The book depicted several nude men and women according to Corey. Why can you not fit the puzzle?<quoted text> Except that he wasn't a stranger to the boy, it was in the privacy of his own home in which the boy was a guest, it was a book which by no stretch of the imagination could be construed as 'erotic'; the book probably contained valuable information about the realities of the human sexual experience and the diseases which can result from it.
Leave to to a clueless hater to come up with a preposterous scenario in which viewing an anatomical illustration in a book is 'inappropriate' for a teenager.
This is the same man who was supposedly regressed - you use this to excuse why he slept with boys night after night. You then excuse him for collecting child erotica and photographs of boys he bedded. AND now you excuse him for showing a boy graphic and inappropriate content in a sex-related book. Which man relives his child-hood teaching little boys sex education? You contradict yourself constantly.
Adding up his past suspicious behaviour, how can you not see the blatant red flags with him showing a young pre-teen boy a graphic book? Only MJ fans can be this dense