Papa John Phillips

[Guest Speed Racer]

In general?

 

Oh god yes.

 

She preaches armchair redemption, in which the audience finds salvation through passivity or consumerism; not one of the people on her show - doctors, celebrities or "lay people" - appear without a product to promote (including all of those lovely people with nothing to push but a foundation for somethingorother). Her health concerns and solutions are fad-based and require a product or a treatment. Her general-interest shows about popular news items or issues of public interest are fear-mongering and extend or distort statistics - and also present an array of products the audience can should aboslutely, without delay, purchase in order to decrease their chances of becoming a victim of this item of the moment. Her giveaways - well, don't even get me started on them.

 

Consumerism = salvation is, for as long as I have watched the show, Oprah's central claim. Don't change your life through action, change your life through these products.

 

I believe she is one of the most harmful figures in media.

 

/rant

[gogo]

Yeah, I can't do this one anymore. I'm out.

[Hoodoo Man]

Two thoughts:

 

She said she wanted to "give a face to consensual incest"; and

 

 

 

And this is where she lost me. Maybe she misspoke, but why the hell would you want to give a face to consensual incest? In my small mind the phrase "consensual incest" implies that she was a willing partner to her father. I don't plan on reading her book, but is she saying that she is learning to get over the guilt she felt for having consensual sex with her father or is she saying that she is trying to overcome the emotional scars of being raped by her father? Those are 2 very different things in my book.

[Preferred B]

Interesting take on Oprah. I see where you're coming from, and haven't watched more than a handful of Oprah shows, ever. But I think she represents something, for a lot of people, independent of whatever is actually on her show or magazine or whatever. Aaaand this isn't really a thread about Oprah.

 

I know nothing about Mackenzie Phillips, but it seems like a distinction should be made between her and other people who've had terrible things happen to them who don't feel the need to tell their entire stories to the world. For whatever reason, she can tell the world. If any of that had happened to me, who's going to listen? My friends. My therapist. A message board? Maybe I wouldn't want to go on a national talk show, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the opportunity either.

[Guest Speed Racer]

And this is where she lost me. Maybe she misspoke, but why the hell would you want to give a face to consensual incest? In my small mind the phrase "consensual incest" implies that she was a willing partner to her father. I don't plan on reading her book, but is she saying that she is learning to get over the guilt she felt for having consensual sex with her father or is she saying that she is trying to overcome the emotional scars of being raped by her father? Those are 2 very different things in my book.

 

As M. Chris noted earlier, a child - no matter the age - cannot be a "willing partner" to a guardian figure in a sexual relationship, because the guardian relationship is inherently without equality.

 

What she meant by the phrase "put a face on consensual incest" was that she hoped there are other victims out there who will speak up or seek help after seeing that they are not alone in their suffering.

 

To have been sexually assaulted and be under the impression that it was, in fact, consensual, comes with a world of mixed feelings that I can only imagine would involve some really, really indescribable self-loathing, guilt and self-blame.

[Edie]

Dunno -- I think it's awful no matter what, but if you get to the point where it truly is consensual (looking forward to it, helping to plan etc), then aren't you a "willing partner"? If you simply stop fighting either physically or emotionally, it is still assault.

[Calexico]

Not a lady to ask "who's yer daddy?" during the act then.

[Hoodoo Man]

As M. Chris noted earlier, a child - no matter the age - cannot be a "willing partner" to a guardian figure in a sexual relationship, because the guardian relationship is inherently without equality.

 

What she meant by the phrase "put a face on consensual incest" was that she hoped there are other victims out there who will speak up or seek help after seeing that they are not alone in their suffering.

 

To have been sexually assaulted and be under the impression that it was, in fact, consensual, comes with a world of mixed feelings that I can only imagine would involve some really, really indescribable self-loathing, guilt and self-blame.

 

I'm sure that's the case and she just misspoke. Thankfully I am naive about such things. Good parents, good family, good life. I got nothing to bitch about. So it's hard for someone like me who has never experienced such trauma to understand a 28 or 29 year old person continuing to have sex with one of their parents. To put it in terms that befit my advanced years: it's icky.

[M. (hristine]

Dunno -- I think it's awful no matter what, but if you get to the point where it truly is consensual (looking forward to it, helping to plan etc), then aren't you a "willing partner"? If you simply stop fighting either physically or emotionally, it is still assault.

Children who form their identity around narcissistic addicts see no boundary between themselves and the other. Psychologically there is no actual choice being made.

