Quote Of The Day: Mama Phillips Isn’t Buying Mackenzie’s Confession

tabby
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:56 am: [report]

That is something pretty damaging and horrible to lie about. Not to mention the kind of thing a person could get shunned for (taboos being what they are). I highly doubt that anyone would admit to a “consensual” sexual relationship with their father just to sell more books. Sometimes the people we love do horrible and unimaginable things. But that doesn’t mean we get to call other people liars and blame Oprah. I don’t want to believe he did it either, but I can’t imagine someone making that #&@$% up.

Riley
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

Nobody has ever lied on Oprah about their book before…never happened to sell more…

Just because it is on paper and Oprah doesn’t make it automatically true.  The end goal is to make money, for both Oprah and her book guests.

lawyrgrl
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:13 am: [report]

I have been trying to think of a good reason for her to make this kind of a revelation to the world - other than simply to sell books that is.  Can she really say, like most celebs do when revealing salacious past no-nos that they want to “help people in the same situation”?  Are there really untold numbers of ADULT women who begin to intentionally have sex with their fathers?  We are not talking about child incest here - this happened between the ages of 19 and 28/29.  And if she needs to “get it off her chest” that is what friends and therapists are for.  The rest of us make do confessing the secrets of our hearts to persons other than Oprah and her TV audience, right?  This is just beyond my comprehension.

bumbler
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:18 am: [report]

The hard thing about this situation is that he’s not here to defend himself.  I’m not saying she’s a liar or he’s a rapist because there is really only her word to go on now that he is deceased, none of us could possibly know for sure what happened between them.  I take every celebrity child’s memoir of life with their parents with a grain of salt.  There are plenty of reasons why she may be lying and plenty of reasons why she may not.

JLSGirl23
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:24 am: [report]

Since he’s not alive to defend himself, it’s hard to discern whether she’s telling the truth or not.  That being said though, I’m also not quick to just believe the stepmother right off the bat blindly.  A lot of times in these situations, the mother or stepmother is in denial when the accusation is made.  But again, Mackenzie’s father is not here to defend himself.  And, since she’s the only one around telling this story that we can really go on, it’s hard to determine what her motives are if any, or if she is honestly telling the truth.  However, that also being said, even though it was consensual when she was between the ages of 19-28/29, if what she said was true- any of it, she was still raped at 14.  Any way you cut it, if she was indeed persuaded/influenced/forced what have you to have sex with anyone at 14, it was rape since she was underage.  Regardless of what the real story is, what the truth is, the whole situation itself as a whole- the idea of it is pretty sickening to me.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:24 am: [report]

There surely must be a fair number of adult women and men in incestuous relationships. I say that only because, given the number of people on the planet and the reports on the news each night of what has happened that day, including one mentioned on this site a while ago about a woman having sex with her teenaged son, there must be instances of this happening.

Mackenzie is undoubtedly telling this story to sell books. No doubt about it. But that doesn’t mean its a fabrication. Nor does it mean it’s not. Since the other person has been dead for eight years, we’ll never really know.

Riley
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:27 am: [report]

@Bumbler - I agree, much easier to sell tell-all books when the person you are exposing is dead.  The always convenient truth that only two people knew.

Also, I didn’t think she painted him as a rapist.  I thought it was consensual, incest and rape aren’t synonmyous.

Rose
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:30 am: [report]

What gets me is the stampede to discredit the (alleged) victim in this and all other sexual abuse stories.  It’s hardly original for the wife to claim there’s no possible way her husband was capable of such a thing.  Did it really happen? Is sex between a parent/authority figure and child ever truly consensual?  Interesting to debate, maybe.  The only thing Michelle said that I can get behind is that Mackenzie should be in therapy, but I wonder why she bothered to speak out publically, at all, if not to discredit her stepdaughter.

bumbler
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:32 am: [report]

@Riley She says the first time they had sex she was passed out from drug abuse and woke up to find him having sex with her so she claims the first instance was rape but from there it progressed to a consensual relationship.  That’s why I used the term.

Riley
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:40 am: [report]

@Bumbler - I thought it read “woke up that night from a blackout” and not pass out.  She also said she found herself having sex with him, not just him having sex with her. 

Anyone that has ever drank a little too much has probably had a blackout, doesn’t mean you were passed out.  Just that you don’t remember anything you did, conversations you have had etc.

