Advertisements

A Short Note on Milo (UPDATED WITH AN INTERESTING NEW VIDEO)

There will be a longer guest post probably sometime this weekend on the subject of free speech writ large, so I debated whether to address this on the blog today. But given the gleeful crowing on both the left and the right about the so-called “fall” of Milo Yiannopoulos, I wanted to quickly address the issue from my perspective.

I see those on the left cheering Simon and Schuster’s decision not to publish Milo’s book, titled “Dangerous” after a video surfaced in which he “appeared to condone” (notice, nowhere is it written that he did so) pedophilia. The left hates Milo, because he revels in his Internet troll persona, because he ridicules social justice warriors, because he refuses to bow to the gods of political correctness, because he got on the Trump Train early, because… well, you know.

Milo also resigned from his position at Breitbart, to which I say, “Good!” He’s much too good for them.

I see those on the right gloating that the American Conservative Union disinvited Milo from CPAC this year, where he was supposed to be giving the keynote address after this video emerged, because he’s gay, because he’s flamboyant, because he’s not what a typical, nice, Christian, conservative should be. He’s *clutch pearls* GHEY!!! And he’s in a relationship with a black man! OH NOEZ!

Here’s the full video and that includes those comments. If you haven’t seen the unedited version of the video in which Milo purportedly “supports” pedophilia, you might want to take a look before screeching about how he deserved it.

 

Here’s a transcript of the part that was edited out.

Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”

The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”

Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

Milo:
“And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.

Milo: “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 attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

So what did Milo really say here?

He said that child abuse charges have been inflated to such a degree, that we are now even policing relationships between consenting adults, because we disapprove of them.

He said that, generally speaking, the age of consent laws in the United States are proper and right.

He admits there are some people (including himself) who reach emotional maturity at a younger age, and are capable of giving consent at a younger age and points out that relationships are generally complex and nuanced things, completely unsuited for a “one size fits all” mentality.

He said that SOME of those “coming of age” relationships can help gay men feel safe and secure.

And he correctly defined pedophilia as an attraction to pre-pubescent children and made the distinction between the discussion about cross-generational relationships, which could happen between a 17-year-old and his 40-year-old partner, and the gross attraction of a full, legal adult to a pre-pubescent child.

How many of you, screeching that Milo condoned pedophilia took the time to read and analyze what he really said before condemning him?

And how many of you denigrated and ridiculed him and cheered the cancellation of his book and his unceremonious booting from CPAC merely because you don’t like him or what he stands for?

Be honest with yourselves.

For what it’s worth, Milo never was accused of pedophilia. He never condoned kiddie diddlers. As a matter of fact, he spent a lot of time exposing and shaming them – fighting the very thing he is now accused of defending.

He exposed creepy, white nationalist gamergate critic Sarah Nyberg/Nicholas Nyberg/Sarah Butts.

Two years ago, he went after repugnant child molester Chris Leydon.

I would venture to say, Milo has done more to fight child sexual abuse than any of the critics jerks now eulogizing his silencing.

By the way, Milo’s full statement about this incident is here. I emphasize the following, and note that Milo himself was a victim of sexual abuse as a child.

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.

I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it.

I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.

Do I think that Milo is very often over-the-top? Yes.

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Do I think that his gallows humor is many times inappropriate? Yes. Vicious? Yes.

Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. (I note here our differences in whom we liked for POTUS, for one.)

But am I going to cheer concerted efforts to silence him by those who disagree with what he says and how he says it? No, I’m going to slam them hard, as I would any attempts to silence dissent and opposition.

I see the glee and exhilaration with which Milo’s critics applaud his supposed “downfall,” and I’m sickened by it.

Were you upset that someone like Milo, to whom nothing is sacred enough to avoid making fun of, was gaining a huge following?

Were you irritated that someone like Milo – a flamboyant faggot in an interracial relationship, who freely talks about blow jobs – all of a sudden became someone to admire in your precious, oh-so-holier-than-thou “conservative” movement?

Did you not like that Milo essentially told Leslie Jones to man up after she got a bunch of racist Tweets in her direction, because “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS!”

