CDZ Did MILO mean young men not young boys? or does he really support pedophilia?

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Jan 21, 2010
23,669
4,177
290
National Freedmen's Town District
Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not

Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.

I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.

I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.

Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.

Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.

BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.

I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.

I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.

========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook

I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.

If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.

Some facts to consider:

1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.

(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/

(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/

(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/

2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/

3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.

4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.

5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.

6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.

7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.

8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.

9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.

10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. 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 were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================

NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.

If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.


If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.

If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.

I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?
 
Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not

Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.

I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.

I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.

Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.

Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.

BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.

I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.

I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.

========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook

I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.

If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.

Some facts to consider:

1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.

(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/

(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/

(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/

2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/

3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.

4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.

5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.

6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.

7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.

8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.

9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.

10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. 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 were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================

NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.

If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.


If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.

If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.

I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?

Milo blundered by going to UC Berkeley to address the alumni, the hotbed of progs.
 
The people who brought this upon him love pedophilia for themselves.

No I'd disagree with that as well.

The people seem so AFRAID of pedophilia they don't want to address it but just blame it on some convenient target, project everything onto that person or group, where they don't have to go any deeper. It's boxed away.

Even the people who have these addictions, are they really free and happy?
It seems to me they have to hide and run. How can they "love" that?

Now the people who can openly express themselves sexually, the ones who are truly free with no issues and "love" what they do, aren't they already too busy doing what they "love" to be making messes or picking fights with others? I don't expect to see any of THOSE people on the scene raising public issues. They'd be too busy carrying on if they are so happy with their lifestyles.

So the ones who are "happy" would not be caught in such conflicts with others over it.
And the ones with conflicts about this DO NOT WANT this and aren't happy and "loving it."
 
Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not

Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.

I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.

I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.

Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.

Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.

BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.

I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.

I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.

========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook

I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.

If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.

Some facts to consider:

1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.

(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/

(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/

(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/

2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/

3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.

4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.

5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.

6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.

7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.

8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.

9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.

10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. 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 were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================

NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.

If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.


If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.

If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.

I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?

Milo blundered by going to UC Berkeley to address the alumni, the hotbed of progs.

Well at least he sought to reach out instead of avoid conflict and confrontation.
We need to have honest open dialogue between factioned groups.

If they aren't ready yet, well, this is the first step in the process to air out, vent and resolve
issues preventing our ability to communicate and relate back and forth given our differences.

Jesus was denied 3 times before he was acknowledged by even one of his own.
We have to get through three levels to be able to communicate, there are 3 layers
and it takes working backwards before we can change internally on the inside:
* there is the level of innermost truth, beliefs, thoughts and feelings, real life experiences
and memories we have inherently inside that are part of who we are whether we share it or not
* then there is our ability or our biases in expressing those beliefs thoughts and feelings to others
which is another level (ie the words that religious people use are different from secular terms, the liberal spin and priorities expressed are different from conservative ways of approaching
these same things, etc. the language we use can be biased religiously, politically, culturally
or even personally in our own style of thought or communication that isn't how others say or see things so we may "misread" what each other means or intends because of their words or ways)
* then there is our perception of each other's expressions which is the outer level where
all the biases and emotional conditions and associations get projected back and forth
(confounded on multiple levels where people use different language and talk past each other, or don't trust other groups to begin with so they aren't even TRYING to resolve those differences)

To communicate, we have to resolve any conflicts between these three levels
1. what we really mean underneath
2. our way of communicating that in words or events relations actions etc
3. our way of interpreting and perception of what each other means and intends

If we've never interacted before, and we are going in with biased perceptions
to begin with, that's three levels to work through to get to what we really mean
and what we are really about underneath the other levels masking that.
 
Last edited:
This sticking point of young boy vs young man is outrageously overblown because simply put most heterosexuals are unaware of gay language.

When you have the esteemed Oxford Dictionary defining "boy" as a young male homosexual all the way to the Urban Dictionary as a young male homosexual as well, there is no doubt that Milo was using gay slang.
 
