It is now 4:58 AM, I am tired, frustrated and angry. So please forgive me if what is written here is gibberish, I’ve been writing for several hours. I felt it necessary to defend Milo’s latest scandal, not because I agree with what he is saying but rather because the media is deliberately misinterpreting it. I don’t know how I feel on the subject, so I’ve written this piece as the devil’s advocate. I am sickened by the attack on Milo Yiannopoulos. In a brutal coordinated media attack Milo has had his name sullied and his reputation tarnished.

It is an excellent display of propaganda, its technique near flawless, its effect devastating; I can admire it, it is a beautifully wicked and cruel tool. The planning that went behind this attack is masterful.

Firstly there is the matter of timing, we know that the media has been sitting on this for months, waiting for the right moment in order to exact the maximum damage.

Second these is the content, two carefully edited clips, incorporating segments that do not belong to them nor directly relate, but that fits them perfectly. Then the new clips, taken out of a greater context, shows Milo making the noose with which they mean to hang him.

Let’s examine the clips.

Clip one: The Skype Group Call.

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.”

The first paragraph is sneakily snuck in to make it seem as if it is in relation to the following topic, though it is clear that this is the end of one point and not the beginning of another. It’s a crafted, sinister proposition, it says the Milo doesn’t care about child abuse. It doesn’t matter that the fact that Milo says, nor imply no such thing, but that he said ‘We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff…’ The words hung up are used against Milo to now imply triviality, and a lack of importance about child abuse, and not their original meaning that consenting adult student teacher relationships are not child abuse.

Next there is a clip played of Milo discussing his relationship with a priest at the age of 14. It is quickly played so Milo states his age and then it is stopped abruptly. Whilst this piece of footage is itself innocent and ‘non-incriminating’ when it is used in conjunction with the rest of the clip it adds more weight to the accusations.

Then we have a man making an important point in regards to consent, sexual maturity, and the legal age of consent. It’s a scientific fact that people mature at different rates. We’re all special snowflakes it that regard. Some people mature faster sexually, both their bodies and their minds, than others. This means that each individual person has a separate age of consent, the point when they matured sexually.
Of course this cannot work with law, legal systems like laws which are black or white, A or B, yes or no. Each law that is grey, a maybe law, requires deliberation by judges and the justice system, costing time and money. If the age of consent law varied for each case it would cost a fortune in time and money, therefore it is logical to set the age of consent law as black and white, a yes and no answer.
The age used is not a magic number, when children reach it they don’t suddenly become sexually mature, rather the age is simply one by which the vast majority will have sexually matured. It means that there is likely a sexually mature eleven year old and a sexually immature eighteen year old, but a large portion probably became sexually mature at around fourteen and a smaller portion at around fifteen with another small portion at around thirteen. The number is simply the most inclusive.

The next paragraph has Milo, at the very beginning, agreeing with the law on the age of consent. This is a point-blank statement that confirms Milo agrees with the law, and that sex with persons under the legal age of consent is, and should remain, illegal.
Milo then discusses the fact that some people sexually mature, and are able to give consent at a younger age than that of the law. He then theorizes a possible link between younger sexual maturity and homosexuality.

It is the next line that is doing the most damage to Milo. ‘This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have.’ Without context it appears as if Milo is saying that consent doesn’t exist, that it’s made up. This is not the case.
When speaking about biological consent in relation to legal consent Milo goes off his point to chastise the left. He states his annoyance at general policies that fail to take into account individual circumstances. When Milo is talking about consent he’s talking about policies and people’s views on consent, not consent itself either biologically or legally. He’s making a valid point about how an authoritarian view of consent is illogical and imposing on people’s liberty. Milo is talking about ideas such as that consent must be given verbally at all times, yet most people rely on body language and subtlety when about to have sex. Milo even states so himself, ‘The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex.’