Did you hate his description of feminism as a “cancer?”

Did you think he was racist/homophobic/xenophobic, even though he’s in a relationship with a black man, has a Jewish mother, and repeatedly denied being a member of the “alt-right?”

And that’s why you’re cheering that someone finally found – AND DOCTORED – a video to silence him? How repulsively fascist of you!

You don’t care that the allegations are false.

You don’t care that the recording of Milo supposedly “advocating” child abuse was selectively edited and spliced, and you certainly won’t listen to the unedited version, because that would force you to do some introspective navel gazing to figure out why you were so anxious to believe the worst about someone with whom you disagree politically, that you’re cheering his gagging and the impact on his employment and his bottom line.

You don’t care about freedom or truth.

You’re no different than the shit snorting dick weasels who work to destroy those who do not toe their ideological line. You’re morally reprehensible, petty little tyrants who want to see your ideological adversaries silenced and, ultimately destroyed, instead of fighting them with ideas and reason.

You are gleefully cheering, because someone you don’t like has ostensibly been silenced.

And that makes you exactly the type of person people like Milo and his supporters have dedicated themselves to fighting.

You are the reason he exists.

UPDATE: And if you find Milo’s words to be a problem, but still loves you some Uncle George, you’re a repulsive hypocrite.

Advertisements

42 responses

  1. Yep, As milo said in his press conference yesterday [paraphrasing] don’t you find it interesting that this video has been out for a YEAR…yet no one pitched a bitch fit til NOW when it was most damaging? That fact of timing is why this is a witch hunt driven by politics.
    He also said, he doesn’t know yet exactly who is going to pick up the contract on his book but he has had offers and he intends for it to be released this year as originally planned.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. That was one of the points I made in my blog post on the subject – https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/milo-and-the-sacred-band/

      Having a debate about the gray borders of human sexuality makes certain uptight sorts very very uncomfortable.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We had a case involving a popular “Mizrachi” singer here who had allegedly bedded a (very willing) 15yo groupie (our age of consent is 16). Turns out our local laws have a lesser offense of “husbanding [ahem] a minor with consent” (בעילת קטינה בהסכמה) between 14 and 16, if the age difference is 3 years or greater but no relationship of authority or dependence exists. (If the latter does exist, the cutoff is 18 rather than 16; if the relationship is between peers with an age difference understanding 3 years, i.e. teenagers fooling around among each other, there is no offense.)

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Your last sentence is the same reason why Trump is President … but the Left isn’t about navel searching, or capable of any thought beyond knee-jerk hate. And if they keep up with this they will get exactly what they say they want, but I doubt very much if those results will be in line with their professed beliefs.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is not just a problem on the left. Notice the “conservative” glee, because Milo just doesn’t fit their idea of what a “conservative” should be.

      Liked by 5 people

  3. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. You know, the real funny thing about the left is that although I had been aware of who Milo was, I really didn’t know much about him, or what he really stood for, until the UC Berkley fiasco. Then, I decided that if there were someone who was trying to ban the free speech of this guy, to the point where they not only had protests, but violent riots as well, I had damn well better find out just why they wanted to quiet him. The more I looked into him, the more I found that I had to agree with the guy. That the right is such a bunch of dickheads that they don’t have the guts to stand behind the decision to allow free speech to Milo, even though the head of the ACU, Matt Stapp said on Faux News that he didn’t believe that Milo supported pedophilia, says more about the conservatives than it does about Milo Y. If the ACU didn’t believe that Milo supported child abuse, then they should have had the guts to put their reputation on the line, or their money where their mouth is, and come out with a strong statement that conservatives believe in freedom of speech and that doctoring an interview to make it appear as if someone had said something that in fact the did not is a tactic that only those who don’t believe in true freedom support. Milo has resigned from Breitbart, but his book deal is not only now even going to make him more money than before, but I am considering buying it, after looking first at reviews, to support him and freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Nicki, you hit this one out of the park. I think that there must be room for people like him on both sides of the spectrum. Or else, Bill Maher and his ilk would have been gone long ago.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. And speaking of Bill Maher … https://twitter.com/wyatt…/status/834399728519426048

      Like

        1. Thank you, lissakay. This was an interesting link, I must say. I am a male, and I understand the double standard issue, and all. However, that does not make it any different for a woman to have sex with a 13 or 14 year old boy when she is twice his age, than it is for a man to have sex with that same young boy when he is twice the boys age. Well done, to find this.

