What I saw on "Dr Phil" disgusted me

There wasn’t much on yesterday (Wednesday), so I thought I’d see what this “Dr. Phil” guy was like. He was discussing the effects of sex on teenagers, and he interviewed a sixteen-year-old girl who had sex and now regrets it. When she first came on camera, she was composed and calm. She said that she regretted having sex, but it didn’t seem to be terribly traumatic. “Dr” Phil then spent several minutes talking to her about what an awful thing she had done. When he had gotten her to break down sobbing, he had her turn to the camera and repeat his anti-sex moralizing. It was like watching a brain washing session. I was disgusted, and changed the channel.

Sex can cause emotional damage, but how much of it from sex itself, and how much from people like “Dr” Phil who act like sex is a horrible, disgusting thing to do? Earlier on the show, he interviewed a father who admitted to having a double standard WRT his son’s sex life versus his daughter. “Dr” Phil seemed critical of this. Well, I can’t imagine “Dr” Phil telling a male guest that by having sex, we was letting girls “use” his body for their pleasure. Yet he seemed to have no problem telling the girl that she let the guy “use” her. I don’t know the particulars of the relationship between her and her partner. Maybe he did use her. Maybe it was a completely equal realtionship, with no exploitation on either side. I don’t know enough to decide either way, and I don’t think “Dr” Phil does either. But based on what I saw on that show, it does look like that girl was exploited. By “Dr” Phil. I didn’t see any thereuputic value in what he put her through; all I saw is a middle aged man taking a girl who was on her way to dealing with the emotional consequences of a choice she regretted, and humiliating her in front of a live audience, and the television audience, so he show how awful sex is. If that girl ends up being scarred for life, it’s not going to be because of sex.

Oddly enough, this is why I actually respected Jerry Springer. Stay with me here…

Most of these sleazy talk shows, like Maury Povich, or Montel, or Sally Jessy, or whoever, all operate under this flimsy pretext that they’re actually out to try and help their guests, like Dr. Phil did here. Obviously, this is complete garbage. Springer was the only one I ever saw who not only admitted, but reveled in the fact that he was just exploiting these people for cheap entertainment value.

It’s not like they dragged the girl on camera in iron chains. Obviously, Dr. Phil is not going to congratulate the girl on having sex.

“Dr.” Phil is an honest-to-pete psychologist, ya know. The Dr. in his name is legit for what he is doing, unlike Ms. Laura, who uses her “dr” to mislead.

I saw the ep, I thought he was taking it a little far. I was waiting for someone to chime in and mention that sex is not inherently hellacious, and that it would be terrible if this girl ended up with a hostile and fearful attitude towards it because of some bad early experiences.

Generally speaking, I dig Dr. Phil. But sometimes he can overdo it.

And he needs some new lines. The minute he says “in your defense…” to some guy, I know as sure as the sun will rise that he will follow it up with “And god knows you need it”. There are many examples of this. He’s beaten many of his good lines to death.

I was thinking the same thing. If I had seen the same thing on Springer, I don’t think it would have affected me as much (and actually, on the Springer show he more lets guests humiliate each other/themselves rather than getting personally involved). It’s like the difference between Coke and GatorAde; Coke doesn’t have athletes in their ads pretending that drinking flavored sugared water makes them compete better (although apparently it does make people want to provide singing lessons to the globe :slight_smile: ). Perhaps we should go to the next taping, and every time he humiliates a guest, pump our arms and chant “Phi-il! Phi-il Phi-il”.

Presumably, the guy she had sex with didn’t put her in iron chains, either. Yet “Dr” Phil seeemd to have no trouble condemming the guy. How is (someone who is presumably of about the same age) having sex with a girl in private worse than a much older guy publicly using the girl to advance his agenda? I think “Dr” Phil screwed her over more than the boy did, but I’m not holding my breath on the statuatory rape charges.


Doctor as in “first do no harm”? Or does that only apply to MD’s? It didn’t look to me like he was practicing medicine, psychiatric or otherwise. Using your patients as a rhetorical device goes against every medical ethic I know of (although I admit that category isn’t particularly large). The fact that he humiliated the girl skillfully, in a manner which implied significant training in psychiatry, doesn’t make it any better. If he’s not putting the best interests of his “patient” first, then the “Dr” is misleading. Unless he received a doctorate in entertainment.

Is this the idiot who appears on Oprah occasionally as well?

Hear me out here, I don’t actually watch Oprah. It’s just that my mother does, and sometimes when I’m on the phone with her, she’ll say “Oh, there’s Dr. Phil! He’s such a nice man”.

So I happened upon Oprah one day whilst flicking through the channels, and sure enough, she announced Dr. Phil! I decided to sit it out, and see what this guy’s like.

Dear God.

Is he really a psychologist? Because he sounds like a poor excuse for one. And even then, it’s one thing for an American studio audience who got free coffee (and no doubt pie) to mindlessly nod and agree with what this idiot says, but what the hell is my mother thinking, sitting in front of the TV in the Southern part of the frickin’ Netherlands??

Boggles the mind.

