Today I want to write about a touchy subject matter… again. Its about Milo Yiannopoulos´ statement on the drunken peasants podcast where he is being accused of defending pedophilia.
My views on Milo Yiannopoulos
Just before this scandal emerged I found out that I was tired of Milo Yiannopoulos. I was tired of him as a character and I was also tired of him being used as a concervative shield. The “we can´t be racist, homophobic or anti-semetic cuz we like Milo Yiannopoulos and he is a gay jew who just have sex with black guys”. I dont know how many times I heard that. I am so tired of hearing about Milo Yiannopoulos´active sexlife and what he does and likes to do. If he truly were concervative he would agree that that is a PRIVATE thing and not something to rub into other people´s faces.
I liked Milo Yiannopoulos when he started to become famous. He wrote some interesting pieces in defence of GamerGate and he was fresh air in the debate. But after some years I have grown really tired of him as he grew more and more flamboyant, more and more “outrageous” as a fighter for freedom of expression. I am myself a lover of freedom of expression, but that doesnt mean I think its taktfull or wise to run off with ones mouth over and over again. I found myself wishing that Milo Yiannopoulos would tone down his demeanor and go back to a more serious behavior as he originally was. Perhaps that may be the one good thing to come out of this, that he may tone down is blabbering mouth a bit in the future. You are no Oscar Wild, Milo.
What did Milo Yiannopoulos say and what did he mean
So the scandal came from some “free thinking” on the Drunken Peasants Podcast Episode 193 “aired” Jan 4, 2016. I dont listen to Drunken Peasants Podcast or anything else the AngryAtheist puts out, but when this scandal came out I did know that Milo had said what he said a long time ago. It was another one of the vulgarities I have become so tired of. “Oh, Milo. What a provocateur. How are you a christian concervative again?”
The subject that was addressed on the Drunken Peasants Podcast was child pornography, pedophilia and child sexual abuse. The setting of the Drunken Peasants Podcast is to spew out provocative nonsense to offend people who are easily offended. Its a childish show, just as most of what the AngryAtheist makes. This setting may have been the reason why Milo decided to be “outrageous” again. Here is what he said that seem to provoke people a year later.
He talked about his own sexual experience of having sex with an older man at the age of 13.
“I would say in the situation I describe on the Joe Rogan show, I was definitely the predator in both occasions, as offensive as people may find that. I dont much care. That was certainly my experience of it.” He also jokes “I’m grateful for father Micheal. I would not give as such as good head if it weren’t for him.”
The problem with this talk is that he is running of with his mouth and cant keep it clear if he is talking about his own experience or sexual molestation in general. But it does seem from later statements that that was his intent. To speak from his experience and not draw some liberal view on the matter. He also wants to distinct between sex between pre-pubescent children and pubescent teens. From the strict definition of pedophilia he is right. Wikipedia says: “Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.” You are not a pedophile if you molest someone after they have reached puberty and have become sexually mature. But he says it with little tact and it can be disturbing to listen to. Not seem to acknowledge the mental maturity that is also relevant to the AGE of CONCENT debate. He does, though, make it clear that he thinks the AGE of CONCENT is “just about right” and that the german AGE of CONCENT which is 14 is a bit low.
The lost context of the gay subculture
When I was young there was a show aired on Norwegian state channel NRK called Queer as Folk (UK-1999). I have seen about two episodes of that show, and one of them was the pilot episode. In the pilot episode we are introduced to three characters. From Wikipedia “The main characters are Stuart Allen Jones (Aidan Gillen), who is highly sexually active, and successfully so. His long-time friend Vince Tyler (Craig Kelly), who has a crush on Stuart, has less luck regarding men. 15-year-old Nathan Maloney (Charlie Hunnam) is new to the gay scene but is not lacking in self-confidence.”.
In the first episode we witness Nathan, the 15 year old, have sex with Stuart. This is below the age of consent in the UK, where this show was made. It is also illegal in Norway where I saw the episode on Norwegian television. From what I gather, this is never brought up as something bad and there are noe legal consequences for Stuart having sex with this 15 year old. There was not much debate after the show was aired either if this portrayal was okay or not.
Its kind of difficult to talk about this without understanding that gay subculture have a long history with sexual promiscuity, sexual exploration and sexual hedonism. Causal drug use, bending of ones own and others sexual limits and even braking the age of consent is not uncommon in the gay subculture. One usually laughs when a “christian concervative” says that accepting homosexuality may lead to accepting other more destructive sexual behavior. i.e Pedophilia. But those who laugh dont understand that in the gay subculture there is a lot of grey areas. More than 50. If you want to know more you can google search things like “daddy and son” and “twink”. You will see that there is a lot of this.
Do I stand with Milo?
So do I stand with Milo? Yes, I do. If I understood everything correct his opinion is that 1) pedophila is to be attracted to pre-pubesant children, 2) that not everyone who have sexual encounters below the arbitrary age of consent will feel abused, 3) he supports the age of consent (although not sure if its the UK or US standard, but at least not the german one). If this is his stand then he is NOT an advocate for pedophila. He may have been provocative, but mostly from a hetrosexual and US point of view. I am sure that the LGBTQ will not support him for saying this, but they do know that what he said is very common in the gay subculture. If that is okay or not we need to have a DEBATE about, but that debate can NOT be had if one is suppose to crucify anyone who talks about it.
I wish Milo Yiannopoulos would tone down his character a bit. I think he may say many interessting things, but sometimes, like now, he said something that was not tactful. He also said he was sorry, which means he will be dead by dawn. But yes, I think I understood what he meant, but I had to try to understand it. Not everyone will have that attitude. I think Milo Yiannopoulos have spooken from a gay European perspective and the US do have some serious issues with talking about certain things that we in Europe, for better or worse, talk more freely about. Also I think Milo Yiannopoulos should ask himself if he truly is a concervative. Often he says stuff that does not ring concervative at all.