ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 08:30 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  6.327 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/23/2009 07:46 PM ID: 80830 Permalink   

Actress Mackenzie Phillips Admits to Long-Term Incestuous Relationship With Her Father, John Phillips [Content Warning]

 

Actress Mackenzie Phillips and her father, John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas, carried on a lengthy incestuous relationship, she says in a new tell-all memoir. She says she and her father had sex the night before her 1979 marriage.

"On the eve of my wedding, my father showed up, determined to stop it," writes Phillips of the episode, when she was 19 and she and her father were both heavy drug users. She passed out on his bed; their sexual relationship later became consensual.

Phillips is best known for her role as Julie Cooper in the sitcom 'One Day at a Time.' During her tenure on the show, she battled drug addiction and was fired in 1980 for drug abuse. Eventually, she and her father entered rehab together.

 
  Source: www.cnn.com  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  24 Comments
  
  ewwww  
 
gross

yack
 
  by: teh_epic     09/23/2009 08:01 PM     
  wow  
 
to each there own apparently she liked it
 
  by: willyshawker     09/23/2009 08:27 PM     
  all the leaves are brown  
 
and the sky is gray.
 
  by: John E Angel     09/24/2009 12:35 AM     
  One  
 
father is under fire for killing his on daughter, because she was in love with a man o different religion. http://shortnews.com/...

This Father and daughter sleep with each each other and have consensual sex!! Consensual. so whats the problem, or why bring it out now? To sell book!? WHAT A FAMILY OF IDIOTS.
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     09/24/2009 01:49 AM     
  I don't think  
 
it can be properly consensual when it is a parent and child. Think about it, how many children (whether kids, teens or adults) do all kinds of things they don't want because of pressure from their parents? Even if they have bad parents, they're still visiting them on the holidays, giving them gifts at appropriate times, etc. Parents exert alot of control over children even after they grow up.
 
  by: gryphon50a   09/24/2009 03:17 AM     
  WOAH  
 
I read something on CNN last night that she was going to tell something 'big' on Oprah, but I don't watch it and figured it was that she was a lesbian or something along those lines. I watched an episode about her and the One Day at a Time show on Bio and she had talked about the drugs and how they had affected her. I remember watching the show when I was younger.

But to be having a sexual relationship with your dad and for it to be consensual?? I don't believe it is just because of the drugs either, and just WOW.
 
  by: TaraB     09/24/2009 07:15 AM     
  Incest  
 
The game the whole family can play.
 
  by: White Albino   09/24/2009 11:42 AM     
  FYI  
 
This can explain it much better and how her dad was having sex with her after massive drugs on both parts, she didn't consider it consensual for the first 10 years.
http://www.cnn.com/...
From the link
"By the time Phillips turned 29, it had become a consensual relationship, she said, although she was very much aware that it was wrong and shouldn't have been happening. "It was the Stockholm syndrome where you begin to love your captor. I felt love for my father, but the moment he tried to make it a romance, I was shot into the present time."

Also at the end:
"She continued, "I can't be the only one this has happened to. Someone needs to put a face on not only nonconsensual incest, but consensual incest, and I know that I can't be the only one who's lived through this. So in finding this redemption, maybe I'm helping someone else."

I feel bad for the woman, her one stepmother is denying it totally and Michelle Phillips says delusion or reality it is hurtful for the family. I think it is pretty sad that they aren't standing beside her and helping her. It would explain why she has been on and off drugs since the late 70's. I thought it was super that Bertinelli showed up to support her.
 
  by: TaraB     09/24/2009 12:06 PM     
  not sure about this one  
 
I saw a clip of the interview and I'm just not sure this really occurred. You would expect someone recounting this kind of story to have some expression of disgust, shame, sadness or something, even if it was just a fleeting expression. She seems totally matter-of-fact and makes a point to state that "it's all in the book" as if reminding people to buy the book. The other thing is, she was arrested just recently for drug use, she's still using and an addict will do just about anything for a fix or money to get a fix. Regardless, I think it's safe to say her father was indeed a horrible father to have a daughter this screwed up who is willing to drag his name through the mud like this.
 
  by: gryphon50a   09/24/2009 07:17 PM     
  gryphon  
 
I feel bad for her still, I think part of the reason she is so unemotional about it is because she was in love with him. I can not imagine how she got to the point where it was consensual other than the Stockholm factor. It also can explain, not approving, why she has been using drugs for the past 30 years. I hope that she is honest when she said she has been clean since the 2008 rehab, but I have a feeling we will see her overdose eventually.

I know the one ex-wife said it never occured but after reading what Michelle Phillips said we know at least a minimum of being abused and having many problems because of him. Teaching her how to roll and shoot up shows that this man was a useless pile of crap.

