Yet one time he says something questionable and suddenly he is something he is not. It does not matter how many times previously he had denounced pedophiles. It does not matter how he had exposed them. It does not matter that nothing he has done is suggestive of him acting on or being attracted to children nor associating with those that do (the opposite is true).
Nothing? He talked in his sleep? He misspoke? A slip of the tongue?
Yeah, right.
So, this is a tangent that will probably now piss everyone off in this thread, but I honestly remember at the time reading the *descriptions* of what he said vs the *transcript* of what he said and did feel like he got shredded because what he said sounded worse out of context than it did in context.
That said, on a re-read, I'm landing somewhere in the middle. It sounds like he's correct in distinguishing what pedophilia definitionally is vs isn't in terms of perpetrator psychology, but isn't correct in thinking about brain vs. body development when thinking about consent and power differentials in teens vs adults, which is extremely problematic. And it sounds like he did clarify that he wasn't just talking about may-december relationships (which are gross imo, but if they're between adults, whatevs), but was talking about teens whose bodies are developed but whose brains aren't.
Now, to be super-sure I'm pissing everyone off here, I'll add this: This is a good example of where culture and education play a role in social sexual mores, not just "intuitive morality." If you really don't understand (or believe) that the body can be developed as visually "sexually mature" long before the brain is developed enough to really give consent (particularly to an adult, where there's an incredible power differential), what does that do to how you think about adolescent sexuality, and what you deem as OK?
Milo was sexually abused as a young teen. I think only someone either ignorant, stupid or immoral would not at least look at what he said and say "Who is he talking about as the teenager in this situation? Is he talking about himself and trying to justify what was done to him?"
Now a logical next step is to say "Well, maybe it is and maybe it is not. So let's examine what else we know of him, to put it into perspective. Was there any reason he may try to downplay his sexual abuse and the relationship he had? Why would he not wish to be seen as a victim? Has he done or said anything that may send a contrary or opposing message to the pedophilia apologist or pedophile label so easily stuck to him?"
Well to the first point - Absolutely! Part of Milo's schtick is to say "I am no one's whipping boy and I am not afraid of anything (threatened violence, death threats, bannings and so on)". He is not afraid of being Gay Jewish and Conservative. None of his persona lends it to admitting he was a victim.
To the second point, not only has he been a staunch critic of pedophilia but has written exposees of pedophiles at personal risk of defamation suits and the like and has been a staunch critique of pedophiles.
No one seems to wish to partake of this critical analysis because they do not like him and it is easier to hold to ideologically driven narrative without examining context there. Personally I think it intellectually dishonest but no matter. My opinion is my opinion.
