• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you tell the world you slept with your dad.

Do you think she is telling the truth or lying

  • Telling the truth

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Lying

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 11 39.3%

  • Total voters
    28
What's the purpose in being open about it publically though, vs. in a professional therapy session?

I mean, I have secrets that carry way less social stigma than incest, that I would never publically acknowledge.

She may feel that by talking publicly about what happened to her, she makes it easier for other victims to get the help they need. Kind of like Betty Ford and breast cancer, and victims of domestic violence who talk publicly about their victimization in hopes that other women will get help if they are in similar situations. And, people who talk about mental illness/addiction in hopes of removing the stigma.

You go public to help other people, to let them know that they aren't alone, and that there is help.
 
I don't know if she's telling the truth, but I support her courage in speaking out about this.

To answer the question posted in the thread title - that depends. I believe that parents should have far-reaching rights over their children, even including culturally subjective things like female circumcision, incest, religious brainwashing, and so on, as long as they don't interfere with the child's natural rights to life and to emancipation. That means the children will ultimately be able to decide for themselves if they have been violated and whether to expose their parents, in which case they'd obviously face near-universal ostracism.

Trusting government intervention to stamp out incest is immoral, ineffective, and ultimately very destructive. Countless children are still being abused by their parents and other adults, including in the government-run "Child Protection Services", where all the smart pedophiles apply for their day job. Countless adults are prosecuted for alleged child abuse without the consent of the victim (and/or his/her parents/guardians) for that prosecution to take place (i.e. victimless crime). Countless adults decide not to have children because of the overbearing role the government is starting to play in family life, which can only lead to a demographic and economic collapse, as is already starting to play out in some of the more socialist European countries. Etc. The Anarcho-Capitalist approach that recognizes the rights of the parents, the child's right to emancipation, and relies on social pressure (i.e. ostracism) would be far more humane and far more effective.
oh my. female circumcision is culturally subjective? i don't think so. how does THAT not interfere with a child's natural rights?
 
Yeah, god forbid she should tell the secret that has probably been her shame for all these years, and set herself free from it. Telling a secret is part of healing for victims of these kinds of crimes. And, the response here explains why so many of them keep these kinds of secrets for so long and self-medicate to deal with the emotional trauma.

This is not HER shame. She's a VICTIM.
This is not HER shame. She's a VICTIM.

no doubt. but personally, i wouldn't do it publicly.
 
She may feel that by talking publicly about what happened to her, she makes it easier for other victims to get the help they need. Kind of like Betty Ford and breast cancer, and victims of domestic violence who talk publicly about their victimization in hopes that other women will get help if they are in similar situations. And, people who talk about mental illness/addiction in hopes of removing the stigma.

You go public to help other people, to let them know that they aren't alone, and that there is help.
Its very sad you have to explain this to anyone Catz:)
 
Its very sad you have to explain this to anyone Catz:)

I think that people just don't think about how much shame victims in these situations feel. No matter how clear it is that it absolutely wasn't their fault, they still feel guilt and a need to cover up the damage that was done to them. I think this woman is incredibly brave. She has to know that she's going to be attacked and disbelieved, and she was still strong enough to risk that to tell her story so other people can hopefully learn from it.
 
She may feel that by talking publicly about what happened to her, she makes it easier for other victims to get the help they need. Kind of like Betty Ford and breast cancer, and victims of domestic violence who talk publicly about their victimization in hopes that other women will get help if they are in similar situations. And, people who talk about mental illness/addiction in hopes of removing the stigma.

You go public to help other people, to let them know that they aren't alone, and that there is help.

Yeah, that makes sense I guess.
 
Its very sad you have to explain this to anyone Catz:)

How so? Isn't that the point of discussion? We can't all be enlightened about everything at all times. Prehaps at your advanced age(in comparison with mine) some things that are simple knowledge to you, have yet to be explored by someone younger like myself. I've always said that I am always learning from people here.

I thanked Catz for her explanation, because I had not considered that point before. It makes sense to me now.
 
In her book she writes about having sex with Mick Jagger.

All part of her therapy I guess. :roll:
 
In her book she writes about having sex with Mick Jagger.

All part of her therapy I guess. :roll:

Children who are sexually abused often act out their sexuality in a variety of ways. The book is a memoir. Should she have left that part out?
 
oh my. female circumcision is culturally subjective? i don't think so. how does THAT not interfere with a child's natural rights?

Natural rights are based on empirically-observable objective economic facts, not on liblady's opinion of what sexual practices or body modification surgeries are desirable or undesirable. I agree with you that female circumcision is bad, and we are free to speak out against it and ostracize the parents who do it to their children, but interfering in that family issue with force is unjustifiable.

Parents choose to bring their children into this world, and until those children become self-owning adults no one has higher authority over them than their parents. Not all families are perfect, but one does not choose what reality s\he is born into. Having to obey your parents in all things until you can be legally emancipated is a very small price to pay in exchange for being born.
 
I agree with you that female circumcision is bad, and we are free to speak out against it and ostracize the parents who do it to their children, but interfering in that family issue with force is unjustifiable.

So, similarly, if a parent wants to beat a child into a bloody pulp on a regular basis or use them as a sex toy, or take pornographic pictures of the child and post them on the internet for sale, or marry/sell their 12-year-old daughter to a 72 year old polygamist with 12 wives, that is their right. Am I correct?
 
So, similarly, if a parent wants to beat a child into a bloody pulp on a regular basis or use them as a sex toy, or take pornographic pictures of the child and post them on the internet for sale, or marry/sell their 12-year-old daughter to a 72 year old polygamist with 12 wives, that is their right. Am I correct?

Yes, although she is protected by her right to emancipation, which means her parents' rights over her become null and void if she initiates legal proceedings, or someone else initiates them on her behalf, and she can convince a jury that she can take care of herself without her parents, possibly under the condition that her custody be transferred to somebody else. In any civilized society there would be an overabundance of charitable organizations to help the victims of child abuse, but interfering in family matters against as a matter of criminal law, which is what the government often does today, is completely unjustifiable.

Furthermore, a marriage is a contract, and one cannot enter into a contract as a child. Any agreements entered into under the authority of one's parents become null and void upon your emancipation, and everyone is emancipated by default upon reaching a certain age (ex. 18).
 
Natural rights are based on empirically-observable objective economic facts, not on liblady's opinion of what sexual practices or body modification surgeries are desirable or undesirable. I agree with you that female circumcision is bad, and we are free to speak out against it and ostracize the parents who do it to their children, but interfering in that family issue with force is unjustifiable.

Parents choose to bring their children into this world, and until those children become self-owning adults no one has higher authority over them than their parents. Not all families are perfect, but one does not choose what reality s\he is born into. Having to obey your parents in all things until you can be legally emancipated is a very small price to pay in exchange for being born.
i'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. the practices we are discussing are not "family issues", they are barbaric practices that physically harm children. a father doesn't have a right to rape his daughter, and interfering with force is COMPLETELY justifiable. what would you propose, we picket his house?

we are a nation of laws, and children are protected by those laws.
 
i'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. the practices we are discussing are not "family issues", they are barbaric practices that physically harm children. a father doesn't have a right to rape his daughter, and interfering with force is COMPLETELY justifiable. what would you propose, we picket his house?

we are a nation of laws, and children are protected by those laws.

Alex's views represent an extreme that is beyond extreme. Children are not PROPERTY, they are persons. The ramification of childhood maltreatment are far-reaching and impact all of us to some degree. There is a strong correlation between childhood abuse and subsequent violent offending patterns, substance abuse addiction patterns, and domestic violence in adulthood.

Alex's position is simply absurd. We protect ANIMALS from maltreatment, for god's sake. We certainly should protect children.
 
Last edited:
Parents choose to bring their children into this world, and until those children become self-owning adults no one has higher authority over them than their parents. Not all families are perfect, but one does not choose what reality s\he is born into. Having to obey your parents in all things until you can be legally emancipated is a very small price to pay in exchange for being born.

I do agree with the gist of this.
Parents are the highest authority for a child or rather, should be.
 
When somebodys credibility is shot, you can't blame others for being suspicious. She has been on and off of drugs for 30+ yrs. Every interview she gives, she says she is currently drug free, only to come back the following yr to say that she lied and that she was high on said interview she said she was clean for. Liars are not credible people! This happened as recently as last yr where she was high on an interview. Her dad is dead and can't defend himself, so it's her word against...well... no ones. I also don't see her a the classic incest victim. A child incest victim has no choice, has no where to go, and has a physical disadvantage. She had none of those disadvantages. The first encounter happened at 19, and she claims the consensual sex went on for 10 yrs?! This would be a good anti-drug infomercial. Stay off drugs, it could lead to sleeping with family members.
 