          Like

  5. I have quit watching the Mainstream media a long time ago, If I wanted to be lied to I would have stayed in the military, but since this came up I thought at no point was he condoning pedophillia, I am not a big fan of the homosexual lifestyle, it is not my thing. What he does in his private life is his business and I don’t think that is really the issue here, the left (and a big chunk of the right) hate him, strictly because he speaks his mind and it is mostly the truth which chaps peoples ass big time. I think the world needs to get over their butthurt because they wanted A and got B. That’s life.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. He admits there are some people (including himself) who reach emotional maturity at a younger age, and are capable of giving consent at a younger age and points out that relationships are generally complex and nuanced things, completely unsuited for a “one size fits all” mentality.

    As a former practicing psychologist, let me use a technical term: HORSEPUSSY.

    This is classical justification of those who engage in pedophilia. “He wanted it” (or SHE wanted it)

    I’m sorry, Nicki, but I can easily make the argument that a person is barely able to make an adult decision as a 26 year old, let alone someone who is 13, 14, or 15.

    THINK about this for a minute. Think back to when your kid was 14. Would you have been comfortable with Milo Yiannopoulos messing around with your kid? Grooming him?

    Kids don’t just ‘fall’ for older men, they are GROOMED. They are ‘validated’ and usually that grooming is designed to cut out the influence of the parents.

    It’s about vulnerability not sex. Sex crimes are seldom about sex or ‘love’, they are about POWER over the vulnerable.

    There’s a reason why I don’t practice any more. This was the cohort of patients that I had to work with in a prison setting. I felt my soul being sucked out just being around these people.

    Honestly? Hearing what this asshole said was NO different from any of the justifications of men housed in the Sexual Offenders Program in prison.

    Like

    1. Deej, that’s crap. He was a) talking about himself, b) never said actual pedophilia was OK, and c) did not issue a blanket statement about whether or not it was OK to diddle a 14 year old.

      I couldn’t make a decision about what to have for lunch at the time, let alone about sex. But I also know a ton of people who had sex then and earlier. I was shocked, but they seemed fine with their decision to have sex with their 17-18 year old significant others.

      Read the whole thing again. Nowhere in that (somewhat disjointed) conversation does he condone pedophilia in any way. No. Where.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I notice that you are missing a video here. YES, there are more than one.

        The following video has him talking about pedophiles in Hollywood, and how having sex with boys is rampant.

        When asked if he would ever report this shit to the authorities, he says NO.

        Watch THIS video. He DOES condone it.

        Like

        1. He did NOT say there were children there. Gay men call young men “boys.” And he does say they were very young, but there’s SO much inference there! PEDO! No. He never said that. He also never said he approved. He never said one way or another. Just like there’s total and intentional lies about the first part of that video – the transcript of which was provided. Stop, Deej. There’s NOTHING there condoning any pedophilic behavior, other than what you’re interpreting yourself.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Nicki, you are right that a lot of gay men refer to the youngest adults around as “boys”, or refer to those playing particular roles as “boys”, regardless of their actual age or legal status. And in the absence of explicit confirmation it is only an inference to assume that the reference to “young boys” at these parties means actual legal minors.

          Unfortunately, given everything known and admitted about the gay community, and everything known about the Hollywood community, it is hardly an unreasonable inference. And while Milo never said he approved of the activity, refusal to name names was a highly troubling indicator of, at least, condoning it, at least at the time — and if Milo actually knew of, or worse, personally witnessed genuine sexual abuse at such events, whether it met the technical definition of pedophilia or was “merely” statutory rape, then his failure to inform the authorities about it is an actionable offense.