I think labeling it as rape isn’t fair.

JLSGirl23
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:41 am: [report]

Rose, I agree with you whole-heartedly.  That’s why I’m not so quick to just believe Michelle at face value, because how many times doest the wife claim her husband would never do such a thing, or is incapable of it, when he’s accused of something like this?  So, while Mackenzie might be not telling the truth or twisting it a little bit (notice I said MIGHT), it’s not exactly out there to assume that the wife could just be in denial.  It happens a lot.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:45 am: [report]

@Riley: “I think labeling it as rape isn’t fair.” I think maybe we’d best leave that for another topic. Otherwise, there will be a fair bit of discussion about that point. If you’re blacking out, you’re not in a frame of mind where you’re able to consent.

Riley
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:52 am: [report]

@JSW - Blacking out isn’t something you even know is going on until it is over.  Not being able to remember what you are doing isn’t something you are aware of. 

I think some of you are confusing a passed out person with a person that is blacking out.  Just because you can’t remember doesn’t mean that you were asleep the entire time, and it doesn’t mean you didn’t do things and talk to people.

bumbler
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:52 am: [report]

@jsw I agree.  If you’re so heavily intoxicated that you’re blacked out (and she claims she was asleep in his bed which also leads me to believe she’s using blackout to equal passed out) you’re not in any condition to consent to sex.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:05 am: [report]

@Riley: I’m fully aware that you can be conscious during a period a blackout later removes from your memory. However, if you’re intoxicated enough to later cause a blackout to occur, then, even if you’re conscious at the time, you’re incapacitated.

Riley
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:16 am: [report]

Considering her history of abuse, I think she knows the difference and wouldn’t use them interchangeably. 

Legitimate consent, definitely not, rape, I don’t think so.  Blacked out people can come across as lucid as someone that has had just a little too much to drink.  Especially if they are frequent users, as she claimed to be at the time.

If you don’t come across as incapacitated to someone that doesn’t know exactly what you have taken, how can they knowingly take advantage of you?  That is what I would consider him raping her.  Not to say drunken/drugged-out intercourse isn’t all kinds of bad idea even if you think the person is fine.  I think throwing rape around to every questionable act dilutes the meaning for those actually assaulted against their will.

This is going to go nowhere though, we aren’t going to agree.

tabby
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:41 am: [report]

In the state of Michigan it is illegal and considered rape to have sex with any chemically altered person because the chemically altered person cannot be considered to have given consent. (Yes, this includes drinking and getting it on. So people break this law all the time). So in a legal-if-she-wanted-to-press-charges type of way it would be considered rape by the courts (at least in this state).

But, as mentioned in many other articles written on the topic in the past few days, can you really have actual consensual sex with your own father?  Wouldn’t the power dynamic get in the way? Added to the fact that he was the one who first got her hooked on drugs which shows that he had at least some influence over her.

And even if this is all some horrific fantasy in her head, that doesn’t make it less real for her. She is a sad and troubled person who needs help not vilifying.

retro chic
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:05 am: [report]

Michelle and Mackenzie have ALWAYS had issues, mainly Michelle’s jealousy and the narrow age difference. She is in denial like many, many women in this same scenario. What woman wants to admit she wasn’t in control of her man’s secret sex life (let alone with his daughter) going on under the same roof? That would make her a fool and an abettor.

@Riley: you might want to check the legal standards for your POV. As @jsw said, for another discussion.

Pinky
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 11:01 am: [report]

I belive Mackenzie has real mental problems and is delusional. The timing of her “revelation” is just too convienent for book sales. And of course she waited until John was dead, why ? Please don’t tell me she wanted to protect his honor, I’m not buying it. How does she make a living now anyway ? I’m thinking she needs some good book sales.

Riley
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 11:19 am: [report]

@Retro - My POV didn’t question legality.  Just what I think is a fair classification and what is not.  Generally fair doesn’t coincide with the law.

Keesh Mia
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:20 pm: [report]

Whatelse does Mckenzie have to whore for money?  She already sold her decency, her reputation, her father’s reputation.  She is now discusting and ripe for reality TV.  Welcome to America!

GreenAura
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:24 pm: [report]

@ Pinky: I’m not defending Mackenzie, but IF her accusations are true, then perhaps she waited until his death so that he couldn’t turn it around on her and make her look like a liar.  Just sayin’.