February 20, 2017

Is this the downfall of Milo?

"Milo Yiannopoulos Disinvited From CPAC Over Pedophilia Commentary."

Milo's defense of himself is included at that link:
I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.

I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics. And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. My professional record is very clear.

But I do understand that these videos, even though some of them are edited deceptively, paint a different picture....

324 comments:

1 – 200 of 324   Newer›   Newest»
traditionalguy said...

Milo will prevail censorship from the Legalists. They don't even riot.

Andrew said...

Bum rap!

J. Farmer said...

Damn, now I wish I had waited a little longer and not written half a dozen comments about Milo, pedophilia, and gay male sexual attraction to teenagers in the previous post. Oh well.

Annie C said...

Saw this break several hours ago. Still nothing on Breitbart.

Kevin said...

Is any more evidence needed that CPAC is just another part of the establishment? Running away from controversy is an establishment move.

Unknown said...

The same Milo who got stopped from talking at the University of Berkeley and the Trumpies screamed foul. Funny dat.

Funny as in Liberals know what is going on and the Trumpies need a Trump to tell them what is going on.

n.n said...

This isn't [class] diversity. He should not be judged by the "color of his skin", but rather by the "content of his character". Perhaps in context.

The sexual revolution claims another victim.

Drago said...

Kevin: "Is any more evidence needed that CPAC is just another part of the establishment? Running away from controversy is an establishment move"

My only question is "how did he get invited in the first place".

He's not a CPAC type at all. He's fighting a much larger culture war battle. Naturally, given he endorsed Trump he will need to be destroyed as well.

Earnest Prole said...

Dangerous indeed.

Drago said...

Unknown: "The same Milo who got stopped from talking at the University of Berkeley..."

LOL

What an interesting formulation to offer up instead of the more accurate "leftists shut down speech by rioting, destroying property and violently attacking people".

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

The same Milo who got stopped from talking at the University of Berkeley and the Trumpies screamed foul. Funny dat.

There is a difference between being disinvited by a group that invites you in the first place and being unable to accept an invitation from a group because some other group is threatening physical violence against you and your audience.

Drago said...

Not worry. Something tells me the next time Milo speaks at Berkeley there will a more concerted effort to hold the lefty lunatics accountable, much like the #DisruptJ20 morons that have been arrested.

Well, I say they are morons. "Unknown" thinks of them as modern day minutemen....who probably live at home with mom and are unemployed.

So, you know, quintessential left-wing heroes!

Michael K said...

I was mentioning the attraction of gay men to teenage boys the other day.

I'm not surprised that he acknowledges the situation from the gay side.

It's amusing to see the lefties that preach LGBTQ, scolding him for what is undoubtedly a big part of leftist dogma.

Girls bathrooms anyone ?

Jay Elink said...

Call me paranoid, but my take is:

Someone in the GOPe, such as NR types, saw the video, and edited it to thoroughly discredit Milo (I'm talkin' to YOU, Jonah), THEN they arranged an invitation for him to speak at CPAC , SO they could pounce/denounce him, SO they could effectively destroy him.

I can't prove it, I know, but....cui bono?

Irrespective of this issue, it's a damn shame that Goldberg has become such a Snidely Whiplash.

gbarto said...

I was a bit surprised that he might be asked to speak at CPAC. He is more libertarian than conservative and I didn't know if his flamboyance would play there.

When I was in college, we had Jesse Jackson, Pat Buchanan and Gilbert Gottfried do his bit about Kurt Waldheim "accidentally appearing to" salute Hitler. We thought it was broadening. I think a speech at Berkeley would also have been broadening. That CPAC canceled him puts them, uncomfortably, in the same spot as Berkeley and vice versa. They're both echo chambers. I'd expect this of CPAC. One would wish to expect better of the university where the free speech movement took off.

n.n said...

Despite projections of bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy), it is possible to offer principled objection to a presenter. For example, an American could offer principled opposition to an advocate of abortion chambers, Planned Parenthood (e.g. clinical cannibalism), [class] diversity (e.g. racism, sexism), congruence ("=") or selective exclusion, social justice adventures (e.g. elective regime changes, forced refugee crises, extra-judicial trials, public and private targeting), scientific mysticism (e.g. catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, spontaneous human conception), redistributive change (i.e. monopolies and practices), establishment of the Pro-Choice (i.e. selective, opportunistic, unprincipled) Church, etc. Hopefully, the questions are on topic, and in context, and there is no progressive or liberal presumption of guilt or guilt by association ("color of skin").

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

It's amusing to see the lefties that preach LGBTQ, scolding him for what is undoubtedly a big part of leftist dogma.

Girls bathrooms anyone ?


The stupidest thing about the LGBTQ word salad is that it conflates sexual orientation with gender identity, which are two completely different phenomenon. There is no reason for a gay man to feel any special connection to a man who wants to mutilate his body.

clint said...

Prediction: This will have as large an effect on Milo as the phrase "white supremacist" has had on Steve Bannon.

It will become the go-to slanderous tag-line in the MSM and on the left anytime Milo's name is mentioned. And most on the right won't buy it.

Bob Loblaw said...

The same Milo who got stopped from talking at the University of Berkeley and the Trumpies screamed foul.

Yes, surprisingly people react negatively to those sorts of brownshirt tactics.

Robin Eatmon said...

I find Milo interesting and I think he is a truth teller in the style of Joan Rivers...remembering the Bill Maher interview. I think CPAC should have read his statement before disinviting him.

Humperdink said...

Probably a deal breaker all the way around for Milo.

He toast with the left because he's a conservative. Toast with the right because of the accusation. True or not, he got too close to the third rail. The only thing worse would have been if he had kicked a dog (caught on video).

He'll be off everyone's radar in a few weeks.

n.n said...

Michael K:

If anything, his public acknowledgement and rejection of a male transgender/homosexual orientation with a trans-social orientation (e.g. pedophilia), would cast him as a whistleblower with insider knowledge. That's actually a good thing. We should be careful to not judge by him by the "color of his skin" (i.e. [class] diversity). Transgender individuals are clearly not a monolithic class by virtue of their unprincipled orientation.

Rick said...

Ah, the old deceptively edited claim.

J. Farmer said...

There is a difference between being disinvited by a group that invites you in the first place and being unable to accept an invitation from a group because some other group is threatening physical violence against you and your audience.


There's a big difference in the reasons also. Dancing around pedophilia isn't remotely the same as arguing against radical feminism. Conflating the justifications loses the distinction that one is a crime and the other is politics.

Sebastian said...

Unlike UC Berkeley (supposedly, anyway), CPAC is an ideological organization and can limit itself to speakers that support its cause.

Still, if logic matters on the left, this should be the beginning of Milo's real rise, since his vilification as pedophile is much more unfair than Polanski's rape conviction. No doubt they will all rally to the cause of this gay child-abuse victim making the case for a standard gay-male preference. Before long UC-B will invite him back and celebrate him, right?

Rae said...

If he comes out as a Muslim he will be warmly embraced by the left.

PaoloP said...

I despise Milo's position on this issue and I'd him keep far from my sons.

If he had said such a thing in the 70s, he'd have been considered an intriguing transgressive explorer of the humanities [I hope I'm getting the English consecutio temporum right].
Today everybody say this is a horrible thing but I really can't understand what the liberal criticism could be, given they are willing to "acknowledge" a child's ability to discern his(xer?) "gender identity".

n.n said...

There is no reason for a gay man to feel any special connection to a man who wants to mutilate his body.

That's a good point. The transgender spectrum is wide, even colorful. The homosexual orientation is no exception. There doesn't exists a one-to-one relationship between transgender/homosexual and transgender/crossover. They reflect different behavioral characteristics with different implications. The latter is clearly a more dissonant state with far-reaching personal and societal consequences.

Michael K said...

Dancing around pedophilia isn't remotely the same as arguing against radical feminism.

Definitions are important and often ignored.

Milo's self defense comments were edited out of the video, I understand. This is one edited segment.

“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… 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.”

The Catholic priests who got caught up in the hysteria a few years ago were mostly homosexual men attracted to teenagers. There were every few true pedophiles. A couple were convicted and one was murdered in prison.

CPAC was probably not a venue that would be good for him anyway but this is just the left showing its hypocrisy once again.

MaxedOutMama said...

Unknown - One may not like Milo at all, but feel strongly that the rioters' veto is anathema. I do. Once any group has accepted the idea that violence is speech, they have discredited themselves in the eyes of most of the country. Certainly in mine. Nor will I ever accept a description of violent censorship of pure speech as "liberal".

Voltaire? I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? (Supposedly from Hall, not directly Voltaire). In any case, it's a big piece of the Western Enlightenment.

I happen to believe that the NAMBLA crew are sick beyond belief, but I do believe they have the right to advocate for their beliefs. I wouldn't recommend that they be invited to speak anywhere, but I would absolutely say that the police force of the state should be deployed to prevent violent prevention of their speech if they were.

Liberals in the west have not traditionally stood for the idea of speech suppression! I am astonished that you would think you could slide this over without being called on it at the Althouse blog. That's akin to announcing you are a Druid in a Catholic seminary. You must expect and accept some dispute over doctrine.