The people who brought this upon him love pedophilia for themselves.

No I'd disagree with that as well.

The people seem so AFRAID of pedophilia they don't want to address it but just blame it on some convenient target, project everything onto that person or group, where they don't have to go any deeper. It's boxed away.

Even the people who have these addictions, are they really free and happy?
It seems to me they have to hide and run. How can they "love" that?

Now the people who can openly express themselves sexually, the ones who are truly free with no issues and "love" what they do, aren't they already too busy doing what they "love" to be making messes or picking fights with others? I don't expect to see any of THOSE people on the scene raising public issues. They'd be too busy carrying on if they are so happy with their lifestyles.

So the ones who are "happy" would not be caught in such conflicts with others over it.
And the ones with conflicts about this DO NOT WANT this and aren't happy and "loving it."
No.
 
This sticking point of young boy vs young man is outrageously overblown because simply put most heterosexuals are unaware of gay language.

When you have the esteemed Oxford Dictionary defining "boy" as a young male homosexual all the way to the Urban Dictionary as a young male homosexual as well, there is no doubt that Milo was using gay slang.
And the perverts that have leveled this against him know that.
 
Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not

Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.

I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.

I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.

Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.

Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.

BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.

I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.

I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.

========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook

I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.

If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.

Some facts to consider:

1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.

(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/

(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/

(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/

2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/

3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.

4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.

5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.

6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.

7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.

8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.

9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.

10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. 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 were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================

NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.

If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.


If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.

If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.

I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?

Milo blundered by going to UC Berkeley to address the alumni, the hotbed of progs.
He blundered when he thought crusty old white dudes would have his back.
 
This sticking point of young boy vs young man is outrageously overblown because simply put most heterosexuals are unaware of gay language.

When you have the esteemed Oxford Dictionary defining "boy" as a young male homosexual all the way to the Urban Dictionary as a young male homosexual as well, there is no doubt that Milo was using gay slang.

Hi tinydancer thanks for starting that thread and sorry it got derailed.
the only way I could fault anyone for freaking out over him saying young boys
is if they DELIBERATELY edited the order and sequence of what he said
to tie these together and make it sound even more that's what he meant.

Otherwise, I also would have blown up over someone saying THAT about young boys!
That part is a truly innocent mistake and natural reaction. We are conditioned to be protective
of children so OF COURSE people like BULLDOG would be offended and immediately
defensive, in fear and attack mode, ready to take down any such predator even threatening to go there.
it's a natural defense mechanism and reaction, and I would rather thank people for caring and not trying to judge or criticize them for their outrage which I would also have had I not been tipped off in advance
that pedophilia is NOT what he meant. I would be forever distrustful if I saw that first, and read his
explanations after that seem like justification to someone once they already are in defense mode.

If his words were manipulated and the order mangled deliberately to set him up worse,
yes, I would hold those people accountable. But not blame 'all the media on the left'
but just the individuals who actually intended and did that if they did.

I would refrain from blowing this up worse and blaming mass groups of people like a conspiracy.
The best way to resolve it is stick to the people directly responsible for their
words or things they did in this particular case. Quit the generalizations and panic
and just fix the local steps and this should be resolved.

If people have blanket issues about the larger problems, we can take that on additionally.
But we have to start by uniting locally among us first, before we take on the global issues.
We are not even READY to do that if we can't even talk and get this resolved,
between people who are willing to talk in depth and in detail.

First step, let's not judge each other for overreacting or taking things wrong.
Once the emotions and blame get out of the way, we can deal with the logistical details.
But if we are still ranting and raving and blaming, that's some other issue
that needs to be capped first. That has nothing to do with this conflict if any other
conflict is going to set people off to start projecting blame on other people and groups.

