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:

Pretty much

I was most disappointed in Breitbart

CPAC ....typical of them

Very few here even bothered to watch the 13 month old interview vid

Man that blog is like some truly immature millenials

Milo said he was 13-14 when he was turned out by an older homo

I would imagine he’d hit puberty by then unless he was was an acute laggard

"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."

You got that right, "protest1"! All sins are equal! Now I'm just waiting for your next pearl of wisdom. How about this one? : "Have you ever done any single thing in your entire life that you were ashamed of, and apologized for? Then you are a sinner!! Nyah nyah nyah! So how dare you criticize the Holocaust? It was also perpetrated by sinners. Sinners! Dya hear me? Just like you! I don't see a whit of difference between you and Himmler".

</sarc>

"we have some gays in our family as do most people and they are very lovable."

Yes, that's true. OTOH, we have very lovable people in our family who have committed adultery (without the vast majority of the family ever finding out). We also have people in the family who lie constantly, but still have very lovable personalities. We also have people in the family who are liberal Democrats, yet a number of them have somehow managed to remain lovable too.

CONCLUSION: Having "Lovable" as a checked-off box on your list of personality traits doesn't necessarily imply a lot about the other items on your list.

Side note: Regarding the 4 categories of people I mentioned above:
A) At least the adulterers and the liars don't tell the rest of us that we should feel obligated to affirm their lifestyles.
B) But for some reason the majority of Democrats and "Out & Proud" homosexuals believe we are morally bound to agree with them or else accept labels like Hater and much worse.

KKK=Democrats

McVeigh=Atheist/Anarchist

Skinheads=Neo Nazis

None of the above carry or carried the message of conservatiism.

Oh yeah? Well just for starters, two of the three groups are big fans of immigration control / border wall / etc, these being among their top issues. McVeigh's big issue was fury at DOJ's anti-gun overreach at Waco.

But hey, if you want to redefine Border Control & 2nd Amendment Rights as being liberal's rather than conservative's top priorities, I wish you luck.

Don't be silly. Milo actual claims to be a Christian and does wrestle with the contradiction in his lifestyle. He is on record as saying he would prefer to be heterosexual if he could. Personal I believe this is possible for him. Rather than the total condemnation many seem to be giving to him some support and encouragement might be a better idea.

Does being a sinner apply to me, of course it does, which is exactly why I an not so quick to condemn Milo. Thankfully Jesus is the Saviour of us all.

I gave my final comment about Milo on Disqus yesterday.
I’ll not be drawn into another conversation.
Here it is repeated, like it or not, I don’t care.

“Look I’m sick and tired of defending Milo to people that apparently see no reason or way to investigate what was said
and use critical thinking to come to conclusions or statements that are based on facts not emotionalism.

Milo, as you are apparently unaware, has been out front leading the charge against pedophilia.

Of course it is inherently disgusting but it is not dealt with by not talking about it.”

"Don't be silly."

Whoa! The same person who just said, "[Have you] had sex before marriage? If so you and they are guilty of a death penalty offense" is telling me to not be silly?

ROFL!!

"But thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. :-)"

Yup, as you correctly point out, I was subtracting from the conversation the meaningless point you had added to it. :-)

Namely, this: "we have some gays in our family as do most people and they are very lovable."

“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.”

Nope, I’m not a muslim and neither is anyone I know. My people get to repent.

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.