Just look at the Althousian censorship doctrine on this blog! She allows everything, even that abhorrent to her, unless it is abusive of others or appears intended to destroy the forum itself (as far as I can tell). Speech-wise, this is something of a cathedral. As such, it is liberal. What you are espousing is the antithesis!

Martin said...

I think you will see very little effect except that social conservatives, who should have been put off all along, now will be. But Milo's appeal has never been to the Ted Cruz crowd, anyway. His support is from socially permissive or libertarian nationalists, and their reaction will be that it's no surprise that he was abused as a child, and poorly wording some comments on pedophilia will not be a deal-breaker.

Frankly, the idea of Milo as keynote speaker at CPAC struck me as weird before I heard anyone had a specific problem... he is NOT a movement conservative and while he would have been an appropriate speaker on the program, having him as keynote only makes sense if it was to take advantage of his current celebrity.

Drago said...

Rae: "If he comes out as a Muslim he will be warmly embraced by the left"

If Milo became a muslim the left would actually cover up any crimes he decided to commit. As we saw with Rotherham.

J. Farmer said...

@Rick:

Dancing around pedophilia isn't remotely the same as arguing against radical feminism.

He wasn't dancing around pedophilia. He was discussing adult gay men having sex with male teenagers. Now that's a controversial topic of discussion in its own right, but it essentially comes down to an argument over where to draw the boundaries in age of consent. It has nothing to do with pedophilia.

Birches said...

Ummm, two of my gay friends had some older man show them the ropes while they were in HS or shortly thereafter. I thought everyone knew this was a thing.

CPAC and Milo was probably always a bad fit. But I find it so intriguing they keep going after him from both sides.

eric said...

I don't know if this is the end of Milo. I thought several times during the election it would be the end of Trump. I guess we will see.

That being said, we have a lot of BS talk in this country about pedophilia. When I was 8 years old my neighbor raped me, repeatedly. This is pedophilia. When an older teacher has sex with a teenage boy, this is not pedophilia. This is sexual assault because the younger boy isn't old enough to consent.

In one of the video's they are discussing the age of consent. Milo seems to indicate that 13 can be old enough to consent (Basically arguing that some 13 year olds are more mature than others). I think he's wrong. He does go on to say that he thinks the current laws are about right. Although he didn't flesh this out, he's probably saying that one size fits all laws aren't accurate for everyone, but it's about right since we wouldn't be able to tell which 13 year olds are mature enough for such decisions.

Regardless, this isn't a discussion on pedophilia and it annoys the crap out of me that people are making it such. After you've hit puberty it is sexual assault, not pedophilia.

In one of the video's he is talking to Joe Rogin and they talk about having sex with 15 year old girls and Joe calls him sick and says he would never do it.

This is just dumb. Their are a gazillion 15 year old girls out there who dress and look 30 and who you don't know are 15 until someone tells you they are. Being attracted to these 15 year old girls doesn't make one "Sick" or a pedophile. You're attracted to them because they look like fully grown, mature, women.

The first season winner of Last Comic Standing had as one of his jokes something along the lines of (Not a direct quote), "I was watching women's gymnastics the other day, I didn't know I was a pedophile....." and he just leaves it hanging there.

I guess my rambling point here is, we are having two different discussions.

Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent humans. Being attracted to humans after they've hit puberty isn't sick or wrong. Having sexual relations with them is sexual assault, because it's prior to the age they can make those decisions.

I'm glad this has come up, because maybe we need a discussion like this. John Stossel wants did a show about how crazy our laws are in regards to sex offender registration. Aren't all sex offenders sick and disgusting and we want to know where they live? Sure, lets make some laws!

The problem is, he highlighted one guy who was a sex offender in Texas because he was 19 and his girlfriend was 16 and they were having sex. The parents knew about the relationship and were ok with it. One day, the parents got angry with the boyfriend and called the cops. By the time the cops arrived, they had changed their mind but it was too late. Arrest made, 19 year old added to sex offender registration. Fast forward 10 years. Boy is now 29. He is married to his once 16 year old girlfriend. They have 3 daughters. He cannot take his 3 daughters to the park because of his registered sex offender status.

n.n said...

Rick:

Actually, a pedophile orientation is not equivalent to its expression. Also, radical feminism that normalized the elective abortion, for causes other than self-defense, of over one million, particularly wholly innocent, human lives annually in America alone is clearly the greater immediate threat to individuals, society, and humanity. Neither is politics. The former is not a crime until realized. The latter is not a crime under the State-established Pro-Choice Church and liberal judgment, and not a violation of human rights under the twilight faith. [class] diversity that judges people by "the color of their skin" (e.g. "radical" feminism) is also technically not a crime under the same legalistic regime.

eric said...

Blogger Birches said...
Ummm, two of my gay friends had some older man show them the ropes while they were in HS or shortly thereafter. I thought everyone knew this was a thing.


Isn't this a thing with all humans, gay or straight?

Or are you saying you're not attracted to high school girls?

There's a line from the movie, "Dazed and Confused" where Matthew McConaughey is asked why he continues to hang out with high school kids when he is no longer in high school and he answers, "Because I keep getting older, but they stay the same age."

eric said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rick:

Dancing around pedophilia isn't remotely the same as arguing against radical feminism.

He wasn't dancing around pedophilia. He was discussing adult gay men having sex with male teenagers. Now that's a controversial topic of discussion in its own right, but it essentially comes down to an argument over where to draw the boundaries in age of consent. It has nothing to do with pedophilia.


I think a lot of people don't realize this, J. Farmer, and they conflate the two things. Having sex with a 16 year old girl? That's the same thing as having sex with a 3 year old girl! Sick!

Unknown said...

"Ummm, two of my gay friends had some older man show them the ropes while they were in HS or shortly thereafter. I thought everyone knew this was a thing."

Now rightists embrace and normalize adults engaging in sex with underage young people? What next Golden Showers are healthy? Oh never mind.

J. Farmer said...

@Birches:

I thought everyone knew this was a thing.

It is very well known in the gay community, but a lot of gay people (particularly activists) do not like discussing it publicly for the exact reason that you are seeing now: the nuance of any discussion will immediately be thrown out the window in favor of shrieking "pedophile," "child abuse," etc. Gay men are particularly sensitive to the charge of being predatory on "children."

That said, when I first started going to gay nightclubs in my late teens, it was primarily a college crowd (late teens and early 20s) but there were always a coterie of men over 40 in the wings. Most of us were creeped out by what we considered "perverts."

exiledonmainstreet said...

J. Farmer, reading what you said about gay male vs. lesbian attraction to teenagers reminded me of what the late conservative bisexual humorist Florence King wrote. She also noticed that May-December lesbian relationships are uncommon and said the real reason is that no middle aged woman wants to take off her clothes in front of a very young woman, no matter how much she might lust after her.

I defer to Miss King (and yes, she preferred being addressed as Miss) on this subject.

eric said...

Blogger Unknown said...
"Ummm, two of my gay friends had some older man show them the ropes while they were in HS or shortly thereafter. I thought everyone knew this was a thing."

Now rightists embrace and normalize adults engaging in sex with underage young people? What next Golden Showers are healthy? Oh never mind.


It's sinful and in need of God's saving Grace. Just as having sexual relations outside of marriage. Do you know that's a thing too? Does me telling you "It's a thing" mean I embrace it and normalize it?

I'm worried for you if you don't realize those questions are rhetorical.

J. Farmer said...

@exiledonmainstreet:

I defer to Miss King (and yes, she preferred being addressed as Miss) on this subject.

That's actually an interesting perspective that takes into a count the lack of top/bottom dynamics among lesbians that are present for heterosexuals and gay men. In both situations, there is a passive, receptive partner. That is not true of lesbian dynamics, per se.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Robert Ross, Oscar Wilde's first gay lover, was 17 when he seduced Wilde. Dorian Gray, which was written after that, freezes Dorian at - 17.

I have never heard Wilde denounced as or even described as being a "pedophile."

Drago said...

Unknown: "Now rightists embrace and normalize adults engaging in sex with underage young people? What next Golden Showers are healthy? Oh never mind"

We'll know you are serious leftist and member of #Resist if you develop the capability to include a minimum of 4 false memes in an assertion instead of the rather pedestrian 2 false memes.

You are going to have to up your game unless you are happy with your role as lefty protest cannon fodder.

CStanley said...

J Farmer, not sure if you saw my responses in the other thread.

I agree that what Milo advocates is much different than pedophilia, and less psychologically twisted- I just disagree that it is acceptable. I welcome him bringing up the topic though and putting it out there for people to discuss. As Eric says, this is really about age ogpf consent and I think society is fairly schizophrenic over that, and it would be better for people to debate the topic.

n.n said...

Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent humans. Being attracted to humans after they've hit puberty isn't sick or wrong. Having sexual relations with them is sexual assault, because it's prior to the age they can make those decisions.

This is an important and clear distinction. The gray area exists after puberty and before the age of consent.

That said, this diversion on a tangent to settled issues is a reason why conservatives prefer to avoid disruptive spectacles, but it is a mischaracterization to transpose cause and effect, and proportion, as was seen in Berkley, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, DC, etc.

Drago said...