If nothing else I hope that it might help someone else that is having a incestuous relationship to get some help.
 
  by: TaraB     09/25/2009 03:28 PM     
  wow...  
 
I just threw up a little.
 
  by: nephew     09/25/2009 04:12 PM     
  still unsure  
 
Now the daughter of Denny Doherty (Papa Denny) is saying that her dad told her a long time ago that this was all true. That seems to shore up Mackenzie's story a bit although I wonder how Denny knew? Did Papa John tell him or did he see something?
 
  by: gryphon50a   09/26/2009 04:48 PM     
  gryphon  
 
Probably both. Between all the drugs being used and touring together he would have had to at least guess something. I am glad to hear that someone has backed her up, her one stepmother is after her like a pitbull, which if it was a lie would be understandable.

I found this when I did a quick search
http://www.express.co.uk/...

**She has written to Oprah Winfrey, explaining her father knew all about the twisted romance all along.

She wrote, "I just watched the show with Mackenzie Phillips (and) tears are running down my face. Everything she said is true. My dad told me the awful truth. He was horrified at what John had done and knew all of it."

Mackenzie says, "I'm very grateful to Jessica. I never knew she knew... I don't know how Denny Doherty knew about the relationship."**
 
  by: TaraB     09/26/2009 06:02 PM     
  For  
 
the NOT SO RELIGIOUS FOLKS.

WHY IS THIS BOTHERING MANY OF YOU, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN MORALS??

As she says, "Consensual" SHE WAS OVER 18.. So where is the problem?

Please answer if you think you have an answer, attacking me because I raise this question will only make you a trolling jerk. Because I dont condone this and I am a believer.
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     09/27/2009 09:48 PM     
  skcuss  
 
"the NOT SO RELIGIOUS FOLKS.
WHY IS THIS BOTHERING MANY OF YOU, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN MORALS??"

Just because you don't believe in a certain diety or nothing at all does not mean there is no belief in morals. Religion does not own morals and some of the religious followers doesn't have any.

Now that we got that cleared up, It is reprehensible that her father raped her..after all that is what non-consensual means. I will go one step further and say I don't think it was consensual at one point due the fact that she had Stockholm Syndrome. She loved the perpetrater of the worse thing a parent could do, violate her trust. After 10 years of being revolted by it, which is why she considered that non-consensual, she finally gave into the fact she couldn't make him stop.
 
  by: TaraB     09/27/2009 10:57 PM     
  @TaraB  
 
NO it is not cleared up YET.

"Just because you don't believe in a certain diety or nothing at all does not mean there is no belief in morals. Religion does not own morals and some of the religious followers doesn't have any."

So what constitute right morals and wrong morals? If we all do as we like, because thats exactly what others engage in. Making other peoples life misserable, and their morals dictate it is OK.

But if you are follower of a certain organized DEITY, YOU WILL BE INCLINED to adhere by its doctrine.

Catholics have a huge problem with their love of lil people. However we agree that, this problem is directed at the man in the clothé and not the Church or Christianity, because Church does not condone (Snickering) paedohilia.

So if your Morals dictate that it is ok to steal, kill, coerce, or maim, does it mean it is ok?

Church and many if not all religions, disallow sex beforre marriage, but how many follow that rule. Due to that fact, why do we marry again? When you can just live with a person, you dont have to call him names when it comes to commitment, and once he impregnates, he can simply stroll off, or she can become pregnant and decide not to let him know, because thats all she wanted form him. Where do you draw a MORAL LINE?? From Religion.

Do you think we can Continue?
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     10/01/2009 12:14 AM     
  Skcuss  
 
Well you not only continued it, but depending on who reads it might have opened a can of worms.

God or being Christian does not mean the followers are the sole holders of morals. There are many people on this site that have morals that do not worship the same diety, if one at all. I am not a Christian, yet I think I have morals. A lot of things are basic common sense and treating others well. I don't lie, cheat or steal and that is because I know it is wrong and I wouldn't like it if it was done to me.
I don't cheat on my husband because I love him and I trust him, not because any church has said that to me, it is my choice. My personal morals determines how I live my life, not someone in the sky or underground.

Even the Christian God gave his followers the right to do as they wanted, it's called Free Will. There are millions of people on this earth that follow their own set of morals every day. They are Chrisian, athiest, Buddhist, Pagan, Jewis, Muslim, Agnostic and on and on. No one religion holds the trademark on morals.

"Where do you draw a MORAL LINE?? From Religion."

Not even. You draw a moral line from where your personal morals are, not from books that were put together by man. Especially men that left out many disciples versions and put together a Patriarchal version of what they wanted at Antioch in 341 A.D. The fact that they chose the Paulene version when Paul was with Jesus the least amount shows that they only wanted to use stories that worked into their idea of what a book of Jesus' teachings was allowed to be known.

The 'moral' church even let the horrible misrepresentation of Mary Magdalane continue until some of her works were found. If the bible was to even begin to be an authentic account they would have to take Mary Magdalane's words out of hiding, if they didn't destroy the ones they had which is my guess.

The idea of having to pay someone to stand on a pulpit and preach words out of a book that we all can read ourselves shows the greed of the church.

Morals is determined by each person and what they are going to do or not do in life, laws are what we have to follow and that does not mean religious laws.

A Murderer is considered to lack morals by many people until he 'accepts Jesus into his heart' and then BOOM he has morals? I don't think so.
 
  by: TaraB     10/01/2009 12:47 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
"Well you not only continued it, but depending on who reads it might have opened a can of worms."

Only if we can discuss it as people and not Animals. Bring it on.

"God or being Christian does not mean the followers are the sole holders of morals."

Religious people are(sole holders), since it is in their doctrine. Your good Morals stem from selfness and nothing more. You can change as you go along. Religious Morals are a set of MORALS that cant be altered.

" There are many people on this site that have morals that do not worship the same diety, if one at all. I am not a Christian, yet I think I have morals."

YES, you do have Morals, unwritten, nor comfirming to general populace. But once your daughter commits heinous crimes, you will only be torn between your Morals and Law, and which way you'd like to veer. Which will also give you the sense of being right.

"A lot of things are basic common sense and treating others well. I don't lie, cheat or steal and that is because I know it is wrong and I wouldn't like it if it was done to me."

So a swinger has no MORALS, or a cheater, or a liar. Arent those their morals, which we have dubbed and given them names to associate their likeness, they maybe cheating with consent, but to you thats cheating and not in your GOOD MORALS. So whose morals are good and whose are bad? Yours, straight wife/GF who dont cheat with/out consent or the one who does with/out consent. Perhaps these are your own guideline to conduct your daily life. FOSHO these are not guided MORALS as "Thou Shall Not Kill" Which is for every heathen not only religious. But derived from the Bible.

"I don't cheat on my husband because I love him and I trust him, not because any church has said that to me, it is my choice."

This is also a written church Moral, it does not mean that those who cheat, are not in love with their spouses, some spouses know that the other one is cheating, and sometime they even ask for audience, which may not sit too well with your morals, but all you need to do is turn a blind eye, insted of questioning his manhood, or her loyalty, or where to draw a line between them (Swingers) and animals.
They are OK with this, they are in love, and this is exactly whats creating their love bond. But to each their own simplicity is not MORALS.

"My personal morals determines how I live my life, not someone in the sky or underground."

Yes. I agree with that, however I am sorry I have to agree with the paedophile as well. It is the voices in his head that make him live that way. Since there is a major discrepancy between what you like, what I like, and what someone else likes; I think rule is, when we meet at an inter section, the one on your right (Americana) goes first. Because thats the written rule, hence equals to written Morals.

"Even the Christian God gave his followers the right to do as they wanted, it's called Free Will."

I dont know what Christian God you are talking about, if it is the one who created Hell and Paradise, he says
2 JOHN 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
FREE WILL MY FOOT.

" There are millions of people on this earth that follow their own set of morals every day. They are Chrisian, athiest, Buddhist, Pagan, Jewis, Muslim, Agnostic and on and on. No one religion holds the trademark on morals."

Let me include these groups as well. Paedos, spivs, yobs, javs, con artist, cleptomaniacs, etc etc, these are the ones we tremble in our skin, when they exercise their MORALS. Because they say, 'To Hell with you Morals only, you are not the only ones holding trademark on morals'

"Where do you draw a MORAL LINE?? From Religion."

"Not even. You draw a moral line from where your personal morals are, not from books that were put together by man." Shall I again include Paedophiles, I keep reiterating the same pong again and again. If we are to follow our own RIGHT MORALS we will be fending for ourselves constantly, because we all have the right to do as we please.
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     10/01/2009 09:33 PM     
  Addendum  
 
"Especially men that left out many disciples versions and put together a Patriarchal version of what they wanted at Antioch in 341 A.D. The fact that they chose the Paulene version when Paul was with Jesus the least amount shows that they only wanted to use stories that worked into their idea of what a book of Jesus' teachings was allowed to be known."

Ah! well, I will leave this segment for the Zealots, the likes of COG and KMAZZAWI, who are well versed when it comes to Catholicism.

"The 'moral' church even let the horrible misrepresentation of Mary Magdalane continue until some of her works were found. If the bible was to even begin to be an authentic account they would have to take Mary Magdalane's words out of hiding, if they didn't destroy the ones they had which is my guess." MY GUESS TOO. But then we are just 2 against many, we wont win, with silly allegations.

"The idea of having to pay someone to stand on a pulpit and preach words out of a book that we all can read ourselves shows the greed of the church." Ranting again TaraB?

"Morals is determined by each person and what they are going to do or not do in life, laws are what we have to follow and that does not mean religious laws."

I think you really need to know the stem of your American Law.

"But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states."
Understanding of MORAL LAW SHOULD UNDERGRID THE LAWS OF USA AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. All along you thought you invented your own MORALS without any religious help huh!?

"A Murderer is considered to lack morals by many people until he 'accepts Jesus into his heart' and then BOOM he has morals? I don't think so"

YES YOU DO think so. A murder is Considered Immoral until he has paid his dues to your penal system. After his due time, he should and must be released to the public as a member of society. I would question the MORALS of people though. People who are going to learn that, their next door neighbour, was a murderer, or a paedophile. Even though he has served his time, now we the ones with MORALS are going to make sure his life is a living HELL. Then BOOM! You incarcerate him again, because you have daughters!! Pfffffffft
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     10/01/2009 09:51 PM     
  @shortnewssucks  
 
"Only if we can discuss it as people and not Animals. Bring it on."

"Ranting again TaraB?"

"YES YOU DO think so."

"People who are going to learn that, their next door neighbour, was a murderer, or a paedophile. Even though he has served his time, now we the ones with MORALS are going to make sure his life is a living HELL. Then BOOM! You incarcerate him again, because you have daughters!! Pfffffffft

Well you started out good before you yourself turned into an animal. I am not going to "rant again" but I am going to tell you that I know how I think and feel so you trying to tell me what I think is BS. I asked you recently what your problem was by chasing me on every thread and you said it wasn't intentional.

Well I was a sucker for taking the bait, but Im not going to play your game anymore. You are still ticked off because I said a minor should be charged as adult and because I don't feel sexual predators should be released. It isn't because I have daughters at all, it is because I don't like it when children are molested period.

My morals are not bound by church, man or someone with a bug in their rear because they have a different opinion than I do. If this is what you were hoping for then please revel in it because I don't have the time or the urge to defend myself to someone like you.
 
  by: TaraB     10/01/2009 10:15 PM     
  @TaraB  
 
See what you become! "because I don't have the time or the urge to defend myself to someone like you." May I ask you what kind is that please? Go on now I allow you to say it.

"You are still ticked off because I said a minor should be charged as adult and because I don't feel sexual predators should be released. It isn't because I have daughters at all, it is because I don't like it when children are molested period."

Infact the sentiment was the opposite of what you are saying here.
"Just last year there was a man who was living across the street from an Elementary school who had been found guilty of molesting young boys on several different occasions. He was released, reoffended, sent back to prison, released (overcrowding) and did it again. People even called to let the police know he was living there and they were too busy deciding which department was going to handle it.

How are we supposed to believe or have faith in the government to give protection when things like this happen all over?"

And Val had this to say.

"If he re-offends charge him as a repeat offender. If not, he has paid his debt to society according to a Judge and he is no different than anyone else in this country. I'm sick of the 'scarlet letter' bull sh!t spoon fed to us by the fear mongers"

Tara. I call a spoon a spoon, and a spade, a spade. Even after our wrangling, if you make a comment that deserves applause, I will be the first one to say so. I dont hold grudges against virtual people, to me you are just that person who contributes, but it doesnt mean that, in order for me to be in your good books, I have to agree with your ills. Same for all.
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     10/02/2009 05:38 AM     
  skcusswentrohs  
 
I take it you do not have children or even like them to attack a mother for the way she feels about hers, you made this evident. And one more thing I have made some darn good long time friends in this virtual world as you put it.

Now back to the summary...
She was ten and her father raped her and probably brainwashed her, so it continued into adulthood. Then the drugs would have made this seem perfectly ok in her mind.

I would like to know more bout her fathers life, maybe that would explain a little more, not excuse but some form of explanation.

But in all, this is just sickening!

@John. Those words say it all about their state of mind.
"All the leaves are brown and the sky is gray."

 
  by: captainJane     10/03/2009 01:17 AM     
  @CaptainJane  
 
"I take it you do not have children or even like them to attack a mother for the way she feels about hers, you made this evident. And one more thing I have made some darn good long time friends in this virtual world as you put it."

You can take it the way you want, it doesnt make any difference to me, she may be a mother and her sentiment does not mean, it has to pass, because she has children, and the rest of those who see otherwise, or different are either callous, or like to see children being raped, molested, or tortured. In simple word, stop ASS-u-Ming. Read the Whole thing maybe you may get the whole picture!


 
  by: skcusswentrohs     10/04/2009 04:03 PM     
  about Mack  
 
I admire both Mack and daddy, great artists.
To my mind drug did her own. Fame, fortune, mutual admiration, and after performances they gave free rein to lustful desires till the point to get impregnated
 
  by: norcas 1965   01/11/2012 07:41 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com