Milo then goes on to talk about gay relationships between young ‘boys’ and older men. In this he never mentions specific ages and just uses general and vague terminology. He also never states these relationships are sexual, this means they could be only romantic. It’s important to note this as it means that this whole section is completely subjective.

A stinging comment is made about Catholic priest molestation, something that happened to Milo. Due to his views on consent Milo is offended, on some level, by the comment as he believes he was sexually mature enough to consent at the time and thus it would not be molestation from a moral standpoint even if it is from a legal one. Milo responds with a joke, a defense mechanism.

After a man makes a comment on pedophilia, the comments implication that Milo is about to advocate for it, Milo discusses the term. As he states, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. That is the legal and linguistic definition. However pedophilia is used as a blanket term to describe sexual attraction to those under the legal age of consent.
Milo states that he does not support sexual relations with those who are unable to consent. Milo’s talking about biological consent not legal consent. He does not advocate sex with people under the legal age of consent.

Finally when asked whether Milo is advocating for cross generational relationships he replies yes. But it’s important to recognise that cross generational relationships is a blanket term. It covers everything across all ages. A gap of 25 years is considered a generation but arguably so could a gap of 10. A cross generation relationship could therefore be that of a forty year old and a sixty-five years old.
Milo clarified in a recent video that he meant legal relationships, where both parties are above the legal age of consent. No where does Milo state that he supports relationships involving anyone under the legal age of consent.

My conclusion to the first clip is that Milo never advocated for pedophilia, nor for relationships below the legal age of consent. He simply stated facts about sexual maturity, that people are biologically able to consent at different ages and how the law is limited in regard to this. Milo illustrated the complexity of the issue by highlighting benefits of relationships with fully grown adults when coming of age.
Due to the extreme complexity of this issue Milo was unable to articulate himself properly within the Skype call. This allowed the clip to be used as excellent propaganda as it exploited people’s ignorance and pre-held conceptions.

Clip two: The Interview.

In this video Milo talks about his relationship with a Catholic priest at the age of fourteen. He refutes the allegation that it was abuse or molestation on the basis that he was sexually mature at the time. On a legal basis this was molestation and child abuse, but that is due to the nature of law as I discussed earlier. Whether this is actually molestation and child abuse theoretically varies on a case by case basis; the law itself does not operate on a case by case basis but rather a blanket basis, however when charging people with these crimes the punishment varies widely to reflect the individuality of each case.

In conclusion, much like the first video, Milo is unable to convey the complexity of the issue he is discussing. Whilst nothing he says advocates nor defends pedophilia it can be interpreted as such due to the warped meaning of the word in the present day. The media used the video to paint Milo as a pedophile sympathiser by exploiting the publics ignorance on the issue.

Timing.

As I stated earlier the media timed this release perfectly. For months they’ve had in their possession these videos but delayed releasing them until now so as to inflict maximum damage.
It is no coincidence that these videos were released at the peak of Milo’s fame, popularity and influence. Due to the sensibility of a large portion of Milo’s ideas more and more people were listening to him, turning against the media narrative. The fact Milo’s book was at number one showed that people were interested. To add to the danger Milo was about to integrate further into the political landscape by speaking at the CPac conference. This could not be allowed to happen, so they striked.

The cherry on top of all this however is the utilisation of right-wing conservatives to publish the videos, therefore it appears as if it were a natural attack from within, and not an orchestrated one.
With heavy media coverage that polarised conservatives against Milo CPac retracted their invitation and Simon & Schuster were forced to cancel his book deal. These actions are designed to lead to infighting among conservatives and republicans. Their strategy is divide and conquer.

Whilst I understand why people have such high convictions when it comes to children and teenagers and anything sexual, I belive it is vital that this topic be cracked open and discussed properly using facts and not feelings. The reaction to Milo’s comments highlights the lack of discussion and information regarding these issues.

Glad that’s done, lots to digest, don’t really know what to think about all this right now.

That’s that. Have a good day folks.


J.P.R. Campbell

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s