CStanley: "I agree that what Milo advocates is much different than pedophilia, and less psychologically twisted- I just disagree that it is acceptable."

Milo was explicit about saying the current laws (with current age breakouts) are "about right".

But there has long been a conversation as to the sexual and maturity questions concerning kids in their upper teens.

The age of consent in Canada is 16 with the US states captured between 16 and 18.

AReasonableMan said...

RedState said ...
"Being protested doesn’t violate someone’s First Amendment rights. It’s pretty ludicrous to claim that someone who regularly writes for an outlet with a large web footprint, appears on major television shows, and is promoting a book is having is free speech rights infringed upon.

The Bill of Rights guarantees you the right to say what you want. It does not guarantee you a venue. Nor does it obligate anyone to pay attention. What is happening on college campuses with regard to public discourse is bad, but being cancelled as a guest speaker because of protests isn’t a Constitutional issue any more than getting banned from Twitter or Facebook is. At best Milo’s schtick is exposing intolerance and hypocrisy on campus, which doesn’t exactly make him unique.

The irony of it all is that CPAC rescinded its invitation to Milo for basically the same reasons as various college campuses have. People don’t like him and the things he says. If Milo’s fight with a bunch of university social justice warriors is a violation of his Constitutional rights, then so is his being disinvited from speaking at CPAC."

Drago said...

"I have never heard Wilde denounced as or even described as being a "pedophile."

Doesn't advance the lefty narrative.

J. Farmer said...

@CStanley:

I did read your response in the last post. Sorry it gets confusing with the topic spilling over into two posts. I think we are pretty much in agreement, though I am probably a little more ambivalent on the topic. Leaving the legal question of consent aside, it really comes down to a case-by-case basis. I do not doubt that there are 16-year-old males that can enter into a mutually enjoyable sexual encounter with an older male without there being any serious disturbance or exploitation on either side.

The largest age discrepancy I ever had with a sexual partner was 12 years. I was 31, and he was 19. And even though there were no consent laws in question, I was quite uneasy about the relationship. Then again, I also spent a good deal of my 20s in southeast Asia, which is pretty much ground zero for those types of relationships. Human sexuality is a messy endeavor. I could probably make forceful arguments for and against Milo's position.

Unknown said...

Good find ARM @3:40PM.

Drago said...

An interesting "tell" in ARM's post: No link.

Tell us ARM, why might you have "forgotten" to include the link to the Redstate article?

Is it possible the Redstate article did not address what happened at Berkeley and was addressing some other topic?

Unknown said...

More hypocrisy on the right...
Dennis Hastert is trying to get his hush money back from one of his underage victims for not keeping his promise to keep silent.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I'm glad this has come up, because maybe we need a discussion like this. John Stossel wants did a show about how crazy our laws are in regards to sex offender registration. Aren't all sex offenders sick and disgusting and we want to know where they live? Sure, lets make some laws!"

There was a case here in Wisconsin where an 18 year old boy was sentenced to prison for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, who was just a few months younger than he was. They had dated each other all though high school, but the girl's mother decided she didn't like him and so called the cops on him a few days after he turned 18.

He's now in jail, his youth and future in ruins.

FullMoon said...

Birches said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Ummm, two of my gay friends had some older man show them the ropes while they were in HS or shortly thereafter. I thought everyone knew this was a thing.....


Probably a lot of distress is because some would argue the older man "made" the teen into a homosexual.

Drago said...

Unknown: "More hypocrisy on the right..."

LOL

I missed the standing ovation for Denny Hastert by conservatives.

However, if you want to see a standing ovation for someone who drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl, here go dips***: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

Remember, all that Hollywood praise was after Polanski admitted he drugged and then anally raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl.

My my. The lefties sure are on their high horses about this aren't they. Something tells me perhaps its time for the Justice department to open a full-scale investigation into what all those lefty producers and directors et al are doing with the underage kids in Hollywood.

Yes indeed. Perhaps its time.

Unknown said...

Not from me. I do not like media bullies from the left or the right. It does make me think even less of republicans using democrat tactics than I already did.

Ron said...

A major blow to DC pizza parlors. Sad. No pun intended.

AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
An interesting "tell" in ARM's post: No link.


Seriously, you are incapable of using Google?

Drago said...

Perhaps the Justice department could start here: https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/an-open-secret-hollywood-underage-sex-abuse-documentary?utm_term=.ukBYbxbmn2#.iv02vOvwad

I'm sure "unknown" would love to see an investigation of all this kicked off, eh?

Of course, it would mean a reduction in available cash for democratic candidates but it would be worth it, wouldn't it?

snip: "The documentary creates a stark and sobering portrait of a loose network of Hollywood professionals — some outsize personalities like Collins-Rector, others Hollywood insiders with far smaller profiles — who use their positions of power and influence to sexually abuse and exploit underage (in the film’s case, male) actors whose nascent careers they’re supposed to be supporting. The movie, directed by the Oscar-nominated filmmaker Amy Berg (Deliver Us From Evil), premiered to some fanfare last November at the DOC NYC festival. But despite Berg’s pedigree and its startling, headline-grabbing subject matter, no top-tier distributors picked up the film for release."

Well well. It appears all those lefties weren't too keen on publicizing this ground-breaking work were they?

I wonder what it is that could have caused so many leftist Billionaires and Millionaires to want to stifle this little effort?

Drago said...

ARM: "Seriously, you are incapable of using Google?"

Seriously, you are incapable of including a link?

And wow, that is some interesting pushback for a pretty standard request.

It's almost like you don't want to provide a link.

It's almost EXACTLY like you don't want to provide a link.

CStanley said...

I do not doubt that there are 16-year-old males that can enter into a mutually enjoyable sexual encounter with an older male without there being any serious disturbance or exploitation on either side.

It's not unlike speed limits IMO. Everyone drives at least five miles over the speed limit on highways, but that doesn't mean we should raise it by 5 mph. People push the limits all the time, and most times there's no disastrous consequence, but if we're going to put societal and/or legal limits at all it's because we recognize the potential harm. Part of that is recognizing that people are going to push past whatever limit is set, so the boundary should err on the more restrictive side.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Not from me. I do not like media bullies from the left or the right."

LOL

exiledonmainstreet said...

"My my. The lefties sure are on their high horses about this aren't they. Something tells me perhaps its time for the Justice department to open a full-scale investigation into what all those lefty producers and directors et al are doing with the underage kids in Hollywood."

According to Corey Feldman, Corey Haim was just 11 when he was molested by Hollywood types:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3611046/I-molested-passed-Corey-Feldman-details-horrors-Hollywood-pedophile-ring-reveals-Corey-Haim-just-11-raped-leading-life-drugs.html

The same liberals who so piously detest Donald Trump. The same people Inga idolizes.

Did Milo say he was actually involved in a relationship with a minor? No. He's saying he was in a relationship when he was a minor. He hasn't victimized anybody.

But the vile hypocrite Inga accuses us of being hypocrites.

Look in the mirror, "Unknown."

roesch/voltaire said...


There is nothing wrong with sex with a thirteen year-old, just ask the early Mormons. The problem is the power relationship of unequals that calls this into doubt, but I am glad that Milo states his opinion so we know what he is about.

CStanley said...

One of the reasons I think CPAC erred is that the conversation opened up by MIlo has all the potential in the world of blowing up on progressives. Drago's link about the rot in Hollywood is a good example of what should be exposed, and Milo's controversial statements are the sunlight disinfectant.

eric said...

Here's the link:

http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2017/02/20/cpac-faceplant-jumping-off-control-bandwagon/

exiledonmainstreet said...


"There is nothing wrong with sex with a thirteen year-old, just ask the early Mormons. "

That's kind of old for Muslims. Mohammed married an 8 year old.

Drago said...

roesch/Voltaire: "There is nothing wrong with sex with a thirteen year-old, just ask the early Mormons."

Wow.

The early Mormons eh?

I guess you've been missing all the underage girl sex slavery happening right now across the globe by the muslims.

But hey, "early Mormons" is such an edgy target.

Drago said...

eric: "Here's the link:

http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2017/02/20/cpac-faceplant-jumping-off-control-bandwagon/"

Already had it.

And once again it is interesting that ARM and the other lefties are conflating having invitations to speak withdrawn with standard issue Marxist violence used to shut down others from speaking.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"This disturbing trend has been highlighted this week by revelations that, during an undercover investigation, two imams from Islamic centres, one based in Peterborough, the other in East London, expressed their willingness to marry an under-age Muslim girl — aged just 12 — to a man in his 20s under the aegis of Sharia law."

Any problem with that, roesch/Voltaire?







Unknown said...

Hahahaha, this is rich. Gay people can't stand him.

http://www.joemygod.com/2017/02/19/clip-surfaces-homocon-milo-defending-pedophilia-video/

"Clips Surface Of Homocon Milo Defending Pedophilia: I Give Good Head Because Of Father Michael [VIDEO

There’s much more at the link above. Yiannopoulos has responded on his Facebook page:

"There’s a video going around that purports to show me saying anti-semitic things (nope) and advocating for pedophilia (big nope). The shocking thing? It’s Republicans doing it. Sad to see establishment types collapse into the same tactics as social justice warriors: name calling, deceptively edited videos, confected moral outrage and public shaming. This is why they deserve to burn — and why they are burning. Here’s how I actually feel about pedophilia, which you’d know if you’d actually watched or read anything I’ve ever done. Or, you know, if you had two brain cells to rub together. There’s only one appropriate response to this sort of behavior, and it’s a gigantic FUCK YOU!""

