophiliac it is highly likely that there would be a GREAT NUMBER of molestation events and victims. Yet there are only what between 2-5 persons that have made the claim that once or twice something occurred??
Now I am not suggesting that this PROVES that he did not commit a crime on those occassions that the "victims" have asserted; but what I am suggesting from the above it that it should be fairly apparent that Michael Jackson is probably not a pedophiliac in the clinical or "normal" sense.
If the data does not support a finding of typical pedophilia what does this mean?
Well it might mean that the events that are claimed such as Michael Jackson walking into the room naked and with an erection, touching himself, etc. are simply normal behaviours to be expected of a "child" (and really his psychology suggests that emotionally he has regressed or remained no more than an adolescent) and that these events have NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL GRATIFICATION. Whether a jury will see these things as a crime or supportive of the main allegations in the present case, or whether the jury bought the more graphic testimony regarding fellatio and fondling of others, will remain to be seen.