Quite true, that’s ephebophilia

“Gay people don’t really make a hard and fast distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia”

Some gay people. Just like some straight people don’t. The rate is about the same.

And before you bring up that gay couple in Australia who adopted a boy to abuse, do try and find another case or two – extrapolating from one data point is a bit silly. Especially when there’s plenty of cases of straight pedophiles doing the same thing.

I decided to listen to the whole Milo interview, which I think is this:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d0_1487637258

It’s 15mins of silly banter.

Amazing that it could be the bloke’s Ron Burgundy “F U San Diego” moment.

Another Gay may who cannot keep his paedophilia separate from his homosexuality:

Tatchell contributed a chapter to the 1980 book Betrayal of Youth that questioned whether 16 was the appropriate age of consent, but did not make any specific recommendation for the appropriate age.[94] He wrote in 2012 that he would not have written for the book had he known that the editor and many of the other contributors were involved in paedophile advocacy.[94]

In 1996 Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 14 years, to adjust for studies that showed nearly half of all young people had their first sexual experiences prior to 16 years old, regardless of sexuality. He stated that he wished to exempt these people from being “treated as criminals by the law,” and that the campaign claimed there should be no prosecution if the difference in ages of the sexual partners was no more than three years, provided that these youths are given a more comprehensive sex education at a younger date.[95] He was quoted in the OutRage!’s press release as saying “Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them”.[96] Leo McKinstry, in The Sun, called the release “a perverts’ charter”.[97]

In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about “boy-love,” calling the work “courageous,” before writing:

“ The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[98] ”

Tatchell has since reiterated that he does not condone adults having sex with children. On his personal website, under the subsection Age of Consent, he writes:

“ My articles urging an age of consent of 14 are motivated solely by a desire to reduce the criminalisation of under-16s who have consenting relationships with other young people of similar ages. I do not support adults having sex with children. I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16. But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register.[99] ”

On Tatchell’s personal website he also states that “My Guardian letter cited examples of youths in Papuan tribes and some of my friends who, when they were under 16, had sex with adults (over 18s), but who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the mainstream opinion about inter-generational sex. They have every right for their perspective to be heard.”[94] He also debunks various claims that his critics (such as the British National Party)[100] made against him, such as his contributions to the Betrayal of Youth (BOY) book, published by Warren Middleton of the Paedophile Information Exchange, stating that:

“ I had no idea that [Middleton] was involved in paedophilia advocacy when I was asked to write my essay. […] When I was invited to write a chapter, I was told it was a book about children’s rights and asked if I could write about the age of consent. It seemed a reasonable request at the time.

My chapter in the book did not endorse child sex. It merely questioned whether 16 was the appropriate legal age of consent. Different people mature at different ages. There are many countries that have diverse ages of consent, some higher and some lower than 16. I did not advocate the abolition of the age of consent or specify at what age sex should become lawful. I was not aware of who the other authors were or what they wrote until the book was published. I would not have agreed to be in the book if I had known. […] There is nothing in my contribution that even remotely condones child sex abuse.[94]

”

He also comments on an interview he conducted in the late 1990s on the subject of paedophilia and child prostitution, in which he interviewed a 14-year-old boy (under the pseudonym “Lee”) who had had sex with older men, in some cases for money. In this interview, Tatchell makes various counterarguments against Lee’s point of view, such as: “How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent?”, “Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most young people are not so sophisticated about sex”, “Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited”, “Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn’t that a legitimate worry?”.[94][101]

In the Irish Independent on 10 March 2008 he repeated his call for a lower age of consent to end the criminalisation of young people engaged in consenting sex and to remove the legal obstacles to upfront sex education, condom provision and safer sex advice.[102]

So Peter Tatchell published a chapter arguing for man-boy love in a book published by a member of the PIE?

And yet he is a beloved respected admired member of the Gay community to this day. Milo gets read out of the heterosexual community. Tatchell will probably get an OBE

“Loose lips sink ships”

Milo is a casualty of war. For war it is and we cannot expect an unbroken series of victories. Esp when the enemy has a volcanically hot fountain of emotional bullshit as their main weapon.

Milo himself has thrown lots of cold water on the hot rocks of the lefts faux “poor-little-Gays-we-are-your-only-friends” crap. But a careless word allowed them to line him up in the sights of their newest and still lively femmishite geyser–The Paedo Panic. The falsely-accused shade of Jimmy Savile seems to have taken him down.

The moral: let all strikes be surgical. Gob control–don’t be shooting it off in bullshit sessions.

@smfs,

Not so many years ago many heterosexual paedophiles were openly advocating for its legalisation, under less threatening sounding euphemisms. In west germany they had their own Political party (greens).

Bloke in Germany in St Albans – “Not so many years ago many heterosexual paedophiles were openly advocating for its legalisation, under less threatening sounding euphemisms. In west germany they had their own Political party (greens).”