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

ARM it is really stupid to equate a private political organization canceling an invitation they made with a public university canceling an invitation a student group made because the university could not guarantee the safety of the speaker or participating students.

This is an example of how far gone the leftists are. They equate political violence from their side with speech from the other side.

I have always been a liberal but these Leftist sicken me.

Drago said...

Here you go R/V: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11057647/Rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-1400-children-exploited-by-Asian-gangs-while-authorities-turned-a-blind-eye.html

Just a little tale of hundreds of muslims abusing hundreds of underage girls while lefty politicians turned a blind eye.

And there's nothing "early" about these muslims or leftists. They are the "right now" muslims and lefties.

So, to summarize: Lefties conspiring to shield muslims from accountability for sexually abusing underage girls...right now.

But hey everyone, look at Milo!

Well played Polanski-fans, well played.

J. Farmer said...

@CStanley:

Everyone drives at least five miles over the speed limit on highways, but that doesn't mean we should raise it by 5 mph.

I agree with that. If the age of consent were, say, 15, I probably wouldn't be too bothered, but I think that's pretty much the floor. I'd have a hard time being convinced to go any lower. Currently, the age of consent is around 16-18. I think that gets it about right.

I think Milo was arguing more against a cultural bias than make any kind of actual legal or political point. He was saying that sexual relationships between adults and minors is not always exploitive and destructive. I think most sensible people would agree with that. But again, that's not an argument for necessarily for changing any laws.

Drago said...

Bill, Republic of Texas: "ARM it is really stupid to equate a private political organization canceling an invitation they made with a public university canceling an invitation a student group made because the university could not guarantee the safety of the speaker or participating students."

No, he's not stupid.

He knows exactly what he is doing and why it's wrong. But he does it anyway.

Fen's Law, over and over again.

Oso Negro said...

"Age of consent" varies wildly from culture to culture. The construct of "mature enough to consent to sexual relations" has no scientific basis whatever. I would guess that biological maturity is the historic dividing line. I suspect that the increase in age of consent in this country can be laid at the feet of feminism.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Hahahaha, this is rich. Gay people can't stand him"

LOL

This just in: Unknown finally comes to understand what everyone else understood 24 months ago: Trump is opposed by the entire establishment wings of both parties!

Way to catch up Unknown! Way to go!

This is a big step for you, only being 24 months behind everyone else.

I think if you apply yourself over an extended period of time you might be able to reach a point of competence where you are only about 18 months behind everyone else!

Remember, it's the "little victories".

Steve said...

So Milo gets fucked one more time.

CStanley said...

Agree JFarmer, but the one part of Milos statement that bothered me a bit more was that he talked favorably about older men mentoring younger men while engaging in sexual relationships. That blurs some other lines that I think ought not be blurred, and encourages men to rationalize their predatory behavior in some cases. "I'm not exploiting him for my sexual pleasure, I'm helping him figure out his sexual identity!"

Bob Boyd said...

I wonder if a parade of guys will come out now and say Milo abused them when they were young.
I hope not.

Drago said...

exiledonmainstreet: "Any problem with that, roesch/Voltaire?"

Let me help you here exile: Does this involve a muslim?

Yes.

Then for R/V and the entire left, the answer to your question is automatically "no".

Female Genital Mutilation? No problemo!
Honor killings? What's the diff?

If you want R/V to side against something, you are going to have to convince him/her that it's something the "early Mormons" did.

CStanley said...

So negro- maybe so, but the disparity between age of consent and actual maturity (as in, able to support oneself) is too great. It may be very possible for humans to develop psychologically to the point of being able to engage in consensual relationships during early adolescence, if that culture also promoted other aspects of psychological development for young people. Instead, we coddle kids and have no expectation of real maturity, but expect also that they are going to have sex so we pretend we're setting up a system under which they can do it "safely".

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this disparity has grown since the sexual revolution and the advent of the pill and abortion on demand.

Earnest Prole said...

There is nothing wrong with sex with a thirteen year-old, just ask the early Mormons.

Early Mormons? Hell, just ask Myra Gale Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis’ thirteen-year-old cousin, whom he married in 1958.

Jupiter said...

AReasonableMan said...
"RedState said ...
The irony of it all is that CPAC rescinded its invitation to Milo for basically the same reasons as various college campuses have. People don’t like him and the things he says. If Milo’s fight with a bunch of university social justice warriors is a violation of his Constitutional rights, then so is his being disinvited from speaking at CPAC."

Not sure where you're headed with that, ARM, but Milo's invitation to speak at Berkley was not "rescinded" by the people who invited him. Milo was prevented from speaking to the people who had invited him, and wanted to hear him speak, by a bunch of Leftist thugs. I assume you are OK with that.

J. Farmer said...

@CStanley:

That blurs some other lines that I think ought not be blurred, and encourages men to rationalize their predatory behavior in some cases.

Agree, but consider the behavior of many young adult men in this world. They go to bars, find women who are liquored up, whisper sweet nothings in their air and spin a bunch of game, bring the woman back home with them, sleep with them, send them packing, and never talk to them again. No law was broken, but I would say that's way more exploitive and predatory than a 16-year-old male who out of sexual desire agrees to a sexual encounter with an older male out of either pure lust or experimentation or curiosity.

Also, without getting too much into the mechanics of things, there are already defined power dynamics in gay male relationships. One person tends to be the receptive partner and the other the projective partner. Do you think these roles matter? That is, if the minor is the top/dom in the relationship, is that qualitatively different than if he is the bottom/sub? I have no answer; I'm just musing out loud. And come to think of it, this conversation may be getting a little far afield.

Bay Area Guy said...

I want to be sensitive here, because in the modern era we all have gay & lesbian friends, co-workers and even a few family members. I'm cool with that. But:

In the 70s, before the gays got all chic and political and militant and organized, it was generally believed that gays (not Lesbians) were gay because they had been molested as children by men. To deal with the shame, guilt and confusion, they became gay themselves.

Just throwing it out there, not picking a fight, not hammering anyone, not expressing latent homophobia, not even defending that position. Just describing a fairly prominent meme of the era - before there were memes.

pkay said...

Milo was kind of a one-trick pony (pun not intended). I think this revelation humanizes him, as his sex life was part of his shtick. Now he is complicated and messy like the rest of us.

Lydia said...

Publishers Weekly has just announced that Simon & Schuster has cancelled its $250,000 book deal with Milo.

Ann Althouse said...

"I have never heard Wilde denounced as or even described as being a "pedophile.""

I sure have. Try reading a recent biography.

Bob Loblaw said...

It's not unlike speed limits IMO. Everyone drives at least five miles over the speed limit on highways, but that doesn't mean we should raise it by 5 mph. People push the limits all the time, and most times there's no disastrous consequence, but if we're going to put societal and/or legal limits at all it's because we recognize the potential harm.

I think that's a terribly unfair way to enforce laws, with the prime example above of an 18 year old getting arrested for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. People who are doing the same thing as everyone else, the normal and expected thing, end up doing years in the state pen because some local prosecutor is traying to make a name for himself.

I feel the same way about speed limits - they ought to be raised to something reasonable and then strictly enforced. I don't appreciate getting a speeding ticket because a cop is going off shift soon and hasn't satisfied his "guideline" for tickets.

J. Farmer said...

@Ann Althouse:

I sure have. Try reading a recent biography.

Do you have a particular one in mind? I read Ellamn's biography (granted it's not recent), and I read The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde by Neil McKenna, which focused almost exclusively on Wilde's sexuality, and I don't recall him ever being referred to as a pedophile.

Unknown said...

"Publishers Weekly has just announced that Simon & Schuster has cancelled its $250,000 book deal with Milo."

The tide is turning, decent people have awakened and are fighting back.

J. Farmer said...

@Bay Area Guy:

In the 70s, before the gays got all chic and political and militant and organized, it was generally believed that gays (not Lesbians) were gay because they had been molested as children by men. To deal with the shame, guilt and confusion, they became gay themselves.

That certainly persists and is a really phenomenon. But it's a question of causation and correlation. It could very well be that whatever was going on that would result in those children growing up to be homosexual men also made them more likely to be victims of sexual abuse. Perhaps they were easier to groom, etc. We do not know. But because homosexuality is not a singular phenomenon, there probably is not going to be any singular cause. You have gays who were "born that way," gays who were made gay because of early life experiences, and then some combination of the two. In Freud's time, homosexuality was thought of a response to pathology in the mother-son relationship. The most truthful answer, putting all the politics aside, is that nobody really knows the answer.

What does seem to be pretty true, though, is that regardless of cause, sexual orientation in men tends to be pretty fixed by the time adolescence roles around.

J. Farmer said...

@Uknown:

The tide is turning, decent people have awakened and are fighting back.