          Even assuming the best possible benefit of the doubt — Milo wasn’t 100% certain that the youths he saw at these parties were legally underage, and wasn’t 100% certain that they were being molested by adult men when in private with them (or that if they were, it wasn’t a consensual and non-traumatizing experience), and so was unwilling to risk of ruining someone’s life with an accusation that couldn’t be proven or wasn’t merited — given the stakes of the situation, I don’t find it unreasonable that someone else, in good faith, could disagree about what constitutes an unconscionable risk, or which side one should err on when not certain.

          (To be perfectly honest, if this situation was described to me devoid of the context of the political hit, *I* wouldn’t have a moment’s patience for someone keeping such secrets on the grounds of privacy, ostensible uncertainty, or allowing freedom of consent to “the exceptionally mature”. The only reason I am cutting Milo as much slack as I am is my complete disgust with the hypocritical partisanship of his attackers.)

          Like

      2. Nicki, I have a horrible confession to make of myself. I had sex when I was 18 with my girlfriend who was 15. Please don’t tell anyone. Oh, and don’t tell them that she got pregnant and we got married and I spent the rest of my life working in a foundry as a result of that bad choice. But it was a decision to work in that foundry that I took upon myself willingly, because sometimes choices made when you are 18, do affect the rest of your life. But I certainly could have done something else. I chose the life I have. I have 3 children from that marriage who I would never trade for anything, which, following most statistics, lasted only 11 years. That I was not prosecuted for statutory rape, was due to the forgiveness of her parents. You do not get do overs in life. However, there is a long prison hallway’s difference from the mistake that I made, with someone who was just as much in love with me as I was with her, and that of a predatorial pedophile. And I think, most members of society would probably agree with me.

        Like

      3. *sad shake of head* You know Nicki… I’ve found a change of tone in how leftists argue lately…

        It’s with “I must make them surrender, I must make them submit to my will” – to the point it has stopped being about the truth, or being correct. It’s all about winning.

        And since there’s the insistence now that ‘boys’ don’t mean ‘young men’ ever – I guess ‘playboy’ will be given to children by the left, and a man saying ‘I’m going out with the homeboys’ will probably find himself being prosecuted for pedophilia with the same vehemence and adherence to language (snort laugh guffaw) that they’re employing with Milo.

        *grim smile* We shouldn’t be playing their game. We shouldn’t be arguing against their bullshit. We should be saying “No, that’s a sack full of lies mixed in with shit, and you know it. I have no interest in conversing with you until you are willing to discuss honestly.”

        But even that, I know, will win us nothing, because they already claim to be discussing with us honestly, while presenting falsified videos as ‘pure, unadulterated evidence.’

        So it comes down to: why bother? They refuse to listen to anything but their echo chamber, while we wait for evidence and judge based on that.

        What a horrible, horrible world we have found ourselves in, thanks to their dragging us to what they want.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No, I agree. But I cannot stand to see someone denigrated in such a manner. Pedophilia is vile. It’s repulsive. It’s horrible. Adults taking advantage of kids – even ones who are a little bit older – is repugnant. It’s disgusting. Milo was a victim. He was taken advantage of. He deals with that the best way he knows how – dark humor and really inappropriate jokes. To call him a pedophile supporter just jostles me.

          Like

        2. Milo was a victim; both of predation, and of slanderous tongues.

          I’m going to ask for a bit of clarity on the ‘a little bit older’ – I’m leery of the whole chaos brought about by teenagers in a consensual sexual relationship with a few months to 5 year age gap (the latter being the extreme end for acceptability for me.)

          (Like, I’m talking about the started going out when both were below age of consent, the older one…well, gets older. Or the 17 year old gets together with 18-19 or 20 year old.)

          Like

        3. “I must make them surrender, I must make them submit to my will”
          That’s what the left has always been about.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. Well, I don’t know that Deej fellow. But that’s what the arguments are starting to have a tone of, from my reading.

          Like

        5. I know Deej. I’ve known him for years, and I consider him a wonderful friend, even though we’ve never actually met in person. I just happen to disagree with him on this issue.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. Fair enough. From my outsider’s eyes though; the words were less of discussion and more… ach. I had the word but now it’s gone. It’s 1 30 am; am sorry. Can’t words.

