Milo Resigns from Breitbart

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 -”
 
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.”
 
Soda Popinsky said:
For the record, I am what everyone on here considers liberal, meaning I'm actually neither nor conservative but know how to think critically, and I don't have much of a problem with what he said. He wasn't advocating pedophilia. He was just saying that, for him, being in an illegal relationship with with an older man when he was young, had some upside. But the second anyone mentions that kind of stuff, people immediately say they were advocating pedophilia. IMO, he was just trying to say that it didn't affect him all that negatively. That isn't the same as advocating it. But I can see why people have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

That isn't what he is saying now.

I have only see a couple of his talks but a lot of schtick was attacking college students for their "victim" culture. He is now saying he spent his 20s running away from something and didn't get straightened out until he was 30. He wrote,
"This week, for political gain, the media and the Republican establishment accused a child abuse victim of enabling child abuse."

Before he said it wasn't molestation. Now he is a victim.
 
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.”
 
Overtures said:
Again, this is not the interview in question.

He clearly defends pedophilia in a separate interview, saying 13-year-old gay boys benefit from having an adult mentor who can help them understand their sexuality.
Click to expand...

Even if we brush aside that he later mentioned that "boys" was in reference to young, adult men (as is a common colloquialism for such in the gay community), the context would suggest that he is assuming that other young gay men have had similar, perhaps positive interactions with older men. He's not saying "all 13 year old gay boys would benefit from fucking adult men", and the fact that the media is portraying what he said as such is disgusting and dishonest.
 
Will he appear on Oprah and try to come out a sympathetic figure and re-invent himslf?

That would be funny.
 
BEER said:
Even if we brush aside that he later mentioned that "boys" was in reference to young, adult men (as is a common colloquialism for such in the gay community), the context would suggest that he is assuming that other young gay men have had similar, perhaps positive interactions with older men. He's not saying "all 13 year old gay boys would benefit from fucking adult men", and the fact that the media is portraying what he said as such is disgusting and dishonest.
Click to expand...

If you take more issue with "the media" in this situation than you do the implications of what Milo said, you're out of touch.
 
Ruprecht said:
What are you referring to exactly?
He said he was 12-13 when he "lost his virginity" to a drag queen and 13-14 when he was abused by the priest.
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to know all the facts. I just 5 mins of his press conference and he said that. I didn't know about his abuses when he was younger. Did he condone those on the Rogan podcast too?
 
M3t4tr0n said:
Some Milo lovers in the war room went bat shit crazy for pizzagate
Click to expand...

speaking of batshit crazy what happened to hans gruber after the election?
or was he the guy arrested at the pizzeria
 
jeffk said:
That isn't what he is saying now.

I have only see a couple of his talks but a lot of schtick was attacking college students for their "victim" culture. He is now saying he spent his 20s running away from something and didn't get straightened out until he was 30. He wrote,
"This week, for political gain, the media and the Republican establishment accused a child abuse victim of enabling child abuse."

Before he said it wasn't molestation. Now he is a victim.
Click to expand...

What he has said is that he doesn't consider himself to be a victim, but under the law, he was a victim of sexual abuse.

He has openly talked about how his hedonistic sex life lead him down bad paths. He's not crying victim like a feminist whining about "manspreading", he's literally a victim of a sexual crime.
 
Tropodan said:
I won't pretend to know all the facts. I just 5 mins of his press conference and he said that. I didn't know about his abuses when he was younger. Did he condone those on the Rogan podcast too?
Click to expand...

It wasn't on Rogan's podcast so much as the one I posted earlier.
 
dontsnitch said:
He explicitly said that he's not into 14 year olds. Whether or not he is, I don't know, but he explicitly said he's not. I quoted it to you.

As for the act of condoning, that's not how it works. By that logic, Corey Haim and Corey feldman, who refused to name pedophiles in Hollywood, are also condoning it. Elijah Wood also claimed the same, and refused to give names. It may be cowardly and rooted in a sense of self-preservation, but it is not an act of approval, that's patently false.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about Milo being a pedophile or being into underage boys, I don't know why you're arguing as if I said that. He was justifying "Father Michael" by acting like it was normal was my point. He used Rogan being attracted to a 15 year old as a way of justifying it....should have went with female teachers fucking high school boys since society doesn't really have an issue with that. (if the woman is attractive that is)

1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like):
The government condoned the computer hacking among rival corporations.
2. to give tacit approval to:
That silence is condoning it, it's like
Click to expand...

That seems to fit the definition of condoning perfectly.
 
ripskater said:
I thought Milo was the victim of a pedophile priest? I don't think he is a pedophile himself.
Click to expand...
No, he's a defender of a pedophile, not one himself....at least that we know of, as victims of child molestation often go on to become molesters themselves.
 
Overtures said:
If you take more issue with "the media" in this situation than you do the implications of what Milo said, you're out of touch.
Click to expand...

What part of what Milo said, in the proper context, should I take issue with?

The part where he says that 16 is probably the right age for legal consent, despite the fact that people develop physically and cognitively at different rates? And that the line has to be drawn somewhere for the overall protection of society?

Or the part where he says that some young gay men have had positive experiences with older gay men? Which seems to be an experience-based truth for him. Is he not the right kind of victim for you?

What about the part where he corrects the interviewers in that a "pedophile" is not someone who is attracted to sexually mature teenagers? Is that the part that bothers you?

What about the part where he has disavowed the notion, and throughout his career, decried pedophilia and even outed pedophiles?

You reading into some implications that aren't there is your problem, not mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,682
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top