You poor thing. I can only imagine what must be missing from your actual life that you are so reliant on attention from anonymous internet commenters.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Another example is my nephew. He was over 18 and his girlfriend was 16 when they started. The nephew was real immature and not too bright. Anyway.

The law said he can have any type of sex with her. It was perfectly legal. She texted him some photos of her topless. He lost his phone one day and the person who found it reported the photos to the cops. He admitted the phone and photos were his and he was arrested and convicted of child porn.

How does it make any sense.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Althouse wrote:
"I sure have. Try reading a recent biography."

Can you recommend one? Like J. Farmer, I read Ellman's biography of Wilde, which came out in the 80's.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Oops, I just now noticed that J. Farmer had posed the same question. I didn't mean to echo him.

Drago said...

unknown: "The tide is turning, decent people have awakened and are fighting back"

Here are some of the lefties "fighting back" against the republicans and their policies: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/january/ms13_011408

Drago said...

it's always good to remember this lefty rule of thumb: It's not sexual assault if muslims do it.

Sebastian said...

"a lot of gay people (particularly activists) do not like discussing it publicly" A lot of people do not like discussing a lot of things publicly, particularly the details of gay sex. Maybe Randy Shilts was the last?

Of course, all of this is beside the point. The point is that the left now has a way to bludgeon Milo, and they will. The what-about-Polanski bit falsely assumes they value logic and have a sense of shame.

Trumpit said...

“Colossal misjudgment,” Rich Lowry, editor of National Review wrote on Twitter. “Now CPAC has put itself in the role of ‘censor.’ And for what? Some clicks and headlines?”

The notion of consent, Milo says, is “arbitrary and oppressive.”

If you disagree with Milo, you should debate him, not shut him up. It serves the hypocritical, scandal-plagued right-wingers right for suppressing free speech by calling it all "fake news." They embraced Milo, now they reject him. Being controversial means that not everyone agrees with you. Trump wants "easy questions" from the press. Who the hell does he think he is? The President of the U.S.?

Drago said...

Sebastian: "Of course, all of this is beside the point. The point is that the left now has a way to bludgeon Milo, and they will. The what-about-Polanski bit falsely assumes they value logic and have a sense of shame"

We all understand that Milo will be "convicted" of that which he did not do nor advocate for by the left while the left simultaneously lauds individuals who are actually guilty of such activity.

That does not mean we should let the false accusations fly by without mentioning the actual crimes committed and defended by leftists.

The point is not to "convince" the leftists of anything. Being leftists, that would is impossible.

Unknown said...

JFarmer,

I can only imagine what is missing from yours to even make such a stupid comment. And here I thought you might actually be an intelligent person from your past comments, thanks for the heads up. An adult male having sex with a 13 year old is indecent, no matter how much you attempt to argue it isn't.

Drago said...

Trumpit takes time out from defending muslim sex slavery to denounce Milo for nothing.

Thanks Trumpit!

Drago said...

Unknown: "An adult male having sex with a 13 year old is indecent, no matter how much you attempt to argue it isn't."

LOL

It's even more indecent when the 13 year old is drugged.

It's even more catastrophically indecent when the whole of left wing Hollywood, the source of so much democrat cash, gives a standing ovation to it.

To absolutely no complaints by the Trumpits, ARM's or Unknowns of the world.

Well played lefties!

cronus titan said...

Milo was describing ephebophilia, which is a sexual preference of adults for mid to late adolescents (15-19 or so). Technically, he is correct that it is different than pedophilia. But that is a distinction without much difference. The church scandals involved nearly exclusively gay men attracted to boys that age. This is a fair rap against Milo (even if overstated a little bit). There is not much difference between a 13 year old and a 15-year-old, and defending an adult having sex with one but not the other is silly. Both are wrong.

@Bill, Republic of Texas. No one should be surprised at your story. We have seen similar instances in our area. It mostly happens when parents of a 15 or 16 year old girl find out she is sexually active with a 15-17 year old boy going to the same high school, and they press charges against him. Most states still view that as criminal sexual assault but only by the boy and parents have grown much more aggressive in pressing charges (Lord knows their daughters would never, ever be sexually curious). On the bright side, a young man learning that any encounter, regardless of consent, can turn into a serious criminal matter if the young woman says so later, prepares them well for the modern university.

Unknown said...

There seems to be no depths to which Trumpists will not sink to defend their "politics". One can only hope that conservatives such as those at CPAC continue to act on principle and fight back against the forces that overtook their Party. The rest of us knew exactly what Trump and the Alt Right was all about. Too bad so many of you were duped.

The Godfather said...

Milo is a comic. He could have chosen to be a comic like Will Rogers ("I never met a man I didn't like") -- or Bob Hope for younger readers -- but he chose to be a comic like Lenny Bruce. There are risks involved in that choice. I think it is (almost) unbelieveable that CPAC picked Milo as a speaker. It is certainly not unbelieveable that CPAC dumped him. Nor does it make me think less of either Mile or CPAC.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

An adult male having sex with a 13 year old is indecent, no matter how much you attempt to argue it isn't.

And where have I done that?

You see, there's a difference between people who are actually engaging the topic and discussing it rationally and fairly and people who just keep popping up to reinforce their concern trolling and virtue signaling. If you can't appreciate the difference between those two things, then you can't appreciate differences.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

There seems to be no depths to which Trumpists will not sink to defend their "politics".

Uh, attempting to put Milo's comments in context and pushing back against the false charge of "advocating pedophilia" as nothing to do with anybody's politics. Many of my friends are to my left, did not vote for Trump, and have the same opinion I do about Milo's comments. If you were more interested in attacking ideas than people, you'd have less difficulty with such distinctions.

Snark said...

NAM(BLA)splaining.

Grant said...

Pedophilia Station is definitely a stop on the Normalization Express, but it's still far enough out that the Left doesn't feel obligated to endorse it yet. We've just pulled out of Transgender Station, and Polygamy Station isn't too far off. Let's give the Left time to get all polygynied up (Swinton!) before we expect them to coo over child sex.

J. Farmer said...

@Grant:

Slippery slope fallacy.

It's like saying if a state legalized euthanasia, it will inexorably lead to doctors just blowing away their patients in the waiting room.

Bob Loblaw said...

Milo was describing ephebophilia, which is a sexual preference of adults for mid to late adolescents (15-19 or so). Technically, he is correct that it is different than pedophilia. But that is a distinction without much difference.

No. There's a huge, huge difference between a preference for prepubescent children and a preference for "mid to late adolescents" who are sexually mature. All the difference in the world, IMO.

There is not much difference between a 13 year old and a 15-year-old, and defending an adult having sex with one but not the other is silly. Both are wrong.

You can replace those numbers somewhat arbitrarily depending you your personal view of "wrong". Is it wrong for a seventeen year old to have sex with his sixteen year old girlfriend, and if not, what makes it wrong if the man is 30?

Bay Area Guy said...

@ J Farmer,

I appreciate your comments. It is a sensitive issue that, like a grenade, can burst into multiple directions, causing collateral damage. You have many thoughtful insights, thanks.

My gay and Lesbian friends know that I don't support gay marriage and am not down with the gay political agenda. But we have a "Don't ask, don't tell" modus vivendi that seems to work for us on this issue.

I have another anecdote from the 70s - this time from an old friend of mine, an SF Assistant DA specializing in Vice.

He says that everyone knows the story of The Mitchell Brothers in SF, how young runaway girls would flock from broken families across the country , to SF, and get caught up in drugs and/or prostitution. The attractive ones would be sought out to make a few dollars more as strippers or porn stars.

SF was also a magnet for runaway boys, too - either running from a broken/hostile families or running to the bright lights and excitement of the big city. But there really wasn't a market for gay porn, and no way to eke out even a meager living. At best, these boys could hope to latch onto a rich sugar daddy and be "passed around" to other rich gay elites. The bath houses were where the action was. It was like gay serfdom.

In essence, it degenerated into a form of human trafficking with many casualties. My friend prosecuted many a pimp in the 70s, but said that most of the gay pimping was was protected by the politicians. He said it was tragic, but the DA in the 70s wouldnt touch it.

Unknown said...

Farmer, I know you must relate to the alt right Milo and their philosophy, by your reactions on this thread. Your past comments regarding your anti Israel stance and Milo's anti semitism also jive. You've been blasted by most commenters here for your blatant anti semitism and anti Israeli attitude, now I see that you are simply an Alt Right acolyte. Makes sense now.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Now, wait a minute. Unknown in an earlier thread was clucking about how the Right has abandoned Family Values as shown by the CPAC Milo invitation and how awful that was. CPAC now disinvites Milo...and instead of saying "way to go Right, sticking up for Family Values, good for you" Unknown instead continues to attack the Right?! Gee, it's almost like for Unknown and Company nearly all arguments (including all involving morality) are simply instrumental--they're just handy tools to attack with and don't represent any kind of genuine belief, value, or reasoned argument. Color me shocked.


Unknown said...Now rightists embrace and normalize adults engaging in sex with underage young people? For heaven's sake, Unknown, are you THAT new around here? About once a year we all talk about The Vagina Monologues, that celebrated non-Rightist play performed across this vast nation...and someone always brings up the fact that part of the play discusses a (lesbian) rape of a 13 year old girl (statutory & through the use of alcohol) which part ends with the summation that "if it was a rape, it was a good rape." Which, you know, is pretty outrageous, but also hugely adored and celebrated by the Left.

n.n said...

