Milo Yiannopoulos got punished despite having done nothing wrong!

Milo didn't do what he's accused of doing -- but he's being punished nevertheless. That's just wrong . . . and so ickily Leftist.

Sometimes the Lefties in this country get lucky. They have a truly dangerous adversary like Milo Yiannopoulos, someone who bravely and wades into the fight, and does so in such a way that he exposes to the maximum number of people how monstrous the ideological enemy really is -- and then self-righteous "conservatives" take him down without the Left having to lift a finger. This is just so wrong. You'd think that people, especially those on the Right, would have learned something from the Trump "grab them by their..." debacle but, nooooo, they just fall into the same traps over and over.

Ask yourself what it was that Milo did to earn his banishment from the same halls and institutions that once welcomed him with open arms. You may be surprised by the answers. (I should state here that I've read the entire transcript of Milo's more controversial remarks. You can too. Here is his defense and clarification.)

Did Milo confess that he molested a child? No. He never said he did. He has asserted steadfastly and strongly that he never has. And no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Milo molested him. Lena Dunham confessed in her autobiography that she molested her little sister . . . but no one cared.

Did Milo actually molest a child? See above. He has not said he did so; he has said he never would do so; and no one has contested anything he said.

Did Milo say that he wanted to molest a child? No. Ne never said he did. Indeed, he's consistently asserted that he finds the very idea repugnant. And again, no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that he and Milo had a great conversation once upon a time about their desire to molest a child.

Has Milo insisted that pedophilia isn't really that bad, which is what one of Slate's now-erased writers did? No. He has never advocated pedophilia, although he's made it clear that an older gay man introduced him to gay sex (whether before or after puberty is not clear). Where Milo differs from Lefties when it comes to his having been victimized is that he doesn't define himself by what happens to him. What Milo has done, though, is to be one of the loudest voices arguing about protecting children from sexual predators, starting with allowing predatory pedophile males into little girls' bathrooms, which is something the Obama administration insisted was a sexually confused man's civil right.

Has Milo tried to foist a gay agenda, with all of its bizarre behaviors on America and America's children? No. Certainly Milo's persona is all about being gay. He's not the one, though, who's advocating that we start teaching small children about gay sex or that we put books touting explicit gay sex in the library's at America's public schools. If that's what you want, you have to go to Kevin Jennings, whom Obama appointed as his "Safe School Czar." Part of Milo's shtick is to stop pretending that gays are saints.

Did Milo talk about pedophilia in a podcast? Yes. Yes, he did, although not in the way the self-righteous crowd claims.

In the context of that broadcast, Milo made two highly accurate statements, the first of which has nothing to do with pedophilia. What he said is that it's very common for older gay men to mentor younger gay men, whom Milo called "boys." Anyone who's spent time around gay men, as I have given a lifetime in the San Francisco Bay Area, understands that there's a whole gay culture around older men and younger men. A good example would be Barney Frank and his "boy"friend, who was 30 years younger than Frank. If gays want to talk about prepubescent children, believe me, they know how. "Boy" in this content manifestly meant older (i.e., legal) teen/young adult, not a child. Once Milo clarified that point, it should have been over.

The other conversation Milo had was a linguistic one: He said, accurately, that pedophilia is a very specific type of sexual perversion that involves lusting after prepubescent children -- something he specifically disavowed. The conversation then touched upon post-pubescent children. It was in this context that Milo said that the way the law draws bright lines ignores the fact that children mature sexually at different ages. As I noted in my post yesterday about Milo, watching the children in my community grow up has shown that some kids are completely physically mature by 12 or 13, while others are still working on physical maturity by 18 or 19.

Milo characterized himself as sexually mature at an early age, which may have been true. Or it may have been the case that, since he himself was sexually molested, he became more sexually aggressive, which is often the case with children who are molested. Milo also said that, if you're gay, having an older mentor is helpful, especially if you are moving into the sexual side of your nature -- which is also true, and most gay men (as Milo said) will admit that if pressed.

What Milo never said is, "I know all this about little boys and spotty young teens because I've had sex with dozens of 13-year-old boys and helped them discover what it means to be gay." He never said that, nor did he say anything like it. This was a hypothetical discussion about a factual reality in the gay world.

Having unloaded these truths, Milo nevertheless completely agreed that the legal age of consent is a good thing and lands on the right age. The unspoken conclusion driving that statement had to have been that, given the broad spread in age of sexual maturation, it's appropriate for the law to err on the side of caution to protect the maximum number of children from sexual predators.

If I'm correct that Milo was thinking the above, well, he's right -- he's right about it for same-sex relationships and he's right about for heterosexual relationships. Pedophilia's vile and we need to protect the greatest number of children from it. Given that some kids mature slowly, the law should reach out to accommodate them. I agree. You agree. Milo agrees.