          I probably have perceptions coloured by recent unpleasant experiences resulting in lots of lost sleep; I beg your indulgence; and apologize for any misunderstanding.

          Like

        7. No worries. Get rest. 🙂

          Like

    2. I’m entirely willing to insist that *all* sexual interaction between a teenager (even a “legal” one) and someone old enough to be considered “cross generational” (which 17 vs. 29 is pushing the boundary of) is exploitative. By definition. Always. No matter the sexual or emotional maturity of the teenager.

      And every time some female school teacher is caught having sex with her male students I’m left trying to explain why she’s a gross pervert because the very common reaction of men is to cheer at the boy’s good luck.

      And then I’m left explaining that no, it’s not different for girls who are taken in by older men because a girl feels just as empowered and “adult” by the attention as the boys do.

      And THEN we’re offered the spectacle of being called homophobic for approving and calling for the arrest and conviction of an 18 year old girl for having sex with a 13 year old girl. Even though the age of consent was violated.

      There are two separate things here… #1 The legal and more-or-less socially acceptable sexual interaction of teenagers with others. And #2, the argument that those legal sexual relationships are actually rather creepy, gross, and almost certainly damaging.

      And #2 is not actually universally accepted. Along with those men cheering on the boys who have sex with teachers, this seems to be an accurate statement: “I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it.”

      And maybe we can work on that a bit, and help people to understand that serving as a sex partner shouldn’t be the price of support and understanding. It’s just not illegal and it’s not pedophilia.

      Like

      1. I’m sure my husband of nearly 20 years will be horrified to learn that he has been taking advantage of me for all this time. Since i was only 19 to his 31 when we met. I surely did not and do not feel preyed upon (I know WELL what that feels like, thanks), and do not see him as a predator. This is the problem with blanket statements about human beings…..

        Like

        1. Thing is that the concept of “cross generational” moves. 17 and 29 is pushing that, sort of, but I’m not prepared to say that 17 and 29 are two separate cohorts. And 19 to 31 is about that, too, but less so because 19 year olds are a lot more mature than 17 year olds (and actually considered adults) and 31 isn’t 45 or 50. But the age difference is *gone* now, isn’t it, when you’re 40 and he’s 50.

          Like

  7. The George Takei interview is something that probably should be held up side by side with the uncut Milo interview.

    But George Takei won’t be taken down because he’s not conservative. He waves the right flags, puts out the right signals. So he doesn’t get his ship sunk.

    Liked by 6 people

  8. I am honestly confused about all of this, and I suggest that my confusion (and quite a lot of the anger in other people) is because we reflexively regard pedophilia as so utterly abhorrent, unconscionable and otherwise outrageously indecent that the mere mention of it cuts off any debate. It has often occurred to me that the age of consent is arbitrary, determined NOT by headshrinkers and trick cyclists who are presumably experts in when the AVERAGE human being is rational / “mature” enough to “consent” but rather by politicians who are influenced by their religion and ESPECIALLY by what they think the voters will accept. Let us recall that the age of consent used to be much younger than it is now and that, as I understand Obamacare, people are now considered to be “children” up to the age of 26! (as a father, the age of consent for my daughter is “after the minister says, ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife'”!)

    I think Milo put his foot in it by careless phrasing. I don’t think he IS a pedophile or has any truck with it. As for the public lashing he’s gotten, I think 95% is politically motivated.

    As always, thank you for a clear-headed essay on it.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Agreed to some degree, but there sadly HAS to be some kind of age of consent from which point out it is no longer enforceable by law. So this whole arbitryriness(is that a word) is sadly just another necessary evil. Unless we really want to go back to ““after the minister says, ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife’” which is frankly among the things i would find it justified to violently oppose if needed.

      Like

      1. I agree: there has to be SOME line drawn. I am reminded, however, of Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”:

        [paraphrase] “I have never understood why a thirteen year-old genius couldn’t vote while a thirty-five year old moron could, but that was the system that they had.”

        What to do? How to distinguish between the thirteen year-old who is “mature” enough and the thirty-five year-old who shouldn’t be let out alone?