Let's agree to stop that generalized projection externally especially on opposing groups; sure, let people vent, which is natural, but don't get so attached to that part of the process that you won't let go and keep holding on to those perceptions. At some point, if we want OTHERS to change their negative perceptions,
we have to commit to changing ours to the same degree. If we can agree to start there, the rest will follow.
 
A young man, is a man from 20- 25 years old, certainly not a boy in his teens...even a 16 year old is NOT a young man....sorry!
 
Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not

Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.

I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.

I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.

Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.

Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.

BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.

I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.

I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.

========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook

I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.

If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.

Some facts to consider:

1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.

(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/

(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/

(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/

2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/

3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.

4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.

5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.

6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.

7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.

8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.

9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.

10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. 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 were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================

NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.

If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.


If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.

If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.

I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?

Milo blundered by going to UC Berkeley to address the alumni, the hotbed of progs.
He blundered when he thought crusty old white dudes would have his back.

The Spruce Goose

I think he speaks for himself and is quite capable of and responsible for correcting whatever messes he makes by opening his mouth and saying things beyond what others are ready to deal with.

If one group can't handle the level of transparency and directness he needs, of course
he'll end up going independent or with some other venue. Like Trump, maybe we are ALL heading toward direct representation when nobody else can be relied on to represent what we really mean and believe in.

I don't see people as "perverts" trying to project onto him.
I see it as "fear" being projected and blamed on others instead of resolving it at the source.

And everyone has their fears and conflicts that bias the way we see and say things.
That's not necessarily perverted but human to do that.
People were just being people.
Totally understandable how everyone reacted as they did,
given the inability of society in general to deal with this sensitive subject
in the fullest comprehensive manner required to do that right.
 
One key issue not being addressed is the how and the why of Milo's conversation with the other men that resulted in these quotes that have been so misinterpreted.

The actual topic of the show was age of consent. Both genders were being discussed but even on this board I witnessed specific editing of Milo's quotes to make it appear that he was only pushing the angle of 13 year olds with older men.

Milo actually addressed female teacher/male student relationships. 13 year old boys were mentioned in that segment.

The other time 13 came up was when he was discussing his own experiences.

Now I understand when people dislike others for their politics that's fine and dandy, but to smear Milo as we have been witnessing by accusing Milo of not only endorsing pedophilia but also to accuse Milo of being a pedophile himself with absolutely no evidence.

This goes beyond the pale.
 
A young man, is a man from 20- 25 years old, certainly not a boy in his teens...even a 16 year old is NOT a young man....sorry!


A young boy age 16 is the age of consent in Britain where Milo is from. Gay slang. And you have to remember the Brits have some very interesting terminology.

Not sure if you saw it in other threads but I put up a story about one of my good Brit friends when he first came over and we were at a party.

He said he needed to step outside to suck on a fag. The room went dead silent.

:lmao:

In Britain a fag is a cigarette. We had to straighten him out lickety split.
 
A young man, is a man from 20- 25 years old, certainly not a boy in his teens...even a 16 year old is NOT a young man....sorry!

In Germany, where Milo grew up, age of consent is 14. Europeans are much more sexually open than Americans. I'm not making an argument that it's right or wrong, just stating facts.

And I hate to break this to you but when I turned 18 in 1977, virtually no one I knew my age was a virgin who had no sexual experience. I can only imagine what it's like today. So if you want to live in a bubble where young people don't have sexual experiences before age 18, that's your hang up and no one else's. I lost my virginity at age 15 and believe me, I was trying long before that.

Being open and honest about these things doesn't mean we condone or approve of it.
 
This sticking point of young boy vs young man is outrageously overblown because simply put most heterosexuals are unaware of gay language.

When you have the esteemed Oxford Dictionary defining "boy" as a young male homosexual all the way to the Urban Dictionary as a young male homosexual as well, there is no doubt that Milo was using gay slang.

Hi tinydancer thanks for starting that thread and sorry it got derailed.
the only way I could fault anyone for freaking out over him saying young boys
is if they DELIBERATELY edited the order and sequence of what he said
to tie these together and make it sound even more that's what he meant.