And lest I get dragged down into the muck by people saying that I'm excusing Milo and therefore advocating pedophilia or teen sex, no, I'm not. Pedophilia is an unutterably evil thing to do to a child and ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. As for me, when I was a child and now that I'm a parent, I liked (and like) the idea of a 1950s world. Back then, the media didn't relentlessly sexualize children and teens. Society as a whole encouraged young people to hold on to their virginity until they were married -- or, if they didn't seem destined for marriage, to wait at least until their mid-20s and to be safe and discrete. People are still people and things will always happen, but the cultural norm was to delay sex so that young people could mature.

Looking at the detritus of today's sexual revolution -- which our media still pushes -- I believe that teen sex (i.e., post-pubescent or adolescent sex) is emotionally damaging, and that's true whether teens are partnering with people their own age or older. One of the nicest things I ever read was Steve Crowder's post about the wonders of saving sex for marriage.

Despite my values, I'm neither blind nor stupid. I know how the world works. I therefore know that a significant portion of the students in my kids' high school, if they escaped middle school with their virginity intact, did not graduate from high school that way.

With that real world in mind and with what Milo actually said in mind, rather than what he's accused of saying, remind me why he got destroyed? Why did Simon & Schuster dump what would have been a massive money-maker? Why did half of Breitbart's staff suddenly start screaming about scarlet letters and exile?

Let me take you on a little walk back in time, all the way back to October 2016, when suddenly Donald Trump was a rapist or the next best thing. "He confessed!" insisted the Left and the self-righteous Right.

In fact, Trump did not confess to any misdoing. In response to Billy Bush's goading him on in the company of a bus full of men, after first saying he, personally, loves to kiss women, Trump then stated a truism: When you're rich, women will let you do anything. Or, to quote him, he said, "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything."

Don't believe me? Watch this video, which goes through every second of the misrepresented conversation to find the truth -- and the truth is that Trump played along with the locker room talk, and talked about (unsuccessfully) trying to buy his way into a woman's bed, but never -- never -- confessed to rape or assault.

Not only did Trump not say that he grabbed women's p*ussies, it's fun to speculate what he might have said if that conversation had continued. Given that he was buddies with the Clintons when this conversation took place, he might have said something like, "As for me, I don't do that kind of thing, but I've seen Bill Clinton get away with it every time. Women see him and they let him do anything he wants. He's grabbed more women by the p*ssy than . . . well, the number is yuuuge."

You know what else hacks me off about this whole thing? People are desperate to knock Trump and Milo off a moral pedestal even though neither man ever made the slightest attempt to climb up on such a pedestal. Neither pretended to be anything but vulgar or crude. And both have been open about they fact that they love sex with the objects of their desires (women for Trump, men for Milo), and are perfectly willing to think and talk about it when asked.

Despite the facts on the ground, people are shrieking as if these two men were up in the pulpit every Sunday thundering about sexual licentiousness and sinning against God. There's no hypocrisy here and they shouldn't be punished as if they were hypocrites.

In Trump's case, the American people spoke and said that they fully understood that Trump is what, in the old days, used to be called a "man's man." They also said that they understood that talking about something is not the same thing as acting upon it. They were willing to believe that Trump did nothing wrong.

Who's going to speak out for Milo, though? Although he says he decided voluntarily to leave Breitbart, and he did it with great grace, the fact is that the self-righteous ones on Breitbart's staff drove him out. And who's going to publish his book, which makes important points about behaviors that are antithetical to freedom? When it comes to attacks on freedom, the Left is infinitely worse than the Right, but things like this -- where the Right does the Left's dirty work -- remind us that conservatives are not without sin. Far from it.

Milo, here's a message from me to you: Don't give up the good fight. You did nothing wrong. You were your usual self: blunt, crude, outrageous, and outspoken, but you were not criminal or perverted. Keep fighting the good fight for intellectual freedom. If we drive people like you out of the public conversation, not only are we less free, but all of our baser instincts, instead of being addressed, fester and grow increasingly rotten.

I want to close, not with more of me, but with a beautifully stated email I got from one of my readers, a woman I've come to admire greatly over the years:

Openly endorsing pedophilia is doing plenty wrong.

The problem with parts of the Right today is they see nothing wrong with defining deviancy up.

Milo isn’t a libertarian or a conservative; he’s a vulgar boor.

I’m out with him being part of our movement. I won’t abandon core values to be hip and cool.

That argument is not a bandwagon on which I wish to jump.

I like Milo because he has a lot of common conservative sense about him. His personal lifestyle and predilections aren’t something I particularly want to consider, though.