“Brainwashing”…how interesting. I flipped through the show yesterday, and that’s exactly the impression I got. Different episode, though. He was talking to a woman who found out that her husband was a cross-dresser. They showed footage from a one-on-one session with her (face blacked out and name changed to protect her identity) where The Good Doctor was literally (in a metaphorical sense, natch :)) brow-beating her into being traumatized and betrayed by this fetish of her husband’s: demanding that she be furious at his deception, ordering her to condemn his actions, badgering her into refusing to tolerate it. Then we cut back to the show, where we get the husband on the line, so Dr. Phil can assure the guy that Phil doesn’t even know him and thus can’t pass judgment on his actions, but “let’s hear what your wife has to say.” They connect her, and Dr. Phil coaches her through the same condemnatory spewings, so that this guy can learn just what a sick twisted bastard he really is.

The one he did on too-sexy pre-teens (beauty contestants, internet models, etc.) was really repugnant, too. His whole thesis was that these girls (there were no boys represented for some reason) were being mercilessly exploited by being put on display for perverts, and yet he spent the entire show broadcasting those same pictures over national television, which is presumably different somehow. They even followed one of the girls (who was eleven) and her mother to a mall while the girl shopped for clothes, and filmed her changing in the dressing room with loads of gratuitous pelvic shots…you know, so we could see how exploitive those other sick bastards are. Not like Dr. Phil, nosiree.

That’s the guy, Coldie. Oprah helped publicize him, and he got his own show as a result.

I haven’t see Dr. Phil, but from this thread and what I’ve heard about him he’s a real jerk. If I’m going to watch trash t.v., nothing beats a good dose of Springer :wink:

[slight hijack]
Is Dr. Laura really not a dr.? She sent a letter to my local newspaper stating her credentials (because, apparently, someone had publicly called them into question), and she did state that she is does have the right to use the Dr. before her name. So, what’s the scoop on this–google just sent me a bunch of general sites about her show and her outrageous opinions.
[/slight hijack]

What, you mean Dr. Phil has a whole show, and not just brief segments on Letterman? :confused: :eek:

people go on Springer to get some attention.

people go on Dr Phil to get some freaking help.

BIG difference.

she obviously wanted to change. she obviously didn’t like her behavoir. THat’s a big difference from wanting to flash yoru titties around on stage and ask for a hug from a glorified bouncer.

Dr. Laura has a PhD. in Physiology; she has no advanced degrees in Psychology or Psychiatry.

[answer to slight hijack]Dr. Laura has a Ph.D. in physiology from Columbia, so she’s entitled to the Dr., just not entitled to presenting herself as an authority on sexuality. I can’t find a good cite, but [url=http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/drlaura.html]here[/url it is claimed that her dissertation was entitled “Effects of Insulin on 3-O-Methylglucose
transport in Isolated Rat Adipocytes.” Someone who knows how to look up unpublished dissertations of a medical bent can confirm, if any of them can be bothered. Somehow, I don’t think the metabolic processes of rat fat has any earth-shaking implications for how best to raise children.
[/answer to slight hijack]


Anyone who thinks they’re going to get help in 44 minutes of “Dr. Phil”'s show certainly needs a lot of help, but maybe not from Dr. Phil.

The guy is a blowhard. What’s to like about him?

Its an Oprah audience. No one disagrees with her and lives to tell the tale. The audience is full of fawning sycophants who clap at every available moment, laugh at every joke and buy every book she recommends.

If there is a cookery bit, Oprah will come out with something as banal as “mmm, Pie! We love pie, don’t we!” and the camera pans out to the audience, to see a sea of grinning, nodding faces, united in their newly remembered love of pie.

Meanwhile the piemaker will laugh the laugh of Mammon, a laugh as dark as Demo’s heart, as the dollar sign lights up in his eyes.

Funny, I had never watched this show or even come across it for that matter until yesterday. I too thought it was propaganda-like.

For the people who LOVE Dr. Phil, you know he was accused by a former patient for sexually exploiting her. The Board looked in to the matter and:

“reprimanded McGraw in 1989 ‘for hiring the woman too soon after she was a patient’ and calling their relationship ‘an inappropriate dual relationship’- but not mentioning any sexual misconduct, according to TV Guide.”

Sounds like a great psychologist.

Dr. Phil is so full of crap. He doesn’t even really offer advice. All he does is tell his “patients” REALLY FUCKING OBVIOUS things, like for example, one I saw a while back: Parents are sick of their daughter mooching of them, because the daughter has a child and a good job and a brand new car and a house of her own and is fully capable of supporting herself. What does Dr. Phil say? Well he pretty much repeats over and over again “You just need to stop giving her money”.

No shit, asswipe.

If you need a “doctor” to tell you that, then maybe you’re the one with the problem.

As has been mentioned before, she is a legitimate PhD. in Physiology. She is also a licensed marriage and family counselor in the state of California, and holds a post-doctoral certification in marriage, family, and child therapy. Cite. She also lists her qualifications on her website.

This does not make her advice worth anything more than my aunt Mary, but her credentials are legitimate.