 

I suspect that these things are the sum of her identity, even now.

[Good Old Neon]

Those are 2 very different things in my book.

 

What's the name of your book, and what’s its Amazon sales ranking?

 

I'm sure that's the case and she just misspoke. Thankfully I am naive about such things. Good parents, good family, good life. I got nothing to bitch about.

 

Nevermind, I'd rather not read this book.

[IRememberDBoon]

Exploitive on Oprah’s part

 

NO WAY!!!

 

Dunno -- I think it's awful no matter what, but if you get to the point where it truly is consensual (looking forward to it, helping to plan etc), then aren't you a "willing partner"? If you simply stop fighting either physically or emotionally, it is still assault.

 

holy christ on a stick!

 

you serious clark??

[Guest Speed Racer]

Children who form their identity around narcissistic addicts see no boundary between themselves and the other. Psychologically there is no actual choice being made.

 

I suspect that these things are the sum of her identity, even now.

 

Let us not forget that she, too, is an addict. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether her claim is true; the statement has been made, and it is profoundly clear that she is working through deep and traumatizing issues that, as you say, make up the sum of her identity. And she is most certainly not alone in that regard.

[mpolak21]

Again, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. Her life has been lived under some pretty harsh lights, and she obviously never learned a whole lot about dealing with things in healthy ways. So I'm going to cut her some slack.

 

Yeah, same here. There's just no real way for me to fathom what going through something like this would be like, and I don't really think there's any "right" way to handle it, you know. As long she isn't hurting anyone and it's true (which given everything I know about John Philips, this certainly isn't exactly a stretch of the imagination), I am not particularly interested in judging her.

 

--Mike

[MattZ]

Is it possible for me to give her the benefit of the doubt while simultaneously taking it with a grain of salt? If so, put me down for that.

[GtrPlyr]

The big problem with this kind of revelation is that the accused party is no longer around to defend themselves. It's too bad she waited until he was long dead to bring this up.

[Sir Stewart]

The big problem with this kind of revelation is that the accused party is no longer around to defend themselves. It's too bad she waited until he was long dead to bring this up.

 

Then she would've been on Springer instead of Oprah.

[embiggen]

The big problem with this kind of revelation is that the accused party is no longer around to defend themselves. It's too bad she waited until he was long dead to bring this up.

 

 

but wait, I believe I read that she tried to confront him about this after the first time it happened.

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, and he was all like, "we made love." So he was a crazy rapist, in essence. Mackenzie has ruined her life probably a couple times over and she is probably not qualified to run a slurpee machine, so her story might be the only thing she's got to keep the lights turned on. I ain't gonna buy or read her book, but I don't resent her for writing it.

[Hoodoo Man]

What's the name of your book, and what’s its Amazon sales ranking?

 

 

 

Nevermind, I'd rather not read this book.

 

Confessions of a Bore

 

I don't need to read it. I lived it.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Yeah, and he was all like, "we made love." So he was a crazy rapist, in essence. Mackenzie has ruined her life probably a couple times over and she is probably not qualified to run a slurpee machine, so her story might be the only thing she's got to keep the lights turned on. I ain't gonna buy or read her book, but I don't resent her for writing it.

Well said.

[LouieB]

This is fucked up no matter how it looks or turns out....California Dreaming...

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

Yeah, and he was all like, "we made love." So he was a crazy rapist, in essence. Mackenzie has ruined her life probably a couple times over and she is probably not qualified to run a slurpee machine, so her story might be the only thing she's got to keep the lights turned on. I ain't gonna buy or read her book, but I don't resent her for writing it.

 

yes sir

[brianjeremy]

Well I guess I will never buy pizza from this pervert again.

[Edie]

 

holy christ on a stick!

 

you serious clark??

 

I didn't say that she isn't a victim. Consensual to me means (Dick tionary needs to help out) that she was agreeing to have sex with him, after the initial rape. Clearly, this is a seriously messed up situation, but I can't help but think of the moth/flame analogy -- even after the moth gets singed the first time and pain is inflicted and it knows it hurts, it goes back for more anyway. That is an addict's dilemma.

[Moss]

Schneider would be pissed! Alright, I know it's not a joking matter, too soon. I just don't know what to believe. I remember reading "Wonderland Avenue" and thinking this is one seriously disturbed girl. I don't know the truth, I do know that she is trying to sell books and John can't defend himself but I find it hard to believe anybody would be evil enough to make up a story like this just for money. Sad and sick and I feel sorry for what she went through if it's true.