Suffice it to say, he’s hit a roadblock, and it is up to him to navigate it by himself as far as I’m concerned. I won’t do any explaining for him, nor do I wish him ill will in the political advancement of conservatism.

Milo made the mistake of saying that intergenerational gay sex with boys below the legal age wasn’t always bad, depending on the maturity of the boy.

It’s a personal opinion, not illegal to express, but a potentially harmful position for Bannon’s Breitbart, especially, to be angled into having to defend. In short, it helps the left to be able to toss off pizzagate, etc., by drawing a parallel with the defense of Milo.

So it worked out about how it should have. He won’t be at CPAC, leading to the MSM confounding the issue with Trump’s appearance there. Sure, would have been better if he hadn’t said it and it hadn’t been dug out, but so it is. I commend Milo and Breitbart on their handling of it this week.

And I’ve ####ed unmarried women and can’t promise I never will again, though it’s highly doubtful.

I guess I’ll leave the board if every other hypocrite does too.

FWIW, I have a strong impression that a large percentage of the "pedophilia sex" scandal in the Roman Catholic church was actually sex between gay priests and post-puberty boys. Something I absolutely condemn, but it's not pedophilia.

It's rape.

An Objective statement: CPAC just screwed a whole bunch of men (women and children too for that matter). I’m speaking of conservative men. Milo was a tremendous thorn in the side of the liberal/progressives, a mighty weapon. I hope CPAC elopes with McLame and Grahamnesty, cause they sure ain’t gonna get any love from me.

Being a pervert is being conservative?

Wow - and I bet you denounce Lena Dunham and George Takei for getting on board with the pedophilia chic bandwagon.

There’s a word I have in mind that describes people like that: hypocrite.

You want to give a Milo a pass for behavior the Left has no problem with.

I do have a problem with it because I have standards. That’s what conservatism is all about.

Where did he say “below the legal age”?

If i said some old guy was sleeping with a young girl and it’s disgusting, I could VERY well mean and WOULD likely mean a 70 year old and an 18 year old.

I remember this young gal i dated when i was 30.

Does that statement make you think i dated a 12 year old?

I’ve worked with a lot of gay guys in manhattan.

it isn’t unusual for 18 year olds to hook up with 40 year olds or older.

They use the word boys.

I dont approve of that, but they are consenting adult.

If he specifically said “boys below the legal age” then that is a very different story. And if he said he approved, and wasn’t just stating a fact.

LOL! Is that what they call the sexual exploitation of children by adults these days?

What’s next? Legitimizing humans having sex with animals?

No wonder people don’t take conservatives seriously.

Milo can bring conservative ideas to people who would never listen to more traditional conservatives.

His voice has a value. I have no want to see him silenced.

He has apologized for his inarticulateness. I can accept that and dearly hope he gets help for his own terrible childhood sexual abuse trauma.

Breitbart is supposedly going more mainstream. In that case, Milo would not be a good fit anyway. He’ll land on his feet—he has enough of a profile on SM.

He’s reaching out to people the rest of us could never reach and preaching the message of conservatism.

a year , maybe two at most. Agreeing with Milo’s lifestyle would have been unthinkable on FR. I have absolute Truths that I live by. They will not and cannot change, because they are based on God’s Word.

they just fall into the same traps over and over

Yes they do. So sad that they fail to learn, and then wonder why they continually lose after tasting success. Kind of like how America treats her international friends from one administration to the next.

I somewhat agree with you, but when he has suggested that pedophilia/gay relationships with children is somehow “normal”, I can no longer act like he represents us.

I struggle with how it is possible to separate his views on gay relationships with children from his general “conservatism”, by chalking it up to his personal lifestyle.

He has certainly helped to promote political conservatism, and has been a voice that has been able to reach some younger adults.

Yes, he will have a challenge ahead, to dig out of this hole, IMHO.

“We are no longer allowed to think that is wrong.”

Bullshite!

IMO, homosexual activity is sinful activity. Does this invalidate Milo as a person? Of course not. Like me, Milo is a sinner. Sinners are EVERYWHERE!!! Does Milo’s homosexual activities invalidate everything he says regarding feminazi’s, his advocacy AGAINST pedophilia, his extreme distaste for progressivism, his support for free speech on college campuses & elsewhere, his support for President (Daddy) Trump? Nope.

I hope EVERYONE who believes in the power of prayer PRAYS for Milo to cease & desist all homosexual activity instead of acting like progressives & talking like he is less of a human than anyone else. My wife & I plan on buying his book when it comes out because we want to support Milo in his efforts to destroy progressivism. Something conservatives used to be about.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.