Otherwise, I also would have blown up over someone saying THAT about young boys!
That part is a truly innocent mistake and natural reaction. We are conditioned to be protective
of children so OF COURSE people like BULLDOG would be offended and immediately
defensive, in fear and attack mode, ready to take down any such predator even threatening to go there.
it's a natural defense mechanism and reaction, and I would rather thank people for caring and not trying to judge or criticize them for their outrage which I would also have had I not been tipped off in advance
that pedophilia is NOT what he meant. I would be forever distrustful if I saw that first, and read his
explanations after that seem like justification to someone once they already are in defense mode.

If his words were manipulated and the order mangled deliberately to set him up worse,
yes, I would hold those people accountable. But not blame 'all the media on the left'
but just the individuals who actually intended and did that if they did.

I would refrain from blowing this up worse and blaming mass groups of people like a conspiracy.
The best way to resolve it is stick to the people directly responsible for their
words or things they did in this particular case. Quit the generalizations and panic
and just fix the local steps and this should be resolved.

If people have blanket issues about the larger problems, we can take that on additionally.
But we have to start by uniting locally among us first, before we take on the global issues.
We are not even READY to do that if we can't even talk and get this resolved,
between people who are willing to talk in depth and in detail.

First step, let's not judge each other for overreacting or taking things wrong.
Once the emotions and blame get out of the way, we can deal with the logistical details.
But if we are still ranting and raving and blaming, that's some other issue
that needs to be capped first. That has nothing to do with this conflict if any other
conflict is going to set people off to start projecting blame on other people and groups.

Let's agree to stop that generalized projection externally especially on opposing groups; sure, let people vent, which is natural, but don't get so attached to that part of the process that you won't let go and keep holding on to those perceptions. At some point, if we want OTHERS to change their negative perceptions,
we have to commit to changing ours to the same degree. If we can agree to start there, the rest will follow.

I didn't see any sign of his words being manipulated, or their order mangled.
WATCH: Milo Yiannopoulos Discusses Pedophilia on Video
 
I don't think he was condoning or supporting pedophilia, but it really doesn't matter.

This is ultimately political, his enemies have gotten what they wanted, and we all move on.

His was the ultimate high-risk schtick, he just talked too much, and his enemies found an opening.

.
 
Last edited:
A young man, is a man from 20- 25 years old, certainly not a boy in his teens...even a 16 year old is NOT a young man....sorry!

In Germany, where Milo grew up, age of consent is 14. Europeans are much more sexually open than Americans. I'm not making an argument that it's right or wrong, just stating facts.

And I hate to break this to you but when I turned 18 in 1977, virtually no one I knew my age was a virgin who had no sexual experience. I can only imagine what it's like today. So if you want to live in a bubble where young people don't have sexual experiences before age 18, that's your hang up and no one else's. I lost my virginity at age 15 and believe me, I was trying long before that.

Being open and honest about these things doesn't mean we condone or approve of it.
Did all of these 14 to 16 year olds have sex with 29 year old men?


Age of consent was 16 where Milo lived???
 
Last edited:
A young man, is a man from 20- 25 years old, certainly not a boy in his teens...even a 16 year old is NOT a young man....sorry!

In Germany, where Milo grew up, age of consent is 14. Europeans are much more sexually open than Americans. I'm not making an argument that it's right or wrong, just stating facts.

And I hate to break this to you but when I turned 18 in 1977, virtually no one I knew my age was a virgin who had no sexual experience. I can only imagine what it's like today. So if you want to live in a bubble where young people don't have sexual experiences before age 18, that's your hang up and no one else's. I lost my virginity at age 15 and believe me, I was trying long before that.

Being open and honest about these things doesn't mean we condone or approve of it.
Did all of these 14 to 16 year olds have sex with 29 year old men?


Age of consent was 16 where Milo lived???

He grew up in Germany where age of consent is 14.

I don't know who had sex with whom. He didn't say.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top