Conservatives are concerned that exceptional behaviors that may be tolerated on the fringe (e.g. circumstantial) as a natural or legal right may be evidence of a progressive condition. This was exemplified by feminism that radicalized and progressed from equal rights to female chauvinism, presumption of guilt, and abortion rites. The same thing happened with civil rights that progressed from [class] diversity to [class] diversity. Immigration rights that progressed from assimilation and integration to cover-ups of social justice adventures and demographic redistricting. So, age of consent is a settled issue, if not necessarily the age. And there is a concern of another progressive condition to be exploited for democratic leverage, political progress, or by a prejudiced judge.

Bob Loblaw said...

Farmer, I know you must relate to the alt right Milo and their philosophy, by your reactions on this thread.

You haven't been here very long, have you?

Kevin said...

"Milo was prevented from speaking to the people who had invited him, and wanted to hear him speak, by a bunch of Leftist thugs."

Berkeley or CPAC?

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

Farmer, I know you must relate to the alt right Milo and their philosophy, by your reactions on this thread. Your past comments regarding your anti Israel stance and Milo's anti semitism also jive. You've been blasted by most commenters here for your blatant anti semitism and anti Israeli attitude, now I see that you are simply an Alt Right acolyte. Makes sense now.

First, I also used to get blasted on this site regularly as a far leftist because i advocated non-interventionism, so going by how some subgroup reacts to me is not always a fair way to judge someone. Second, as for my "blatant anti-semitism," I challenge you to find a single thing I have ever said in this (or any other comments) thread that is demonstrative of anti-semitism. You can go look through my Disqus profile, too, if you're interested. If you can produce "blatant anti-semitism" on my part, I will send you a cashier's check payable to anyone you prefer for a $1,000. This, I am not "anti-Israeli." I am anti the current US-Israeli relationship. I don't believe in sending Israel taxpayer money, and i don't support providing them diplomatic cover to expand in the West Bank. That the west bank territories are illegal has pretty much been the position of the United States and all our allies for 40 years. It was also the opinion of the Israel foreign ministry's chief counsel in 1967.

Finally, the part you really seem to have a hard time grasping, even if I was "an alt right acolyte" (and I've said many times that I'm sympathetic to much of the alt-right), it would make no difference to whether or not my arguments were right or wrong, logical or illogical, valid or invalid. You're just using the same, tired ad hominem tactic. If someone far to my left said the exact same thing Milo did, I would defend them in the exact same terms. I don't actually defend or attack people depending on their ideological disposition. That doesn't even make sense.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan quoted...The irony of it all is that CPAC rescinded its invitation to Milo for basically the same reasons as various college campuses have. People don’t like him and the things he says. If Milo’s fight with a bunch of university social justice warriors is a violation of his Constitutional rights, then so is his being disinvited from speaking at CPAC

Goodness, is it Bad Arguments day? Did I miss the notice?
No, those two things are not "basically the same." In the case of the colleges he was invited to speak there by an appropriate group and that valid invitation was opposed--to include being violent physically opposed/physically prevented from speaking due to violent attacks--by other people. In the case of CPAC the organization invited him and that same organization rescinded the invitation. There was no inappropriate blocking--there was no outside party preventing the speech from happening against the wishes of the internal party.
See? Those two things aren't similar at all. In both cases some people didn't want to hear Milo speak, but WHO those people are and HOW they went about trying to not hear Milo speak--those things are completely different. Since those things are what's actually important, saying "basically the same" is fucking idiotic. An outside party exercising a heckler's veto by VIOLENT protests (thus making colleges cancel events due to violence/threats to safety) is not at all the same thing as insiders/the people in charge of an event changing their minds about who they invite due to public pressure and/or other speech.

I don't know about the author of that piece, Jim Jamitis, but you're smarter than that, ARM.

bagoh20 said...

Meh.

David said...

One consenting adult is one too few. Always.

cronus titan said...

@Bob "No. There's a huge, huge difference between a preference for prepubescent children and a preference for "mid to late adolescents" who are sexually mature. All the difference in the world, IMO."

The Catholic Church trotted out your theory and got justifiably clobbered for it. Nearly all of their victims were 15 or so, and the abuse continued until the perpetrator lost interest (usually around their 18 birthday). Milo will get clobbered too because very few people think it is okay for an adult (30 years old in your example) to be having sex with a 15 year old.

Then again, maybe Grant has a point. People are indeed trying to normalize sex between adults and teenagers, ultimately with children.

Unknown said...

You must've missed my earlier comment, below.

hoodlum said...
"Now, wait a minute. Unknown in an earlier thread was clucking about how the Right has abandoned Family Values as shown by the CPAC Milo invitation and how awful that was. CPAC now disinvites Milo...and instead of saying "way to go Right, sticking up for Family Values, good for you" Unknown instead continues to attack the Right?!"

I said...
"There seems to be no depths to which Trumpists will not sink to defend their "politics". One can only hope that conservatives such as those at CPAC continue to act on principle and fight back against the forces that overtook their Party. The rest of us knew exactly what Trump and the Alt Right was all about. Too bad so many of you were duped."

2/20/17, 5:04 PM

J. Farmer said...

@Bay Area Guy:

In essence, it degenerated into a form of human trafficking with many casualties. My friend prosecuted many a pimp in the 70s, but said that most of the gay pimping was was protected by the politicians. He said it was tragic, but the DA in the 70s wouldnt touch it.

Yes, all human relationships are prone to pathological abuse. For many women in the world today, marriage is little more than slavery and sexual oppression by a husband in return for the husband providing a basic level of material support. I think that's a dreadful existence, but I do not say "marriage" is to blame. It's just that marriage, as a human arrangement, is prone to abuse.

Let me try to give a more salient example. I used to work with a chatter that operated in northwestern Thailand in the border regions of Thailand, Laos, and Burma. In the course of this work, I became associated with a Thai charity called EMPOWER that advocated for female sex workers. One of the biggest complains they had about the help of governments and NGOs was that many times they would make no distinction between women who had freely chosen prostitution as an occupation versus those who were forced or exploited into it. They argued that this approach decreased the resources to help those most vulnerable and essentially stole a woman's agency, telling them that she didn't make a choice no matter how many she may argue she did.

Achilles said...

This is a link to the full transcript. For the record fuck redstate. I am glad they are dying.

"Yiannopoulos: Of course, of course, and I think 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 wasn't one of those kids. But I had some friends that definitely started in 6th grade and they were very consentful. We watched Clan of the Cave bear in 4th grade for some reason. The wheels were turning.

I can't talk about gay kids. Didn't know many til I got to college. But boys were definitely earlier on the pick up than girls.

"I think the law is probably about right..."

Any outrage over this is a joke.

Lydia said...

Oh no, not Breitbart too: "Employees at Breitbart News are reportedly prepared to leave the company if controversial senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos is not fired".

Achilles said...

bagoh20 said...
Meh.

Kinda want to delete my post and replace it with this.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Farmer, I know you must relate to the alt right Milo and their philosophy, by your reactions on this thread. Your past comments regarding your anti Israel stance and Milo's anti semitism also jive. You've been blasted by most commenters here for your blatant anti semitism and anti Israeli attitude, now I see that you are simply an Alt Right acolyte. Makes sense now.

I don't know J. Farmer personally (or, for that matter, whether that's his actual name), and I'm far more supportive of U.S. policy toward Israel than he is, but it takes a tremendous inability to think to accuse him of anti-Semitism based on anything he's ever written here.

Achilles said...

Lydia said...
Oh no, not Breitbart too: "Employees at Breitbart News are reportedly prepared to leave the company if controversial senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos is not fired".

The Hill. Yeah ok...

Unknown said...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/20/breitbart-news-may-boot-milo-yiannopoulos-over-sex-comments.html

"Milo Yiannopoulos, the provocative conservative journalist who is often portrayed as a champion of the far right, is facing possible dismissal from his employer, Breitbart News, over comments he once made about underage sex, FOX Business has learned.

His possible dismissal could could come by the end of the day, sources from the conservative website told FOX Business. Earlier Monday, Yiannopoulos was disinvited to speak at a gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) scheduled for this weekend."

J. Farmer said...

@Pookie Number 2:

I don't know J. Farmer personally (or, for that matter, whether that's his actual name), and I'm far more supportive of U.S. policy toward Israel than he is, but it takes a tremendous inability to think to accuse him of anti-Semitism based on anything he's ever written here.

I don't take charges like that very seriously, but I do appreciate you speaking out in my favor. Strange how when I say that the US should not encourage reckless behavior by Gulf Arab client states, I never get called out for "blatant anti-Arabism."

Fernandinande said...

Let me get this straight (so to speak) - As a kid Milo was molested by Trump and that's why he's some sort of Republican?

Unknown said...