        Like

        1. Honestly? We will have to just let the thirteen year old live with the wait. That’s the problem with criminal laws in these kind of situations, they only allow for so much nuance.

          As for the thirty-five year-old…well we will just have to live with that. I mean….you could tie voting rights to a whole bunch of things. Personally, i think registering to vote should at least require a test where you demonstrate that you understand at-least the basic of our political system.
          But beyond that one specific case….nope. Autonomy rights should be granted at a certain age and only taken away under extrem circumstances. We have handle that allow this for people who are radically not able to function because of mental disabilitys or strong illness.
          The threshold on this is extremly high and it should be. Kid’s require that we only give them their autonomy at a certain age because below that none of them are able to function independantly.
          Allowing the government to keep peoples personal autonomy from them is allways a horrible idea and as long as they don’t pose a severe threat to the wellbeing of others should be averted at all costs.

          Like

  9. One of the reasons I’ve stayed quiet. It’s good that somebody found/posted the ENTIRE interview. Love him or hate him, he has done some good things for poking holes in the lefts/pedos arguments. And no, he never condoned it, ever. Lobo314’s comment is on the money…

    Liked by 2 people

  10. I agree that the sex laws in this country have gotten out of hand. I’m aware of at least one married couple with children in MN where the father is a registered sex offender for getting her pregnant when she was just under the age of consent (16 there I think) and he was 18. I believe the law has now changed so that if the victim is under 16 there has to be a 4 difference in age to charge someone. But it was kind of ridiculous that they were in a relationship known by their parents and he got charged.

    Like

    1. I’m sure in some jurisdiction somewhere, it’s possible for two people ONE DAY APART in age to screw on one day legally, then for it to be a felony the next day, then for it to be OK the next. In the first case one is 17 years, 364 days old and the other 363. The next day, 18/0 (adult) and 17/364 (minor, jailbait). The day after that both are 18.

      Another weirdness. A high schooler who has been actually banging his girlfriend can get in trouble for having a nude picture of her on his phone, if she’s under 18. “Child Pornography.” So it’s okay to boff her, but not to look at her picture? Huh.

      Like

      1. I think I heard recently about some teenager getting charged for child pornography for having a nude picture of himself on his phone.

        Like

        1. Not the first time. I’ve heard that happens quite a lot.

          Like

  11. Gee, how quickly we forget what used to happen, not really so very long ago, when a 12-year-old girl in a noble family was married without her own consent or counseling to a middle-aged man who just happened to be the king or the duke or whatever, because she was old enough to carry a child and give birth.

    The average age for girls to marry adult men in the Middle Ages was 13. Those were forced, arranged marriages, mostly for political purposes such as securing the throne for one line or another, but the girl still had to breed, and she had to produce an heir or the marriage was almost automatically annulled. Romeo and Juliet? They were both about 14 years old at most and she was about to be betrothed to Count Paris, not such a farfetched story because it happened all the time. Hamlet? About 15. And think how much nastier that play would have been if instead of Hamlet being a boy, he’d been a girl, because Gertrude was either menopausal or close to it and Claudius was desperate to get his claim to the throne of Denmark.

    Real world? Marie Antoinette was 14 years old when she married Louis XVI. Her daughter Marie Therese was her first born and only surviving child, born in 1778 when Marie Antoinette was 23.

    So is this really about age and age differences, or is it about some other unspoken thing that goes on in the minds of people who should the loudest about it?

    I still find Milo’s wiggling and restlessness annoying,

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Oh, thank you little baby Jesus for that last comment. If you think George Takai’s comments about his molestation were just oh myyy! fine, or Alec Baldwin doing Trump is funny, but that the crowd funding to get celebrities like him to take in refugees was not, you’re a hypocrite.

    Like

  13. […] didn’t listen. You silenced academics. You celebrated when the livelihoods of those with whom you disagree were destroyed. You targeted the loved ones of those with whom you disagreed. You proudly proclaimed that your […]

    Like

  14. […] makes Loomer and Posobiec any different than the hysterical turds who shut down Milo Yiannopolous or Ayaan Hirsi […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: