Not only are they encouraging positive thinking, they are giving you something positive to think about, something concrete to aspire to: Their own personal triumphs and fabulous lives.

This is the central problem of the whole new age self-help movement. They all claim to be selling psychological tools of self-empowerment. As such, they offer an enticingly easy solution. After all, who has more control over your own psyche than you do? However, what they are really selling is a personality type. They are essentially saying "Look at me. Look how enthusiastic and energetic and optimistic and positive-thingking I am - and look at how happy I am! Don't you want to be this happy too? You can! All you have to do is be just like me!"

Needless to say, the personality type frequently doesn't fit, no matter how hard one tries to make it so. Furthermore, a hard look at it reveals that the personality type that is being sold is actually quite self-absorbed, pushy, manipulative, and passive-agressive. And when that personality type doesn't fit, and no matter how hard you try, you fail to live up to the perky, energetic, and optimistic standard laid out for you (usually because your own dignity or basic decency won't allow you to be the pushy, manipulative person that underlies the facade), the blame for the failure, under new age thinking, comes squarely back on you - its your own negative thoughts that are preventing you from being that happy, perky optimist; its your own failure to see goodness in everything that is keeping you miserable. New age guilt can be just as disempowering as original sin.

I was raised on new age platitudes, and have traveled that road extensively. Having since left that road, happily to find my inner cynic, I can report that I am much happier as a cynic than I ever was as an optimist.

'Rape' does NOT have to include the connotation of forcible overpowering of a person.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. The forcible overpowering of the victim, physically or chemically, is the very thing that defines it as rape and distinguishes it from other sex acts. Rape is a very heavy accusation to make, and it is therefore imperative that, when discussing it, we stick to its proper definition, and not expand the concept to include other things, regardless of how ugly those other things may be.

Other than that, I more or less agree with the rest of what you said.

Tracy wrote a thougtful, interesting, and nuanced post. At no point did she indicate that father-daughter incest was "fine" or "perfectly normal." On the contrary, she spoke of the security of the family unit, the degree of meaningful consent, the inherent power imbalance, and the possibility of emotional manipulation as reasons for concern over, and disapproval of, incestuous relationships. What she did question, rightfully, was whether or not these issues and concerns were enough for us to uniformly categorize all cases of incest as inherent acts of rape. The answer to that question is no.

Here's the thing, Laurel: words mean things. Specific things. Especially big, heavy words like rape. Rape is not just a synonym for any unhealthy sex act that you choose to apply it to. It means forced, nonconsensual sex. If the people in queston are capable of granting consent, and the sex act in question is consensual - irregardless of the conditions surrounding that consent - IT IS NOT RAPE. Ugly? Perhaps. Unhealthy? Perhaps. Unseemly? Perhaps. Immoral? Perhaps. But Rape? No, plain and simple.

Rape is not a mere "boundary violation." Rape is a violent act. Nobody is questioning the fact that incest is probably always a boundary violation. What is at issue is "whether or not you want to call it 'rape.'" The answer is no. If its not rape, it shouldn't be called rape.

Nobody is suggesting that child abuse is not rape. Mackenzie Phillips was 19 years old when the sexual relationship started. Whatever else you want to call it, one thing that this case is not is child abuse.

Furthermore, nobody - including not only TCF, but Mackenzie Phillips herself - is saying that her father did not rape her. Everyone has stipulated that the sexual relationship started out nonconsensually. However, Mackenzie Phillips has indicated that eventually, it became consensual. This is what is at issue: do you take her word that not all of the sex that they had was rape, or do you doubt and second guess her on it.

I say take her word for it. If she has the courage and clarity of mind to not only accept what happened to her, and what she did, but to publicly articulate it in such a clear and unvarnished way, that says quite a bit to her credibility on her own experience.