Last edited:
I do agree with the gist of this.
Parents are the highest authority for a child or rather, should be.

TO WHAT POINT? There are some behaviors that are beyond the pale: beating your child. Having sex with your child. Drugging your child with illegal drugs. Allowing your friends to have sex with your child. Selling your child.

Good god. This is such a no-brainer.
 
i'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. the practices we are discussing are not "family issues", they are barbaric practices that physically harm children.

I'm a male who is unhappy about the fact that I was circumcised as a child, and many other decisions that my parents have made, but c'est la vie - those were their decisions to make. I of course recognize that female circumcision is much worse, but any bodily modification that doesn't interfere with the aforementioned natural rights (life and emancipation) is a parents' right. Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!


a father doesn't have a right to rape his daughter, and interfering with force is COMPLETELY justifiable. what would you propose, we picket his house?

No, force is not justifiable, and, yes, and I would picket with you. Furthermore, ever-advancing information technology makes ostracism very effective. Would you shop at a store that employs a known pedophile?


we are a nation of laws, and children are protected by those laws.

Speak for yourself, I'm not a part of your "we". Laws that govern the human civilization are universal, and have nothing to do with nations. Cultures that fail to recognize natural law diminish over time, while the culture that treat on it the least have the competitive advantage.

Your "government knows better than the parents" culture inevitably leads to out-of-control government and demographic free-fall! The former because trusting the government with oversight of education means it will always have greater control over public opinion than the electoral circus can ever affect government. And the latter because no one in their right mind wants to spend so much time, money, and energy raising little snitches for the state!
 
TO WHAT POINT? There are some behaviors that are beyond the pale: beating your child. Having sex with your child. Drugging your child with illegal drugs. Allowing your friends to have sex with your child. Selling your child.

Good god. This is such a no-brainer.

Nah, you don't say.

Those are illegal, ofc there is a bloody point or limit :roll:
 
Nah, you don't say.

Those are illegal, ofc there is a bloody point or limit :roll:

Not in Alex Libman's crazy ass world. See above comment...he would support the right of blind parents to have their children blinded after bith.

Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!



koo koo.
 
Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!

:screwy

o_O
 
I'm a male who is unhappy about the fact that I was circumcised as a child, and many other decisions that my parents have made, but c'est la vie - those were their decisions to make. I of course recognize that female circumcision is much worse, but any bodily modification that doesn't interfere with the aforementioned natural rights (life and emancipation) is a parents' right. Here's an even more extreme example: if blind parents want to have blind children, that is to have them blinded surgically shortly after birth, even that is their right as parents!




No, force is not justifiable, and, yes, and I would picket with you. Furthermore, ever-advancing information technology makes ostracism very effective. Would you shop at a store that employs a known pedophile?




Speak for yourself, I'm not a part of your "we". Laws that govern the human civilization are universal, and have nothing to do with nations. Cultures that fail to recognize natural law diminish over time, while the culture that treat on it the least have the competitive advantage.

Your "government knows better than the parents" culture inevitably leads to out-of-control government and demographic free-fall! The former because trusting the government with oversight of education means it will always have greater control over public opinion than the electoral circus can ever affect government. And the latter because no one in their right mind wants to spend so much time, money, and energy raising little snitches for the state!
i think you're disturbed, actually, and i'm being restrained in my opinion. government clearly DOES know better than some parents, thank god.
 
Look, I don't like the idea of parents making decisions regarding their children's health and well-being that I don't agree with, but I must set my emotions aside and yield to rational analysis. The emotions you're experiencing are justifiable, but misdirected - nature gave us those emotions to protect our own children, not violently interfere with the decisions made in other families!

When you start making criminal laws that are based on emotion, you open yourself to all sorts of unintended consequences, including the those I've already mentioned - collapsing fertility rates. Today you might have the public opinion on your side, but tomorrow that same justification can be used to initiate aggression against you! Today it's child protective services, tomorrow - sharia law!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom