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....
Posts
322 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 322 of 322" 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?!"
You are expecting logic from Madame ShitForBrains. She doesn't care about pedophilia or any moral value really. All she cares about is the Left returning to power. Any lie, any smear, any distortion of the truth is fine with her as long as it hurts the Right. There is nothing Milo can say or do to absolve himself (not that he has actually done anything except express an opinion). There is nothing anybody on the Right can do that would absolve them in her eyes. Condemn Milo, defend Milo, it's all the same to Madame ShitForBrains, because she does not read or understand any other views besides her own.
Now, she's just some nobody, an anonymous dolt who thinks she's somehow fighting the good fight by being a pest on this blog. She doesn't matter. People with actual power and her morals are the ones who would enslave us.
Well played, to whoever it was that conducted this sting on Milo.
Fernandinande said... [hush][hide comment]
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?
As MSM reports: As yet unverified rumor.
My only question is "how did he get invited in the first place".
I was a bit surprised that he might be asked to speak at CPAC.
I think CPAC should have read his statement before disinviting him.
CPAC was probably not a venue that would be good for him anyway but this is just the left showing its hypocrisy once again.
Frankly, the idea of Milo as keynote speaker at CPAC struck me as weird before I heard anyone had a specific problem … having him as keynote only makes sense if it was to take advantage of his current celebrity.
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.
These and similar comments make the most sense to me. I have to say that I’ve not thought or read much on pedophilia, age of consent issues or the like and that the comments are an education of sorts for me.
Milo is not CPAC material. Milo is outrageous, irreverent and edgy – CPAC is staid, correct and serious. Milo is cotton candy, CPAC is steak and eggs. There’s room for both on my table but they don’t mix well on the same plate – for me, anyway.
I’ve enjoyed watching Milo deflate some balloons that needed popping. He has been an important anti-PC figure and I hope he continues to be. Count me as still a fan.
You guys tie yourself in knots sometimes. It's an own goal but it's a nothing story. No one will care in a day or two.
"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."
Wilde is generally described as a kind-hearted man, but he had some glaring faults. He was a colossal snob and known for it in a place and time where a certain level of snobbery was taken for granted. But there were a huge number of whores in Victorian London, both male and female, and many of them were under age. Wilde was far from being the only one who turned a blind eye to such things, or thought that "what's what servant girls (or boys) are for."
Well, I guess now I know which blog to go to to figure out a bunch of ways to parse down exactly which 2-year age range makes underage sexual attraction the most defensible.
Way to raise the discussion there, guys. Very cutting edge. So glad I'm not seeing this crap on a left-wing blog. Give me a gender identity discussion or something on transgender rights any day. We'll keep the supposedly underappreciated pro-pederasty angle to your side. Have fun!
"Milo ... will be ... a little more ... cautious."
And, hence will not be Milo.
Did someone mention Oscar Wilde? I had a fun time taking up a suggestion on an Amazon Prime feed one night watching Stephen Fry portraying him.
Some funny highlights:
1. His young lover's father didn't seem to particularly object to their homosexual liaison so much as trying to "sniff out" Wilde as a socially and/or financially suitable partner for his son.
2. Despite this "conservative" man's prejudices, his title was the Marquess of Queensberry. Forgive me for wondering how masculine a person can be with a name like that.
3. When Queensberry's opinion of Wilde's potential as a suitor deteriorated, he taunted his son in as loud a voice as an Englishman can muster outside, and called him by the hilarious name, "Bumboy!"
Fun times.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Well, I guess now I know which blog to go to to figure out a bunch of ways to parse down exactly which 2-year age range makes underage sexual attraction the most defensible.
You don't actually have to agree with anything Milo said to recognize that whatever your opinion of it, it was not "advocating pedophilia" or even discussing pedophilia.
You don't actually have to agree with anything Milo said to recognize that whatever your opinion of it, it was not "advocating pedophilia" or even discussing pedophilia.
Whatever. He's a bomb thrower who regularly and intentionally distorts his adversaries' views for shits and giggles. Maybe this will finally teach him to be less sloppy and more careful with how he depicts the views of others. He thinks he's so intelligent; it's nice that this needed lesson came in the form of a wake-up call about the many socially intolerant troglodytes still politically welded to the side with which he continues to make heavy handed common cause.
The rest of the trolls arrive.
But there were a huge number of whores in Victorian London, both male and female, and many of them were under age. Wilde was far from being the only one who turned a blind eye to such things, or thought that "what's what servant girls (or boys) are for.
Wilde himself spent two years in prison for his own indiscretions. It's not surprising he would be inclined to cover for others.
Go find a teenage buttcheek to admire, pederasty defender Michael K.
Drago try reading beyond my first sentence and you will see I implied that not only the Mormons, but anyone who doesn't recognize the differences in power and status and act accordingly is simply rationalizing a desire as normal. For an example of how this exploitation becomes normalized in the minds of adults look at the recent revelations about girls gymnastics.
"We'll keep the supposedly underappreciated pro-pederasty angle to your side."
It seems like the side that wants to downplay the problem of rape (e.g. on campuses)should probably be less enthusiastic as justifiers of pederasty. You'd think they wouldn't want to seem like justify deviance was their thing.
OTOH, maybe the real logic disconnect would be if these folks weren't into both of these (and other) sorts of deviance.
They are being consistent.
Carry on.
Someone should write a book one day, On the Creepiness of Michael K. Or, How a surgeon promoted himself as an expert on all things social, moral and psychological and became the world's foremost semi-educated self-proclaimed expert on the moral normalcy of pederasty.
Stick to your own fucking field. Your training is about as relevant to the things you ignorantly opine on as Michael Savage's dietician degree is to all the stupid things he claims to be a know-it-all about. Even fucking Dr. Phil has better expertise in what he rants about than you do.
I guess Shakespeare advocated pedophilia. Juliet was only 13.
"anyone who doesn't recognize the differences in power and status and act accordingly is simply rationalizing a desire as normal." But since the Polanski left has long since rationalized that desire as normal, up to and including the sexual assaults perpetrated by Congressman Gerry Studds and President William Jefferson Clinton, I am sure they will rally to Milo's defense.
It seems like the side that wants to downplay the problem of rape (e.g. on campuses)should probably be less enthusiastic as justifiers of pederasty. You'd think they wouldn't want to seem like justify deviance was their thing.
They fucking love it.
The whole reason our political system's a mess right now is because they convinced America to hate anyone earning less than $50,000 annually. Deviancy? They've been at war with the social contract for nearly a hundred years.
"...became the world's foremost semi-educated self-proclaimed expert on the moral normalcy of pederasty."
Not mention his expertise re selling certain financial instruments to Wall Street. He sure schooled someone who's actually sold many hundreds of million of dollars of these things to Wall Street.
That doc dude is smart.
"You see, we all want the same things. We want to be able to take care of our families, provide for our children, to have a roof over our heads and a good-paying job, and a 13 year old boy in the shower."
~Dennis Hastert
Not mention his expertise re selling certain financial instruments to Wall Street. He sure schooled someone who's actually sold many hundreds of million of dollars of these things to Wall Street.
You'll have to fill me in on the details. He beats his chest so much that all I can pick up on are the battered out short gray hairs that result from it. I know he argues about anything that he has less-than-adequate evidence to back up though, and trails of his sound and fury make track marks and smokestacks so heavy through cyberspace that it's hard to remember what he was actually trying to argue for or against.
Simon and Schuster tweeted that his book deal is cancelled.
Maybe someone else will pick it up, but I bet the terms won't be much. Buyers market all of a sudden.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The socially conservative sword or the capitalism sword?
Ex-act-ly!
In the silver lining department, Ann Coulter gets her old gig back. Hard to complain when a displaced American worker can take back a job from cheap immigrant labor.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
He's a bomb thrower who regularly and intentionally distorts his adversaries' views for shits and giggles.
If that's the case, and it very well may be (I don't follow his career close enough to have an opinion), then it would be quite easy to attack Milo rhetorically and show his arguments to be fallacious distortions or otherwise wrongheaded.
Why then rely on a factually inaccurate and grossly misleading description of what it is he actually said?
Otherwise, you're simply advocating the mature moral philosophy of "two wrongs make a right."
Michael Jackson was a pedophile and everybody knew it.
And his entourage were rapists and extortionists. Real story, about 30 years ago, Vegas. Woman meets them somewhere, and has sex with them. I think expecting money, but maybe not. Maybe stole drugs from them. Maybe not. They, along with the woman, show up at her sister's house (home alone with two infants), where they demand money, telling the sister that they will leave the one with them dead in the desert if she doesn't pay. Passes a $500 check through the grill, and calls 911. Police refuse to do anything, after their father calls the guys n*****s. The check was cashed immediately, so the stop payment didn't work. Woman is later found alive in the desert. Vile, vicious, people. And, above the law, because they worked for Jackson.
Ritmo,
Long story short: it doesn't matter.
Anywho, I'd bet that the doc was a lot sharper and less reliant on bluster, back in the day. It's probably better to have always been an average intellect, that way there wouldn't be the eventual struggle w/, golden years associated, subconscious embarrassment (and need to grasp at bluster as a distraction) resulting from mental deterioration.
I dunno.
Why then rely on a factually inaccurate and grossly misleading description of what it is he actually said?
Because anything less is too good for him.
Otherwise, you're simply advocating the mature moral philosophy of "two wrongs make a right."
What about morality? This is ALL political.
I'm a firm believer in both learning by example and what's good for the goose being good for the gander. His latest kerfuffle encompasses both. Plus, a little lesson in free-market economics. I thought this book was going to catapult him to the fame and celebrity that he says is such a disqualification for opining publicly when it comes to liberals?
Yeah, he's done. Not permanently, necessarily. He's not that dumb/useless nor is he too mean for reforming. But most 32 year old wizbangs have a habit of going just a hair too far. It's nice to know that from now on, he probably won't. The yellow card from the ref is an underappreciated and valuable learning tool.
Apart from that, stop being so naive.
"What did he actually say?
Here’s the full transcript of the video making the rounds on social media.
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 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.”"
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Apart from that, stop being so naive.
Yes, I am of the naive opinion that you shouldn't lie and distort what someone said (e.g. accuse them of being a child molester) just because you disagree with them politically. I disagreed with most everything President Obama did on foreign policy, which included getting thousands of innocent people killed. Does that justify me smearing and lying about him at every turn in order to oppose his policies? Isn't getting innocent people killed a lot worse than anything Milo has ever been accused of?
Ann Coulter is perceptive and aggressive.
Good general political analyst.
She figured Trump for a winner very early, before Scott Adams.
A bit of a worry-wart.
Anthony Weiner/Jeffrey Epstein
The American Catholic Church
Roman Polanski
Woody Allen
All involved in "pedophile" scandals. Milwaukee Diocese bankrupted by its pedophilia scandal. Anthony Weiner's political comeback attempt derailed by contacts with underage girl and by E-mails allegedly unmasking contacts with "convicted pedophile" Jeffrey Epstein.
Now Milo tries to say that these events "underage sex" AND that the same thing is going on in Hollywood right now. Well, his book was called Dangerous and he is dangerous, above all, to himself. Hollywood won't allow the kind of scandal that enveloped the Catholic Church to develop around itself. And the conservatives will not allow a speaker at their convention get up and try to normalize pedophilia by calling it under-age sex. Anyone could see that.
But Milo had to cross the lines of both the left and the right at once and thus, in this society, where everything seems acceptable to find a way to be unacceptable. He's compelled; he's succeeded; he's unacceptable.
So goodbye, Milo. There's nothing left for you but the mercy of God - although that is still left. And in a way, none of us has any more than that. But we don't have to remember that when we don't want to. Whereas the last, best hope I have for you is that you never forget it.
@wildswan:
And the conservatives will not allow a speaker at their convention get up and try to normalize pedophilia by calling it under-age sex.
Except underage sex is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is a specific phenomenon that has pretty robust empirical data behind it as to its psychopathology. Sexual interest in prepubescent children is orders of magnitude different from sexual interest in post-pubescent minors. In around half the states in the country, the age of consent for sex is 16, even though 18 is the nationwide age of majority. A 16-year-old is a minor but is legally able to consent to sex in at least half the states in the union.
"Wilde himself spent two years in prison for his own indiscretions. It's not surprising he would be inclined to cover for others."
Wilde was Mile's roommate in 1879 (I just consulted Ellman's bio and the guy's name was Frank Miles) - long before Wilde's trial and imprisonment.
Ritmo wrote:
2. Despite this "conservative" man's prejudices, his title was the Marquess of Queensberry.
I'm not sure you can pin the label of "conservative" on Queensberry. He was kept out of the House of Lords because he was an outspoken atheist. He later converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, as did Wilde. Robert Ross and Bosie also converted too as did Aubrey Beardsley and quite a few other Decadents. It was quite the thing to do there for a while.
I met Merlin Holland, the grandson of Oscar Wilde about 10 years ago when he was hawking his own book about Wilde. He looks startlingly like his grandfather. It's an odd thing to see that face on a living person. He did not think much of the Frye movie.
I recall Holland told a rather eerie story - when he was a young man living in London, he was paging though old photographs of his grandfather and noticed the distinctive wooden paneling in the background of one of the pictures - because it was exactly like the wooden paneling in his own living room. The name of the photography studio was on the bottom of the picture. Holland looked into it and found out that his apartment had indeed been where the photography studio had been located back in the 1880's.
Despite this "conservative" man's prejudices, his title was the Marquess of Queensberry. Forgive me for wondering how masculine a person can be with a name like that.
The Queensberry Rules of boxing were named after him. Does that make him masculine or less so for wanting rules?
wildswan, Woody Allen seems to be doing quite well for himself these days and has been fully forgiven by Hollywood. They've also signaled that they bear no grudges against Polanski. But then those men are not conservative.
Also bear in mind that Milo, unlike the others, has not been accused of molesting anybody. He was the teenager who was molested, although according to him he was the instigator of the affair. That's rather a significant difference.
Well, it has been a whacky few weeks for the right. Maybe they should take a collective deep breath and try to focus on what is really important, tax cuts for the rich.
That notorious perv, William Shakespeare, who put the 13-year-old pubescent blossom Juliet into play, should rot in his grave.
Oh wait....
Yes, I am of the naive opinion that you shouldn't lie and distort what someone said (e.g. accuse them of being a child molester) just because you disagree with them politically.
No one's lying or distorting anything - apart from Bruno's well-known exaggerations of what any defender of rights for minority groups is actually usually about - PC excesses aside. He's a firebrand who's not known for caring about accuracy - and the record of what he said is out there. No one distorted it. Whatever was in it, it was too distasteful for the publisher given their market pressures. Lo and behold, apparently capitalism doesn't always work in his favor. Sounds like a valuable lesson to me. If you disagree, then get to know what he's about and go join him on a downgraded tour to now be held at state fairs or whichever venue it is that's more appropriate for someone who can't get a book deal. And get a grip. It's no one else's job to get the market to work in a way that's given to his excesses, but not those of whom he regularly bashes on college campuses or wherever else he finds the supposed evil of liberal overreach.
Let him do his politics and his political shenanigans for himself. We'll let you know when a bleeding heart self-appointed referee is needed.
wildswan wrote: "So goodbye, Milo. There's nothing left for you but the mercy of God - although that is still left. And in a way, none of us has any more than that. But we don't have to remember that when we don't want to. Whereas the last, best hope I have for you is that you never forget it."
**************
Aside from his offending opinions, what illegal thing did Milo DO?
The other people DID illegal things.
Again: what did Milo DO?
AReasonableMan said...In the silver lining department, Ann Coulter gets her old gig back. Hard to complain when a displaced American worker can take back a job from cheap immigrant labor.
See: that was funny, ARM, I chuckled. You might even work something about "finally a chance for a woman's voice to be heard" or something, but that's good. Thanks.
@Jan Elink:
That notorious perv, William Shakespeare, who put the 13-year-old pubescent blossom Juliet into play, should rot in his grave.
It gets worse than that. Mary of Nazareth was most probably 12 years old when she married a (potentially much) older Joseph.
Sexual interest in prepubescent children is orders of magnitude different from sexual interest in post-pubescent minors.
You know, people (on your side of the argument, I suppose) keep saying this. And I keep wondering, if the difference between 13 and 16 (or whatever) is so trivial, and the number of years/decades of sexual function afterward that much more extensive, then what's the fucking harm in waiting three years? There's already enough judgement that goes on when there's decades of difference between lovers, telling society that these crucial three or four or however many trivial years of emotional/social/intellectual immaturity need to be opened up simply for the sake of your enjoyment of their physical "maturity" sounds overwhelmingly asinine. Just find a fucking nineteen or seventeen year old already and be done with this crap. I had freshwomen hitting on me at 18 and I could already tell something wouldn't have been all that much quite right about it.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Let him do his politics and his political shenanigans for himself. We'll let you know when a bleeding heart self-appointed referee is needed.
No one's refereeing. We're doing exactly what you're doing: describing what we see. And you're taking a much broader view of this than I am. I am describing a specific incident. I'm not a fan of his, but I am describing what I think is an hysterical overreaction to comments that have been blown completely out of proportion. The fact that people are tripping over themselves to cancel deals and block his calls is part of what I'm talking about. Of course people are completely free to ignore them to their heart's content. Nobody cares. But there's already been physical assault and widespread property damage to shut down a speech and now an obvious smear campaign (e.g. "pedophilia"). It's the equivalent of calling gay opponents "homophobes." Yes, of course you can rally dunderheads with a mob mentality into collective action against those they oppose ideologically. You're free to be quite proud of that phenomenon. I think it's an impulse we should try to discourage.
It gets worse than that. Mary of Nazareth was most probably 12 years old when she married a (potentially much) older Joseph.
Oh, and it gets even worse. Back then they died by between 30 and 40.
Sounds like the current deal is a better trade-off.
"Stick to your own fucking field. "
Stopped by on the way to bed.
You really should try to control your anger. It's not healthy.
I have previously discussed, before you arrived to make a mess of any adult discussion, my experience with gay men in a community known for a gay lifestyle.
You, on the other hand, are an obscene and not very intelligent troll who contaminates threads with barely literate ravings.
Goodnight. I have to work in the morning,. You should try it.
I dunno, I think I'd be more outraged at what Milo said if I didn't know many men who, when they hear of a 30 year old female teacher seducing a 16 or 17 year old student, laugh and say "So - is she hot? God, where were these teachers when I was growing up?"
I think female teachers who seduce male teenagers are as culpable as male teachers who seduce girls (not to mention that I just don't get the appeal of a gangly adolescent who uses more Clearasil than shaving cream. I certainly wasn't interested in 17 year olds after I graduated from high school.) Men seem to disagree with me though, and I've gotten into arguments about it with guys who tell me that it's not the same thing at all, that such an experience might be scarring for girls but any red-blooded American male would be rarin' to go with a hot teacher.
So - it's OK for a straight male teenager to sleep with an older woman, but not OK for a gay male teen to have sex with an older man? I know the law applies to women as well as men, but such women seem to get slaps on the wrist compared to their male counterparts - and a common reaction is amusement and envy, not horror.
I'm not a fan of his, but I am describing what I think is an hysterical overreaction to comments that have been blown completely out of proportion.
Go tell it to "THE MARKET". You know. If you have trouble finding it, conservatives say you will notice by all those invisible hands pointing you in the right direction.
Cry me a river. Apparently your good fight for official recognition of the oh so crucial pedophilia/pederasty distinction is not very marketable.
This is a country where even the proper adults are infantilized. We're not going to be opening up the laws to sex with minors. Deal.
And that's more or less the end of the story. Yeah, I said it. You think even the adults in his country are mature enough to be called "adults?"
I thought so. So go work on that one first. Then work on battening down the consent laws.
Geezus.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
You know, people (on your side of the argument, I suppose) keep saying this. And I keep wondering, if the difference between 13 and 16 (or whatever) is so trivial, and the number of years/decades of sexual function afterward that much more extensive, then what's the fucking harm in waiting three years?
That would be a question to ask to someone who actually was advocating sex with minors. That's not the argument. The argument is that sex with a minor is qualitatively different than sex with children. Prepubescent children, by the very definition, are pre-sexual. This reality is also reflected in the law. Sexual battery on a minor is more harshly punished than consent law violations. A 30-year-old man having sex with a 16-year-old girl is much different than having a 30-year-old having sex with a 6-year-old. It's apple and oranges. That said, nobody is saying it's a great idea for 16-year-olds to have sex with older men. It's most cases it's not. Not in 100%. But in most. Everybody agrees with that. I'm simply saying that trying to project the same amount of outrage at sex with children towards sex with older minors who are physically indistinguishable from young adults makes no sense.
Goodnight. I have to work in the morning,. You should try it.
And you should try being civil before demanding civility of others. And then you should stop being such a damn hypocrite in general.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Apparently your good fight for official recognition of the oh so crucial pedophilia/pederasty distinction is not very marketable.
That's why it's worth fighting. I'm actually willing to defend my view without having to submit to a popularity contest. The fact that a sizable chunk of the population is too thick to appreciate a crucial and important distinction is not my problem. Half the population is below average after all.
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” - H.L. Mencken
The argument is that sex with a minor is qualitatively different than sex with children.
Oh Jesus. Already.
Then go write a book on it. I heard there's quite the market for that.
Either way, you're shutting out the other side. If you're recognizing the problem with definitions of maturity that go beyond the physical, then you're getting it. I mean, look at Michael K. He's like already 70 or something and look at how adolescent his own behavior is.
If you want "penalties" to differ between age ranges of underage sex, that sounds nice. But good luck getting "puberty attestations" to signify that a relationship fell within one range or the other.
Even if you separated it out by ages for presuming that very wide range of change known as puberty, good luck. It's too wide to have one legal age limit. That's probably another reason why it's 16/18 or whatever. At least by then, we're pretty sure they're out of that woods.
The CPAC guys are making their circle smaller and seem quite proud to do it. Strange way to win at politics...or maybe they do want to lose proudly, like McCain and Romney did it.
Was Milo saying anything that Camille Paglia hasn't said many times before about the age of consent?
I guess some people have more free speech than others.
"It gets worse than that. Mary of Nazareth was most probably 12 years old when she married a (potentially much) older Joseph." And let's not even get into Mo Prophet. But surely, the pro-Muslim left would seize the opportunity to normalize Mo's behavior by rallying to Milo's defense.
The current laws seem liberal enough. I don't have a huge problem with Europe's re-definitions but if you think about it, most states define consent at around 16 to 18 which covers the ages by which puberty might conceivably have finished in any individual, and then allows for 2-year or thereabouts exemptions whereby someone over that age and under it might be ok as we assume them to be close enough in age and intimate familiarity to not treat it more harshly than if it were two presumably consenting minors.
He got, if I recall correctly, a $250m advance from Simon and Shuster. Does he have to give it back?
I wonder if S&S own the book and can prevent him from publishing it elsewhere. Glenn suggested that he self-publish and I agree 100%.
I've published a book through a major publisher (CRC Press) and several others through Amazon's Create Space. I am very happy with CRC Press. They did everything they were supposed to.
I doubt I will ever publish another book through a regular publisher. Create Space is just so much better on all levels.
About the only thing a publisher can do these days is get some reviews and get into some of the few remaining bookstores. They get an awful lot of money for doing that.
Publishers pay 10% royalty. Create Space pays 30-50% or more depending on sales channel (Bookstore, Amazon, Kindle, e-store, direct sale by author).
Milo can certainly generate publicity for his book whoever publishes it. Then they can buy it on Amazon, whoever publishes it.
John Henry
Robert said...
Was Milo saying anything that Camille Paglia hasn't said many times before about the age of consent?"
Exactly. And for the record I disagree with both Paglia and Milo on this score. But he's being vilified for saying something she openly stated back in the '90's.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
If you want "penalties" to differ between age ranges of underage sex, that sounds nice. But good luck getting "puberty attestations" to signify that a relationship fell within one range or the other.
It's not a matter of what I want. These distinctions already exist in the legal system today. And of course the law draws an arbitrary limit. That's why consent laws differ by state.
But you're still missing the larger point. There's a difference between legalistic definitions and how human beings interact in the actual real world. Think of sexual maturity as existing on a bell curve. There is going to be a segment of the population who huddle around the left tail of that curve and will at ages of 13-15 possess the equivalent amount of intellect, maturity, and sexual sophistication as an average 18-year-old, an age in which a person is totally free to engage in consensual sexual behavior with other adults. Now, that doesn't mean it's a good idea for people that young to do that. But nonetheless, the fact remains that a certain segment of that population will have consensual sexual behavior with older adults with no abuse or exploitation involved. And in some cases, the exploitation can actually go in the other direction. Now the mere existence of these types of relationships may seem distasteful and reprehensible to even consider by members of polite society, but they exist nonetheless.
Hilarious thread! Thanks!
I think I've gotten a little far afield :)
You seem more interested in taking this much further than I am, J. Farmer.
I'm looking up consent laws country-by-country-state-by-state to get an idea. Israel's sounds interesting. 14 for all non-penetrative activity and 16 to be penetrated. With three-year "close-in-age" exceptions.
Sounds about right. But then, they have to be ready to fight and die by 18.
We don't. We go our whole lives infantilizing ourselves.
Pretty major difference, there.
Your interest in this however is much more copious than mine. But you will have to allow that you are splitting hairs with things for which it would get creepy to define in strict legal terms (i.e. other than age) the things you're talking about.
Is all about Dr. Ekpen, is good and powerful he can help you solve what problem you are facing, all you need to do is to contact him and tell him your problem, be rest assure that your problem will be solve. Contact him today at ekpentemple@gmail.com or on whatsapp +2347050270218.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
Your interest in this however is much more copious than mine. But you will have to allow that you are splitting hairs with things for which it would get creepy to define in strict legal terms (i.e. other than age) the things you're talking about.
I just think the reaction to what he said is borderline hysteric. Yes of course it's creepy and icky to contemplate. Old men with teenage males looks gross. Nobody wants to see that shit. But that was kind of the point. He was talking about a little discussed phenomenon that is actually quite widespread in the gay male subculture, which is itself a tiny fraction of the population. I guess I've never really understood why gay men receive so much outsized attention. Maybe they, like Ashkenazi Jews, possess some genetic predisposition towards achievement and thus in a meritocratic society able to exercise disproportionate power. Who knows.
Yeah. "Who knows," indeed. Now look who's getting weird.
The reason for all the variation is because it's cultural. I've addressed America's own cultural maturity. I guess you keep missing the point because you want sex laws that account for that maturity while never contesting how immature America is in every other regard.
I think you're best off just dropping the subject. You clearly have a much stronger in this than anyone else here, and are lucky that such codes/statutes exist at the state level rather than at the level where NSA would take an interest.
Try not to have too restless a night.
Get back to Jew-bashing, you're among a cast of billions.
Oh, and kiss my asterisk, O toothless one.
gay men receive so much outsized attention. Maybe they, like Ashkenazi Jews, possess some genetic predisposition towards achievement
https://youtu.be/AoOIGHKePiw?t=3m59s
https://youtu.be/AoOIGHKePiw?t=3m59s
Ha. I remember that when it first aired, but the impression it always left with me was that Kent Hovind seemed like a creep.
@The Toothless Revolutionary:
I guess you keep missing the point because you want sex laws that account for that maturity while never contesting how immature America is in every other regard.
I don't want any change in the laws. This shit happens, and it's against the law. I'm fine with that. Again, I don't get the outrage.
@Jon Ericson:
Get back to Jew-bashing, you're among a cast of billions.
It's "Jew-bashing" to say they are high achievers?
OK, I'm confused, which one of you likes a quick (or leisurely) squick, squick up the ass?
Lightbulbs? Gerbils? Eggplants?
@Jon Ericson:
Q) What's the great thing about having sex with twenty eight year olds?
A) There's 20 of them
Whats the big deal? We live in a society that passes out rubbers to kids at school, so we've obviously concluded that we are ok with them doing it. But we're only ok with them doing it with someone their age? Age restrictions are completely arbitrary. What does it matter the age of the one they're doing it with? If we think they are old and mature enough to have sex, why arent they old and mature enough to choose their own participant?
If its not clear, i'm not defending adult/child relationships. I'm saying its ridiculous to give rubbers to kids and be completely ok with them doing it. They are not animals and can be convinced to control themselves. But that would take a society of mature and responsible adults to guide and nurture them and ours is clearly not that.
Watching the left take a break from pushing ever higher levels of degeneracy as civil rights imperatives, to go all Legion of Decency on us, is at least as entertaining as watching them get all hopped up about The Russian Menace.
Amusing, yes, but it is, as always, an utter waste of time to point out their dishonesty, hypocrisies, and double standards. A troop of hooting, can-banging chimpanzees are at a higher stage of moral development and rational discernment than these people.
Regardless, Milo is a degenerate. An entertaining, intelligent degenerate, far more clever than the humorless shitlib goodthinkers and hustlers with whom he spars for a living, but essentially "one of them", a product and inhabitant of the same degenerate universe that his opponents inhabit. (And yes, CPACers are a subset of shitlib goodthinkers.)
At any rate he'll probably find a new publisher.
Without reading anything up thread I can say this will not be the end of Milo. I am more disgusted by CPAC and their spinelessness than I am by what Milo says. Maybe that just proves I'm not establishment. I always thought the conservative position was to evaluate facts and not be the reactionary caricature that the left always says we are. But then I've always been a lot more "live and let live" than other lifelong Republicans.
Should I be concerned by the left's glee at trying to scalp a gay man who has outed true pedophiles? I know I shouldn't be surprised at it. If it wasn't for double standards yadda yadda yadda.
OK, toothless then. :-)
TTR: "Sounds about right. But then, they have to be ready to fight and die by 18."
They have to be ready alot younger than that considering the despicable nature of the Arab attacks on civilians.
There's an ad at a bus stop in my area saying that kids should get vaccinated for HPV. The ad's pitch: You wouldn't want you kid to get cancer, would you? The kid in the ad looks about 12. Montgomery County, Maryland (liberal Suburban DC) sponsored the ad. BUt let's be very clear about one thing: THAT MILO FELLOW IS SICK!
The current laws seem liberal enough.
That's what Milo said.
I don't have a huge problem with Europe's re-definitions but if you think about it, most states define consent at around 16 to 18 which covers the ages by which puberty might conceivably have finished in any individual, and then allows for 2-year or thereabouts exemptions whereby someone over that age and under it might be ok as we assume them to be close enough in age and intimate familiarity to not treat it more harshly than if it were two presumably consenting minors.
...
I'm looking up consent laws country-by-country-state-by-state to get an idea. Israel's sounds interesting. 14 for all non-penetrative activity and 16 to be penetrated. With three-year "close-in-age" exceptions.
Sounds about right. But then, they have to be ready to fight and die by 18.
Well, I guess now I know which commenter to go to to figure out a bunch of ways to parse down exactly which 2-year age range makes underage sexual attraction the most defensible.
Milo's gay?
Perish the thought!
I don't know how this drama will play out. There's so many double standards twisting around each other that it's like trying to find the center of a Möbius strip. I'm pretty sure that if Milo was a spokesman for leftist causes, then his words would be forgiven or perhaps even praised. And the right would find him unforgivable and even worse than Lena Dunham......I think Milo is witty, intelligent and has a fair number of pathogens in his system. I don't know quite what to think of him, but I do think that it's fair to say that his proper function is that of a gadfly and not as a spokesman for conservative causes.......I'm glad I'm not attracted to underage children or other men, but women haven't been an endless source of joy and satisfaction either. I'll be glad when they straighten out the technology for sex robots.
"Maybe they should take a collective deep breath and try to focus on what is really important, tax cuts for the rich."
Not for the rich, for the job creators.
And, it's also important to save Soc Sec and Medicare, i.e. vouchers for for-profit insurance companies/investment banks.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Well, I guess now I know which blog to go to to figure out a bunch of ways to parse down exactly which 2-year age range makes underage sexual attraction the most defensible
**************
Oh yeah? Well, Milo made that distinction himself. He said age consent laws were just about right.
Too bad you're as dull as a clam knife, or you would have read his comment.
Also, are you unaware of the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum?
Should Shakespeare have been put in the nick for writing about a 13-year-old Juliet getting all hot and steamy with an older Romeo?
Report back, or STFU.
You're my favorite degenerate of all, Jay Jay Elink.
Know who loses in all of this discussion?
The ugly and fat kids who are fourteen, fifteen...
They see the cool damaged kids who are thin and attractive-looking hooking up with older partners -- excuse me -- mentors...
But the ugly and fat kids: do THEY get mentors? Of course not. Lolita was NOT a cow...
These kids, they are at home with their Cheetos and Red Bull and sad grease-stained t-shirts, just hoping to one day grow up to feel used, just once....
They will have no clandestine sex in an older guy's one-bedroom apartment. There will be no tawdry rumors circulating about them. They will not wake up with semen in one of their orifices, feeling ashamed yet wanted...
The worry of sexually-transmitted diseases will remain an abstraction for them. Because shady older people don't want to just fuck kids who are fourteen, fifteen -- they want to fuck GOOD-LOOKING KIDS kids who are fourteen, fifteen...
So the ugly and fat kids watch the world pass them by: no stranger is going to try to entice them into THEIR van....
Where is THEIR mentoring? Where is THEIR Mature Hand to guide them through the rocky shoals of young sexuality? It is enough to be rejected by your peers, but to also be rejected from dysfunctional adults and perverts with basic social skills...?
Sadly, they never get a chance to become part of the problem. Think about that when you masturbate to your favorite old Britney Spears videos...
I am Laslo.
*clap clap clap clap clap* etc. Come in here dear boy, have a cigar, you're gonna go far.
Basically: if an older man fucks a fat fifteen-year old girl she will at least now have SOMETHING on which to build some self-esteem.
Or she will feel intense shame, which may lead to anorexia, in which case she will lose weight.
Either way, some help was provided.
This should NOT be applied to fat step-daughters: one dysfunction too many there, probably...
I am Laslo.
You are a treasure to millions of Americans.
Be Good.
Oops, sorry, go ahead, be bad.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
You're my favorite degenerate of all, Jay Jay Elink.
*****************
Awww... we should get together and cuddle.
Except I don't DO cuddles with people who will not marshal the facts and make a freakin' argument.
And that would be you.
You're not toothless": you're brainless and spineless.
Report back when you can actually make a case.
But not before.
Do older lesbians ever go for young fat chicks? I see young thin girls with fat older lesbians, but I can't call to mind having seen the reverse. But then I only generally see Seattle lesbians, so my observations may only apply to Seattle lesbians, of which the young thin ones can be pretty damn cute...
And maybe they just need an older MALE mentor to set them straight...
There are many layers to this onion.
I am Laslo.
A winsome Hollywood Movie, perhaps.
A young fat girl, rejected by her peers, meets an older fat man, rejected by HIS peers.
Despite the difference in ages they bond over Romantic Comedies and Ice Cream. And Candy. And Cake. Maybe make that a montage...
Their peers look down on this platonic relationship, but it is hinted that they are just jealous of a relationship that isn't based, at least partly, on looks...
One night, after the ice cream is gone, the inevitable happens, and they fall in bed together for a minute-and-a-half of awkward sex....
Sadly, this breaks the spell, and they drift apart, each resuming their lonely lives...
We find out this has all been flashback: it is a few years later, and she is reading his obituary: he died because he was really fat.
The chunky young actress will be up for an Oscar, because she is Authentic. Then Hollywood will forget about her because they have already now made a fat chick movie, and are back to the young and good-looking people.
Politely shunned, she will write a memoir. Where we find out that George Clooney likes to fuck young fat girls on the down low: who knew?
I am Laslo.
Just fatties, here in the Islets of Langerhans. But I've seen some pudgy dykes grab onto some pouty skanks.
In the end CPAC will fade into irrelevance and Milo will self publish and make a lot more money. I look forward to watching them grovel for Trump.
Nobody cares about the country club republicans anymore.
Seems like Milo self publishing is contingent on Amazon wanting to carry his book. If they don't, he has a serious problem.
Bill Maher was his last big TV appearance. He has all his financial eggs in one basket now, better hope that book still works ssomehow, and that it makes him 40 years of income.
The end of CPAC, dream on. Anyone that believes CPAC is about "country club republicans" doesn't know what CPAC is.
I do agree that CPAC is making a mistake disinviting Milo, he's said nothing "wrong".
He's not done--this has given him more publicity than ever before. I finally caught some video of him and only now realized he was British. The publicity will help him cash in big time.
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.
He had no issue with age of consent. Said it is fine. He said some youths might be able to offer consent before the age of consent (a perfectly valid argument) but not that age of consent is bad.
Mind you, Democrats DEFENDED Studds who actually DID advocate what they claim Milo is advocating (which he clearly is not --- he, in fact, called out major publications for justifying pedophilia in 2015).
Maybe someone else will pick it up, but I bet the terms won't be much. Buyers market all of a sudden.
He can self-publish and keep the proceeds. Let the dying publishing world continue wasting. It was the #1 best-selling book on Amazon. It won't be a challenge for him to turn profits here.
He said the age of consent is right but that some might be able to provide consent before that age. He said it is fairly common in the gay community.
THIS is "advocating pedophilia".
damikesc:
I'm not suggesting that he did. I am suggesting that it is worthwhile to review and reiterate social standards. We have a propensity to allow social liberals to set the narrative, direct social development, and then discuss the consequences. This deference to fringe elements of society has placed our civilization on a progressive slope including: abortion rites (i.e. denial of life unworthy), friendship with "benefits" (e.g. polygamy without commitment). The separation of Church (i.e. moral standards) and State is an illusion.
"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."
I read a lot about Oscar Wilde about 25 years ago, when my lawprof research was about evidence and rape. I don't have time right now to track down the books I read, but I remember quite a bit of attention to the poor boys who were called to testify against him and his use of these children as prostitutes and assumptions that they would not be heard because they were poor and disreputable. The usual story that Wilde was persecuted because he was gay was entirely flipped when these vulnerable children were brought into the story. I won't try to state the facts without rereading things. I am only saying that I certainly remember Wilde being accused of things that gay-friendly people today would condemn.
From a WaPo review of McKenna's book:
"Wilde was born in Dublin in 1854, and he lived his entire life during the reign of Queen Victoria. His youth was circumscribed by the suffocating morals of Victorian life, in which sodomy was frequently portrayed as a crime worse than murder. But thanks to the British addiction to contradiction, gay sex was rampant among upper-class 19th-century boys and men. According to John Addington Symonds, a gay poet who attended Harrow, a public school, "every boy of good looks [there] had a female name, and was recognized either as a public prostitute" or as some bigger fellow's lover, while Wilde's future lover, Lord Alfred Douglas ("Bosie"), estimated that "at least ninety per cent of his contemporaries" at Winchester had sex with other boys. "The practice of Greek love is so general that it is only those who are physically unattractive that are reduced to living without love," Bosie wrote many years later....Bosie was "addicted to sex" with "dangerous young men," including male prostitutes -- tastes that Oscar eventually came to share. When they did become lovers, Oscar and Bosie flaunted their desire for working-class boys, entertaining them everywhere from the Savoy Hotel to the Cafe Royal. Even in Victorian England, they might have gotten away with their brazen displays of public affection, although most of their contemporaries considered inter-class sex at least as shocking as homosexual unions. But two facts guaranteed Wilde's eventual fall: Bosie's father, the Marquis of Queensberry, was violently homophobic, and Bosie was one of his two gay sons. The other, Viscount Francis Drumlanrig, was the lover of Lord Rosebery, who became a Liberal prime minister."
Is Oscar Wilde's reputation due for another reassessment?
I am Laslo.
He's done. Not even really his fault. What a way to go.
Laslo at 12:31: Brilliant! :-D
Pederasty is as old as the human race. That doesn't make it acceptable. And just as old are the rationalizations used to justify it. Man will forever seek to change the law to accommodate his base desires.
Thank you, mockturtle...
I am Laslo.
Eh, people have recovered from even worse, actual terrible things. Like, Roman Polanski, who is still a hero to much of the entertainment industry.
Either way, I'm not invested in Milo, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't condoning pedophilia because, well, most people don't, and his explanation makes sense. I still don't think I'll buy his book or listen to him speak, ever, but I find it odd that this brief clip is considered damnable proof while hours long videos of other subjects are "edited" and "out of context." It is like the media has separate standards.
It is like the media has separate standards.
What??? Next you'll be telling me that there is gambling at Rick's and that carnival games are rigged! I'm shaken!
BINGO!
There is a great continuum of human sexuality. All societies place arbitrary limits on what is considered "decent" and "acceptable" behavior. These arbitrary limits cannot usually be justified by argument starting from first principles. To my mind, human biology is a logical guide and so puberty is a good general guideline. Societal attempts to limit the sexuality of post-pubescent teenagers usually fail laughably - precisely because the teenagers are chock full of hormones.
Putting the arbitrary limits of what is acceptable in play is necessarily disruptive, and we did it to ourselves in the west by mainstreaming homosexuality, formerly one of numerous sexual deviancies. Bluenose gasping over the idea that adult homosexuals are interested in teenage boys is ridiculous. "Chickenhawks" were a known phenomenon in ages ago - certainly in my midwestern boyhood - and boys who were uninterested in sucking dicks or having older men suck theirs steered clear of them. I suspect this has been going on just about forever, and it appears to be what Milo is talking about. And it isn't just the "boys" either. David Hamilton the "artist" was certainly all about pubescent girls back in the '70s. Since then, feminism has demonized sexual contact between older men and younger women, ala Woody Allen. Mick Jagger is cool enough to do what he wants, though.
A great deal of Milo's schtick is being brazen. His comments about so-called "pedophilia" are part and parcel of that. And if we are honest, and discuss REAL pedophilia (as so many insist on conflating with pederasty), what do we REALLY know about it, other than our society conditions people to find it morally repulsive? Is there rigorous scientific evidence to prove it is ever-lastingly damaging to the participants without exception?
What if real pedophiles are BORN that way, as we are conditioned to believe that homosexuals and the entire LGBTQ-whatever spectrum is? What should we do with them? Kill them? Castrate them? Imprison them? Let them furtively jerk to cartoon sex? Give them Japanese child-sex robots at tax-payer expense? Wait for Hollywood to make sentimental movies about it? Wait for a sitcom that shows funny, lovable, child-buggerers?
From a WaPo review of McKenna's book:
Says Wilde was circumscribed - I wonder how they knew?
"every boy of good looks [there] had a female name,
Sounds like fake history.
"The Victorian attitudes towards sex in general were, as might be expected, extremely complex. The findings of my sample survey of men prosecuted for having sex with other men – more than 280,000 individual cases brought before the senior criminal courts of Assize and Quarter Session – have produced some starting results. Fewer than 313 such trials have been uncovered for the period from 1850 up to the outbreak of the First World War, which at first glance would appear to suggest a rate of fewer than five such prosecutions per year.
... to protect his younger son ‘Bosie’ from the alleged ‘corrupting influence’ of Oscar Wilde. That led to Wilde’s trial of the 1890s, perhaps the famous – albeit most atypical – criminal prosecution of sex between males of the period."
Post a Comment