Pookie, it was not I who accused him of anti semitism in the past on these threads. It was most Althouse commenters who did this, in discussions with him regarding Israel and Palestine. I actually defended him in the past when the majority of commenters here were beating him up.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

You're flailing. My defense of Milo's statements have nothing to do with how much I agree or disagree with his politics. And in fact, if you care to search back through posts where Milo is first being mentioned, I have never actually been a particular fan of his. I think he's mostly about self-promotion and self-aggrandizement than advancing any kind of actual political arguments. I think he's riding the coattails of a movement for his own self-interests. But hell, that would hardly make him unique.

The point is that, in total, I am not much of a fan of Milo at all. But that's a completely separate question from whether or not he advocates pedophilia. I don't believe he has, and I laid out my reasons why. So far your response to my position is to say I'm an "alt-right acolyte." Uhhh....okay?

Freeman Hunt said...

Is this happening because of the word "boys," as in some people thought he meant little boys? Or is the anger over his saying that some younger people might be mentally capable of consent while agreeing that the age of consent is about right?

Unknown said...

Farmer,

"Flailing"? You are looking to argue with someone, in one of your endless hours long arguments. it won't be me. I don't really care about your positions. And I won't be defending you again anytime soon when the majority of Althouse commenters are beating you to a pulp in one of your anti Israel arguments.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

And I won't be defending you again anytime soon when the majority of Althouse commenters are beating you to a pulp in one of your anti Israel arguments.

I am quite capable of defending myself; thanks, though.

Bob Boyd said...

It isn't easy being green at being green.

Bob Ellison said...

The expense/revenue picture of Milo is strange. It looks like a case of more money chasing more fame.

J. Farmer said...

@Freeman Hunt:

Or is the anger over his saying that some younger people might be mentally capable of consent while agreeing that the age of consent is about right?

It's really just a small version of the "big lie" technique. Make an outlandish charge (Milo advocates pedophilia) and assume that people already inclined to hate him will hate him even more and those on the fence (out of fear of being seen to defend pedophilia) will throw him under the bus in half a second. It gives everyone a chance to pat themselves on the back for their superior virtue and relieves them of any responsibility of actually doing any thinking about a difficult subject.

Bay Area Guy said...

Let's speak clearly about Milo:

1. There's no evidence or even accusation that he ever engaged in pedophillia, unlike that British predator, Jimmy Savile.

So, no bad acts are at issue.

2. Milo is not advocating for pedophilia.

So, no policies are at issue.

3. Milo did stumble over a point in his overly flamboyant style that there is a distinction between preying on pre-pubescent kids (pedophilia - always wrong) and teenage sex, which sometimes involves sexually mature minors and young adults and even older ones.

I'm not saying I agree with Milo. I always liked girls in my own class and grade. But in high school, I seem to recall the Senior football players hooking up with the hottest Freshman and Sophmore girls. And, much to my chagrin, I seem to recall a lot of college boys descending onto campus to snatch away the hot senior cheerleaders that we drooled over.

There didn't seem to be that much outrage or protest back then.

Fast forward to 2017, when gay is both legal and cool - if we're talking about a similar dynamic, where factual consent is obtained, although legal consent is not, well, you may have a moral grey area depending on the circumstance. Woody Allen in Manhattan dating 17-year old Mariel Hemingway (ugh, not a good example, Woody is weird and icky)

But more to the point, Milo's not guilty of a damn thing - just awkward speech of a potentially toxic topic.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Pookie, it was not I who accused him of anti semitism in the past on these threads. It was most Althouse commenters who did this, in discussions with him regarding Israel and Palestine.

It was you who did it now, and it still has no basis, and you should be embarrassed for not understanding how vile it is to trivialize that accusation.

Unknown said...

Oh kiss my ass Pookie. You have no idea how I was lambasted in that thread for defending Farmer. No good deed goes unpunished. So butt out and mind your own damn business, busybody.

AReasonableMan said...

Why is Drago ranting on about lefties? As I understand things, righty provocateur is hired to speak at righty confab and then fired by same righty confab. Righty publication tut tuts about righty provocateur and then righty employer considers canning him.

How is any of this the fault of lefties?

J. Farmer said...

@Unkown:

Why are you complaining about something that happened in a thread weeks and weeks ago? What does that have to do with anything?

J. Farmer said...

@Bay Area Guy:

Very concisely put, and I agree with it pretty much in toto.

But more to the point, Milo's not guilty of a damn thing - just awkward speech of a potentially toxic topic.

Ironically, enough, the point he was trying to make is exactly what's being turned against him now. He was trying to make a nuanced point that it isn't just a dichotomy between consensual sex and pedophilia but that there exists spectrum in between that constants a murky moral grey area. And in calm, rational discussion it seems most everyone here agrees with that point.

And yet, the reporting in the media is the exact hysteria Milo was trying to oppose: he's advocating pedophilia. That takes either a willful ignorance or a deliberate effort to smear. Neither speaks highly for his detractors.

bagoh20 said...

Courage is the rarest of human traits, becuase the test is so damned hard.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

Sneaky libs. Now they've conned some cons into excuse making for pedophilia.




Carry on.

Unknown said...

> > "I have never heard Wilde denounced as or even described as being a "pedophile.""

> I sure have. Try reading a recent biography.

As long as we are punishing clever provocateurs,

They should stop publishing that Nabokov book - and take down The Police video

Don't stand so Close To Me - Youtube>

Pookie Number 2 said...

You have no idea how I was lambasted in that thread for defending Farmer.

I also don't care. It's vile to make such a baseless accusation, especially when your only motive is to lash out at anyone who disagrees with the Democratic Party pablum that you uncritically swallow.

Bob Loblaw said...

Then again, maybe Grant has a point. People are indeed trying to normalize sex between adults and teenagers, ultimately with children.

This is just slippery slope nonsense. "Late teens" was considered adulthood in less earlier ages. By setting the age of consent too high we've created a situation where people are being convicted of serious offenses for normal human behavior.

Let me ask you this: If an 18 year old man has sex with his seventeen year old girlfriend, should that be illegal?

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

Milo's two appearances on Joe Rogan were fun.

Here's a small sampling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0LGe21NfY&feature=youtu.be

bagoh20 said...

It's how I imagine an event at the ancient Colosseum. They bring out some poor schlep you enjoyed knowing at one time, but who found himself on the wrong side of the zeitgeist, as he's eaten by the lions you laugh with your friends, stuff a chunk of bread in your mouth, and lament about how he should kept his mouth shut like you did.

William said...

If you parse Milo's words closely, perhaps you can give him a pass. Still, it's not the kind of subject you should have to parse words to find the right meaning. There's a good chance that this will finish Milo's career......As I remember, when Andrew Sullivan was on the right he got involved in some kind of sex scandal. Now that he's on the left his behavior is beyond reproach......Gays lead sex lives that are far more adventurous than those of straights. I'd prefer not to know the details. If you're straight, such details sound kind of icky.......If you're on the left, the gay community will keep such details private. If you're on the right, then Katie bar the door.

Unknown said...

Again Pookie, kiss my ass.

buwaya said...

Ah, too bad. He was effective in ideological guerilla warfare, quite an asset, but it seems he may have taken himself out. The rule here is discipline, do not volunteer information or speculate casually, every word must be calculated. This isnt a conversation, a speculation, a discourse. This is war and no place for amateurs, even talented ones.

I suspect his backers are cutting him loose.

I hope there is a replacement, it is a necessary thing to break the cultural hegemony in colleges. Or, better maybe, greater numbers of such instead of just a few. It will also take a great deal of money to break the enemy.

J. Farmer said...

@Pookie Number 2:

It's vile to make such a baseless accusation, especially when your only motive is to lash out at anyone who disagrees with the Democratic Party pablum that you uncritically swallow.

What I find most bizarre about those kinds of accusations is that even if they were totally true, what difference would it make to whatever the discussion at hand was? A factual or logical point I made would not be rendered unfactual or illogical if I were unmasked as some kind of raving anti-semite. Two plus two equals 4 even if an anti-semite says it equals 4.

bagoh20 said...

"Now they've conned some cons into excuse making for pedophilia."

And others into showing how their virtue is beyond question.

J. Farmer said...

>@Unknown:

Again Pookie, kiss my ass.

King of snappy comebacks strikes again!

AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
They bring out some poor schlep you enjoyed knowing at one time, but who found himself on the wrong side of the zeitgeist,


That should read 'righty zeitgeist'. The lefties view of Milo is unchanged.

Alex said...

I predict Milo's college tour is cancelled and we never hear from him again after February 2017.

mockturtle said...

Buwaya laments: Ah, too bad. He was effective in ideological guerilla warfare, quite an asset, but it seems he may have taken himself out. The rule here is discipline, do not volunteer information or speculate casually, every word must be calculated. This isnt a conversation, a speculation, a discourse. This is war and no place for amateurs, even talented ones.

I remember a lot of pundits saying that the 'pussy grabbing' tape would be the end of Trump.

Unknown said...

Actually, this thread has gotten humorous. Everybody at everybody else's throats throats over a stupid Milo, LOL! Gotta laugh.

Alex said...

But more to the point, Milo's not guilty of a damn thing - just awkward speech of a potentially toxic topic.

Live by the edgelord, die by the edgelord. Milo was always skating on thin ice with his sexual perversions.

Alex said...

Unknown... the thing is people thought Milo was going to be really huge in 2017-2020, potentially breaking the 'safe spaces' on college campuses and re-elect Trump. Now all of that is in doubt. Also the natural dejection at the left being orgasmic at this news.

bagoh20 said...

"That should read 'righty zeitgeist'. The lefties view of Milo is unchanged."

Hate is their most enduring quality.

J. Farmer said...

@William:

As I remember, when Andrew Sullivan was on the right he got involved in some kind of sex scandal.

It wasn't much of a scandal, but an online personal of his was dug up where he was soliciting men for bareback (i.e. unprotected) sex. The gay press (which tends to be overwhelmingly to the left politically) was calling out Sullivan for hypocrisy since he dared suggest that gay men's extremely high levels of sexual activity were contributing to the AIDS epidemic. Sullivan retorted that he was HIV+ at the time and was seeking out other HIV males for unprotected sex. This is a common practice in the gay community known as serosorting, and there are various points of view on its advisability and efficacy.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

Everybody at everybody else's throats throats over a stupid Milo, LOL! Gotta laugh.

At each other's throats? Considering the topic at hand, I'd say the discussion from most everyone involved thus far has been pretty level headed and rational.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

I don't know about this whole kerfuffle and I am not going to spend much time on it now but I will say this - I followed Milo for a bit on twitter and then I found that he was just too vulgar for me. I'm no prude but there are some things I am not comfortable with being thrown in my face too often. I'm aware he went on to be banned from Twitter and Berkley etc. but I quit paying attention a long time ago. Not that cute.

AReasonableMan said...

Breitbart employee says ...
“Talking abut young boys and somehow seeking to ameliorate concerns over young boys’ relationships with older men…I’m pretty sure everyone in the company would vomit upon hearing these words. What right-thinking person doesn’t feel sick to their stomach when hearing something like that?”

Bob Boyd said...

Milo flew too close to the son.

Michael K said...

Look in the mirror, "Unknown."

It would shatter.

This is an excellent example of what happens to discussions when a troll intervenes.

It gives everyone a chance to pat themselves on the back for their superior virtue and relieves them of any responsibility of actually doing any thinking about a difficult subject.

Yes. I have considered myself a libertarian for years although I think the Big L Libertarians have an incredibly naive idea of foreign policy.

I've sat here and watched lefties tell me I'm a "right winger" when they have no idea and much of their comments sound canned.

Anybody who has read "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again," as I have knows there is no moral sense in Hollywood.

Michael Jackson was a pedophile and everybody knew it.

Charlie Sheen is one of the most despicable people on earth.

It goes on and on.

Farmer you made some excellent points and I have previously posted some on my experiences with friends and patients who were gay. The two brothers who owned "The Little Shrimp" were patients of mine and I remember when they decided to get out and move to Hawaii. Too many deaths and maybe they felt responsible.

ARM used to have reasonable comments but seems to have contracted TDS.

Inga/Unknown has never made sense.

AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
Hate is their most enduring quality.


TIm in Vermont and AprilApple were unavailable for comment.

Bay Area Guy said...

Milo has made a lot of enemies, so the long knives are out to get him. He has to tread carefully. If he survives this (and he should), he will be stronger and probably a little more savvy and cautious.

buwaya said...

Trump is a lot of things Milo isnt.
First and greatest, he is a billionaire. That freed him from any potentially flighty financial backers. He could not be stopped by panicking them. He could simply carry on.

I think Ive said it often, the only free men are billionaires and paupers.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"He could simply carry on."

My advice is always the right call.



Carry on.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"I think Ive said it often, the only free men are billionaires and paupers."

I'd guess that being north of a half bil wouldn't be so bad.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

I read the Ellmann bio of Oscar Wilde. Here's something I remember reading. For a while he shared a flat with an artist named Frank Miller--no, not the comic book artist. Frank Miller was color blind, which is generally considered a handicap in an artist. He did, however, have an uncanny ability to pencil sketch his subjects in a flattering way. Lots of important people paid good money to be sketched by Miller, and he made a good living......He did have one other handicap. He was attracted to little girls. Genuine little girls, not teenyboppers. Miller was a member of the gentry. The little girls he exploited were from the working class. When he was charged criminally, he got off. You took the word of the gentleman in such matters.......Wilde, as I recall, lied to help him cover up. Although Wilde was convicted of a crime that nowadays is not even a crime, he got away with other crimes that were not then considered crimes.

Fritz said...

Does anyone else remember Congressman Gerry Studds? I'm trying to remember the liberal outrage.

Pookie Number 2 said...

What I find most bizarre about those kinds of accusations is that even if they were totally true, what difference would it make to whatever the discussion at hand was? A factual or logical point I made would not be rendered unfactual or illogical if I were unmasked as some kind of raving anti-semite. Two plus two equals 4 even if an anti-semite says it equals 4.

I think that the accusation could be relevant if what's being discussed lacks the sort of certainty we get with mathematics. Most political discussions involve some degree of subjectivity and judgment - I'd be much less inclined to listen to someone who says that the Kurds should take risks for peace if he or she doesn't like the Kurds.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
ARM used to have reasonable comments but seems to have contracted TDS.


I hate it when that happens. Only cure is put them down. Shame those Death Panels never got off the ground.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

There is a coordinated effort to destroy high profile Trump supporters. Establishment Republicans seem to prefer being in the minority.

Milo spoke truth - how provocative. The age of "consent" for sexual activity is completely arbitrary. Now that 26 year olds are considered children for insurance purposes perhaps that will become the new age of consent.

Those of us who are not gay might want to consider that our standards do not fit as comfortably on that demographic. Wikipedia does not have any state with even 5% LBGT adult population. How much of that 5% is males seeking males. I imagine in many suburban/rural areas a gay male teen looking for his first dating/sexual experience might have an extremely small pool to select from - if any. Perhaps that could explain why within their community larger age differences have been more accepted.

SukieTawdry said...

Simon & Schuster cancelled his book. Reportedly.

bagoh20 said...

If I got this right, Milo told the truth about his own experience as a "victim" of "pedophilia", and refused to take up the mantle of victimhood. 1) told the truth. 2) refused to cry about it.

Yep, that's something we just can't tolerate. We will make damned sure you are a victim, even if it takes a whole news cycle to do it, but we're gonna try not to use up all that time. We got more crap to get to.

Bob Loblaw said...

Hate is their most enduring quality.

Ain't that the truth. For people carrying around "No H8" signs they certainly seem to have a copious supply of their own.

Bob Loblaw said...

There is a coordinated effort to destroy high profile Trump supporters. Establishment Republicans seem to prefer being in the minority.

It's not that they prefer being in the minority per se. It's that they'd rather be in the minority than not running the party.

buwaya said...

Ah, PB&J, lets say that "billionaire" is a fuzzy number.
Its the number, a very large one, that gives you a sufficient megaphone and impunity from politically motivated sanctions. Any given billionaire may have fiduciary responsibilities or may depend overmuch on vulnerable business relationships, etc.

William said...

I think that there are fifteen year olds who are capable of rationally deciding on entering into a sexual relationship with an adult. However,the last person on earth who is capable of judging whether this is a rational decision the adult who wishes to have sex with that underaged person.

J. Farmer said...

@William:

I read the Ellmann bio of Oscar Wilde. Here's something I remember reading. For a while he shared a flat with an artist named Frank Miller--no, not the comic book artist. Frank Miller was color blind, which is generally considered a handicap in an artist.

It's been a while since I read Ellmann's biography, but I believe the sketch artist was Frank Miles, not Frank Miller.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

Nick Gilder hit #1 on the US Hot 100 in 1977 with these lyrics:

Come on down to my place baby, we'll talk about love.
Come on down to my place baby, we'll make love.
Hot child in the city. Hot child in the city.
Hot child in the city runnin' wild and lookin' pretty,
Hot child in the city


Gilder specifically identified underage prostitutes on Hollywood Boulevard as his inspiration for the song. Three years late, in in 1980, Benny Mardones made it to #11 with this catchy diddy:

She's just sixteen years old
Leave her alone, they say
Separated by fools
Who don't know what love is yet
But I want you to know
If I could fly
I'd pick you up
I'd take you into the night
And show you a love
Like you've never seen - ever seen.


Apparently 40 years ago if you wanted to rhapsodize about the pleasure and joy of underage sex, you had to put it to a melody and make some money at it.

Bob Boyd said...

Icarus or just icky?

eric said...

Blogger bagoh20 said...
If I got this right, Milo told the truth about his own experience as a "victim" of "pedophilia", and refused to take up the mantle of victimhood. 1) told the truth. 2) refused to cry about it.


I know they're out there, but I don't have the time or inclination to look it up.

Women who have been victims of sexual assault who treat it in the same way that Milo does. Except, they don't get treated as Milo has. Would be very interesting to find something parallel, like say a female comedian, who treats her sexual assault as a minor in the same way that Milo treats his and see how she is treated.

n.n said...

It's not his downfall. He needs to clarify his position, and or repent, and sin no more. The age of consent may not be negotiable, but its variability is a point of fact. The parameters of its distribution are worth noting and discussing. Otherwise, he needs to remain focused and avoid wandering or led from his objective.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 324   Newer› Newest»