Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Milo Uninvited to CPAC
Well, that was quick. A message from ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp:
Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
We realize that Mr. Yiannopoulos has responded on Facebook, but it is insufficient. It is up to him to answer the tough questions and we urge him to immediately further address these disturbing comments.
We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers.
Conservative social media exploded over the weekend concerning the invitation of Milo, a right-leaning provocateur who has been met with protests and banning from college campuses. As people registered their opinions, pro and con, The Reagan Battalion released a recording of Milo defending pedophilia on the popular Joe Rogan podcast.
Published in General
Question: so if Lina Medina had consented, it wouldn’t have been rape for someone to knock her up at age 4.5? She had menarche at 8 months, so she’d been sexually mature for several years at that point. Menarche at nine and ten is no longer considered medically unusual — if elementary school age girls want to jump an older man’s bones, does he have no responsibility to keep his appendages to himself?
We have statutory rape laws for a reason, and it’s because just having gone through puberty or even wanting to have sex is not evidence of being old enough to consent to sex.
I just listened to the whole thing at Max’s suggestion on Facebook. While I think Max and a lot of the others on this thread are giving Milo waaaayyyyy to much credit, he is not advocating “anything goes.” He draws some lines. He says 8 is too young. He says he’s only talking about people who are biologically sexually mature. And he insists on consent. He also implies/suggests/hints at the idea that he’s talking about adolescent boys and older partners, not adolescent girls. I’m not sure, but I’m not at all convinced he would have said the same about underage girls. The complication of pregnancy would be one obvious reason for that. His thinking also seems to be driven by his own apparently positive experience of homosexual relations with older men at that age.
Starting puberty does not magically grant children the maturity to consent to a sexual relationship.
But what if 8 is biologically sexually mature? What if it’s an 8 year old boy who’s had precocious puberty putting the moves on an older man? Does that make it okay?
Historically and even today, ages of consent are often lower for girls than boys because it is thought we mature faster. (e.g. the age of consent for marriage in the PRC is 22 for men and 20 for women.) And if age of puberty is all that counts, how can a 13 year old be underage?
For the record, the current average age of menarche is 12.7, and menarche at 9 has become common, probably due to the hormonal effects of obesity.
Don’t shoot the messenger Jamie!
Amy, ditto. Don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t say anything about what he said was ok. I’m just reporting as best I can what he said — a subject that in itself we all seem to be having a remarkably hard time agreeing on given that it’s on tape.
Sorry, yes, I know. Like I’ve noticed elsewhere, when the happily married gay man is on the social conservative side of the issue, we really have gone through the looking glass.
Just to lighten the mood here, a joke I heard a few days ago:
Women mature faster than men. Most women grow breasts in their early teens. Most men don’t until their forties.
I think I agree with you here. I am merely pointing out that Milo doesn’t take as bad of a position and is much more nuanced than is otherwise being reported. However, Milo also states that he understands the need for age laws and thinks they about right. To me, it’s all about looking at the complete picture of what Milo says. I think there is even contradicting statements by Milo.
Some have claimed that Milo is a victim of abuse himself and may be rationalizing his own experiences.
Also, I think that Milo would also agree with you. He also states the need mental maturity . Not to mention that there are clearly biological reasons for women to not be involved earlier and I think Milo does draw a distinction between male and female.
There are definitely contradicting statements by Milo. His defenders keep repeating that he said the age of consent laws were “about right” which is true. He did. It is also true that he criticized them repeatedly and spoke at length about the ability of 13 y.o. boys to consent and the wonders of them doing so.
Exactly. I have come to the conclusion that Milo is wrong, but not a bad person.
He seems misguided on this issue and I think he would be better off taking a stronger stance against young teens having sexual relationships (age less 16). In fact, one of the reasons I have defended Milo on these threads on Ricochet is that I think there is a conversation to have over what age is allowable and what conditions should be met for consent.
After all, one note I should make is I would criticize some of our age of consent laws as well. The statutory rape laws in California are absurd as the age of consent is 18. This, if I understand it correctly, makes it illegal for a 18 years old person to have sex with a 17 years and 364 day old person. And I mean prison/jail time with the possibility of sex offender lists.
This is the one size fits all policy that Milo criticizes and I don’t think he is wrong in this case.
On July 10, 2013, National Review Online ran a piece entitled “Evolution at Harvard: How financier Jeffrey Epstein changed the course of evolutionary studies at Harvard.”
This was an article praising Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of “soliciting sex from an underage girl”, for his funding of scientific research. It was accompanied by a large photo of Epstein. The article is still in the searchable archives of NRO.
How could this happen at the Citadel of Responsible Conservatism?
The implication here is that apparently the November election result was a demonstration of a new era of “broadening appeal”…only in Trump land does a 46% result – which has now shrunk to 44% ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html ) – constitute “broadening appeal”.
This is nothing new.
It’s not the delta alone that is the main point of my comment.
What about the angle taken by alt-right folks: that this is primarily a hit by the media? It is certainly what it felt like to me… It seems it really was dumb to have him speak and even dumber to cancel him. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/operation-destroy-milo.html
“Oh, it’s just the media trying to do him in by quoting him.”
Sounds like the PM complaining in the first half of this clip:
I just think it’s more helpful to evaluate the facts of what he actually said than to speculate about the motives of his critics. It’s more relevant, and there’s more accessible information available.
They aren’t exclusive statements.
Age of consent laws can have the right age, be unnecessarily inflexible, and also imperfect given the broad spectrum of humanity.
Milo’s out at Breitbart.
BREAKING: Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns From Breitbart News
The left could not kill him off. It took the knife in the back from the right to off him. With allies like these who need enemies?
Probably is going to do more harm to breitbart.
This was a purity spiral to end all purity spirals.
Now the blowback starts. At this point, it’s probably best to think about this new splintering that will be even more volatile. As someone who grew up with Identity Politics, I would say beware all ambitious crusaders — they are a double-edged sword that will run you through whenever it becomes convenient.