Posted on 02/22/2017 9:35:50 AM PST by servo1969
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?
Why? Because people jump to conclusions and then they like to virtue signal.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok1Gd0CQsiM
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."
Milo just got Trumped, and it's as wrong with Milo as it was with Trump.
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:
I really appreciated your going to bat for Milo over this most recent controversy. I have a lot to say on the subject of pop culture's encouragement of adolescent/post adolescent sex -- both straight and gay -- and the mistaken confusion of adult/post puberty sex with pedophilia. 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.
When my children were adolescents, I was aware of more than one instance of teen age girls being active with men over 18, indeed, over 21. I'm sure Teen Vogue and Teen Cosmo wouldn't blink a lash about that. I think Milo, once more, has struck a nerve, exposing the hypocrisy of the cultural/political left. I hate to see him hung out to dry.
One more thing: This seems apropos. Know who your enemies are, right?
Sums up my feelings. Now watch him make a bunch of money & fame going after conservatives. At least that's my prediction.
CPAC has never been gay friendly. Several years ago they tried to keep the log cabin Republicans out.
FR isn’t gay friendly either so we have all the usual panty twisters on here swallowing the left wing and never Trumper assassination lies hook, line and sinker.
Fact: Milo Yianapoulos is successfully articulating the conservative message to the younger generation in a way that is outrageous and over the top with naughty rhetoric but very effectively outing the progressive agenda as negative and morally bankrupt. On balance I vote for Milo.
What I do know is he absolutely infuriated the left. Must have been a good messenger even though perhaps flawed.
===============================================
“This arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent which totally destroys, you know the understanding of many of us have the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships.“You know people are messy and complex and actually, in the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, that sort of coming of age relationships.
“The relationships with those with older men have helped those young boys discover who they are. And give them security and safety, provide them with love and reliable and sort of a rock. Where they can’t speak to their parents.”
When another person on the podcast interjects to say that sounds like molestation, he makes a joke about child abuse, and argues semantics about the term ‘pedophilia’:
“You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is an attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able to understand. That is not what we are talking about.”Asked to clarify if he’s advocating for these “cross-generational relationships“, he says that he is:
“Yeah I dont mind saying… I don’t mind admitting that. And I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic Church if that is where some of you wanna go with this. I think in the gay World some of the most important enriching and incredibly the… mm … you know life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences.”
The video: Milo Yiannopoulos - PaulsEgo - TheAmazingAtheist - and More! DPP #193 (begins around 55:45 - language alert)
He's saying, quit clearly, that if a 13 year old is sexually mature, it's not pedophilia (i.e. it's OK) for older men to have a sexual relationship with them.
This way of thinking should never be ok with anybody...let alone with Conservatives, no matter how much he infuriates the left.
Honestly I don’t know and find it all very confusing. What is pedophilia exactly? I’m just not sure. If for instance a 25 year old has sex with a 15 year old, is that pedophilia, or is that “just” statutory rape? My guess, but I could be wrong, pedophilia is having sex with someone 12 and under.
I am unclear what the term “kiddie porn” means. If a person viewed porn of girls that are 17 years old, would they be arrested and convicted of viewing “child porn”?
I don’t know. Maybe its emotion in me, but sometimes I think I rather my child turn out to be serial killers than become gay.
I think that is Milo's stance completely. His flamboyant act is extremely self-deprecating, because he KNOWS he isn't right. He knows traditional morality is best for humanity and espouses that even though he can't quite attain it for himself, and realizes there is a small element of the populace who struggle like he does. He wishes he was straight but as he hasn't been able to overcome his gayness he uses it for maximum triggering, and I love it.
I see your point. Point one is free speech and we NEED all the allies we can get. I don’t care if a person is a holocaust denier or gay like Milo. In fact SOME gay publications have come out supporting gay bashing as a form of free speech.
The second is what he said. I’m still trying to get my mind around that.
Knowing Milo, he'll use it more like a ramp. Yeeeee haaaaaa!
Who on this site or elsewhere every stated such a thing?
You are too good for straw-men, Tax-chick.
“He’s saying, quit clearly, that if a 13 year old is sexually mature, it’s not pedophilia (i.e. it’s OK) for older men to have a sexual relationship with them.”
By definition, it is not pedophilia.
However, it is statutory rape, and sexual maturity is not the guiding standard for statutory rape. The standard is emotional and intellectual maturity.
That is the flaw in his argument. Very often people reach sexual maturity long before they attain emotional or intellectual maturity. The fact that a teenage girl has sprouted T&A doesn’t mean she’s ready to take on a practiced seducer.
Did he say it wasn’t?
Btw. Can’t believe I am defending this guy, but I find his political assasination worrying.
We just had Flynn. Now this?
Who is next?
BTW. Only posting on this site can be enough to get you deep sixed in your life and your career.
In my younger days, I knew a guy who had a long-running sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl. She appeared to enjoy the relationship. Then again, he was 13 too (and so was I)
Well said in #5.
On a personal note, I will pray for him to turn to Jesus and be healed.
He could be healed completely, and this is an absolute truth.
WTF?
In what demented mind could "not pedophilia" equal "it's ok?"
The point is, Breitbart, Bannon and Trump don’t need to be conflated with a guy defending adult men having sex with 13-year-olds.
The distance is a relief.
Try mentioning at your place of employment that you believe homosexual activity is wrong. It’s likely that you’ll quickly be looking for another job.
Did you or anyone you know at any time in your life have sex before marriage or outside marriage? If so you and they are guilty of a death penalty offense.
What we are seeing here is similar to the internal struggle between the conservatives and moderates during the Reagan Administration. However, the stakes are higher, and the battle lines and alliances more complicated. Trump has a core of supporters that are paleo-conservatives outside of the neo-con dominated conservative establishment. The latter group is in a de facto alliance with the Democrats and the MSM to take down, or at least tame, Trump. They are methodically going after those who support Trump's nationalist and anti-establishment supporters, first Flynn, now Yianapoulos, perhaps Steve Bannon or Matt Drudge next.
The analogy to Reagan is important because the moderate wing of the GOP slowly eliminated the staunch conservatives in his administration, such as James Watt and David Stockman, especially after the attempted assassination of the President. The goal of the neo-con wing of the establishment is to do something similar to Trump. Surrounding the President with war hawks, free trade advocates, and compromisers will, in their view, tame someone whom they view as a radical disruptor of the status quo. The liberals are fine with that, because a defanged Trump who will not have achieved his stated goals will be easy to defeat in 2020, at least if they have the good sense not to run Hillary Clinton or someone equally as shrill, like Elizabeth Warren.
“In what demented mind could “not pedophilia” equal “it’s ok?”
Why don’t you ask the author of that statement? I only quoted it for the purpose of commenting on it.
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.