The amusing thing is that you think this was a heterosexual effort.

Yes, the Greens were deeply complicit in child abuse. But I am not sure how much of it was paedophilia – does letting a child play with your penis for political, as opposed to sexual, reasons count? Even that part that was paedophilia looks pretty Gay to me. As in Britain.

Chuckle. That’s why most of us keep it anonymous!

I’m often surprised by the topics Tim Newman covers, given I assume that’s his real name.

In some ways, sad times we live in.

Yeah he lost a good gig basically with that Father Michael joke. But for me there was a prior mistake. Milo mixed his sentiments about the age of consent with his usual dialectic of “what i hate about the left is…”

That part of the age of consent being a leftist thing is just factually wrong and so it came across as: “what i hate about the current widely approved of law to protect children is…”

Listening to the whole DPs episode it was akin to special pleading for the homosexual community. And that’s very strange coming from Milo. No we don’t want to make laws up for the benefit of individual sections of society. Milo’s meant to be fighting against all proposed and agitated for discriminatory laws and rules based on identity being imposed on us.

But when it is people on the Right who are offended by him then he comes over all, “Pwease sir, I didn’t weally mean it” and falling back on his identity as a gay man to justify what he said – just like Lefties!!

To be honest, the last few months on Twitter have seen his opponents repeatedly cite examples of him issuing writs to media firms who call him nasty names, and complaining that he is being victimised and singled out for abuse (of the non-physical kind). They have a point when they say this is somewhat inconsistent with his whole raison d’etre of free speech and “feelings don’t matter”.

The age of consent is a social construct, because there’s nothing magical about a particular birthday. It varies from country to country, and it has varied through time. Mostly, it was to protect girls, who pre-puberty would be damaged, and post-puberty could become pregnant. Clearly, some further physical development post-puberty would seem to be necessary if pregnancy is not to be a death sentence. After that, it resolves itself into issues of mental maturity.

Some of the homosexual arguments are because pregnancy does not apply.

As for me, I think it is about right in the UK and other civilised countries when we are dealing with normal, civilised, citizens. The law does seem to be misapplied sometimes, but generally it comes down harder on people who abuse a position of authority and less hard on teenagers experimenting. The bad cases are those where law has been applied too rigidly – or too loosely.

But have some children. The gene pool needs you.

Take it up with Ms. Sharapova. She’s not putting out on the dubious grounds that she has no idea who the f*ck I am.

Witchie,
“The age of consent is a social construct, because there’s nothing magical about a particular birthday”

Law in its entirety is a social contruct, A better documented one than others true. I forget the Latin tag but its generally held exceptions make bad law. Thus advocating a change to the age of consent to benefit this particular subset of humans is a bad argument. Now that’s not what Milo’s in hot water for, but you know ignoring the drama of being shocked by a schockmeister, that’s the best that can be taken from what Milo said, And it’s still deeply unconvincing.

I love Milo. He’s a funny, smart, courageous man with fabulous hair.

He’s done nothing objectively wrong. Nobody – including the folks engaged in the orchestrated smear campaign against him – believes he has ever harmed a child or would harm a child or condones harming children.

His mistake was believing that his motormouth shock jock persona would insulate him from a good old fashioned media witch hunt. As many outrageous entertainer-provocateurs have discovered before him, it only takes a few cherry-picked off-the-cuff remarks to gin up the outrage mill.

Hopefully he’ll bounce back from this and become more fabulous than ever.

Damn autocorrect. Phone is stuck in German mode but that doesn’t account for Cockburnspath.

You better slow down and stop texting while you drive Biggie.

It would be just terrible if you got Marc Bolan’d–and in the UK as well. What a badge of shame when you could have gone out in a blaze of glory doing 120 on an Autobahn.

Is most of the damage to the Right from this just self-inflicted?

The baying mobs that hate Milo might have something new to bay about, but if it wasn’t this it’d be something else anyway. Can’t see any practical difference being made there.

CPAC uninviting him and (the rumour of) Breitbart staff threatening to quit if he didn’t walk, that seems to be where the damage is.

The book deal he can work around, as he’s had plenty of publicity already.

Those folks in the middle, the ones you should have to work on persuading, I genuinely wonder how many of them give a shit.

I’m thinking back to when the LibLabCon folks try to decapitate UKIP by ganging up in South Thanet. Instead of giving up at that setback, ultimately thinking “ah fuck it” and carrying on worked for Nige. They’ve never let the “un-resignation” thing go, but so what? He still won the big prize; they still lost.

The problem with Milo is that he apologised. You should never apologise as this is something that the illiberal left will use to attack you with; your choice is to either double down on what you said or to explain it so that the masses can laugh at the hysterical regressives. But never, ever apologise.