I do dislike when feminists who do not care about men’s issues consider themselves authorities on the matter. I particularly dislike when a feminist with a history of treating men’s issues as a joke decide to “educate” people about those issues. I truly hate when someone who has attacked male rape victims presumes to defend them.
Enter Joanna Schroeder. She is a member the Good Men Project, and has previously maligned male victims for challenging feminism and speaking about their experiences on their own terms. She has spent her time at GMP and on other sites like the Daily Dot periodically virtue-signalling about sexual violence against boys by repeating the same things actual advocates and male victims have stated for years. She then goes silent about the topic until another a major news story hits that she can use to tell people what they already know.
Like many people, she wrote an article about Yiannopoulos’s statements regarding older men having sex with boys. Yet Schroeder decided to take a different approach, claiming that Milo “minimizes the impact that abuse like this can have upon the boys who are victimized” and perpetuates myths about male victimization.
It is a bizarre claim because we can hear Milo’s words and he never claimed that boys could not be victims. He never stated that boys are not harmed by abuse. He never stated that adults could not prey on children. This makes Schroeder’s position that she wants to:
[…] take a moment to quickly debunk some very common myths about male survivors of sexual abuse, some of which Milo perpetuates in his interview.
Because male survivors deserve for the world to know the truth, so that they can get the support they need, and stop being blamed for the abuse they endured.
rather ridiculous, not only because that is not what Milo said, but also because her second sentence is the continuation of a clause and therefore should be attached using a comma.
But let us allow Schroeder to explain to us how Milo perpetuates myths about male victims:
1. Myth: Very mature minors can consent to sex with adults.
Truth: No, they cannot. Regardless of maturity, minors cannot consent to sex with adults.
Actually, they can. Any adult can ask a child if they want to do something and the child, should they be old enough to understand language, can say yes or no. The issue not whether the child can give consent. The issue is:
[…] that a [young] person […] is not able to fully think through the consequences of saying “yes” and is especially vulnerable to an unbalanced power dynamic between a child and an adult.
Schroeder goes on to state that some abusers will manipulate consent from the child, which is true.
However, Milo never disagreed with this. He did not disagree with the consent laws, he did not argue that there are never instances in which the child does not consent or is tricked into giving consent. His specific argument was that some boys want to have sex with older men and women, that these boys are sometimes “sexual predators”, and that in those instances the child’s explicit desire for the interaction negates potential harm. He also implies that the older man in his scenario makes no attempt to force or exploit the child.
One can disagree with that scenario being acceptable or probable, yet nowhere does Milo state that all children can consent or that all sex between adults and children is consensual.
2. Myth: Gay men are more likely to commit sexual abuse.
Milo never stated that. I will repeat: Milo never stated that. Schroeder’s statement is a strawman argument.
Truth: There is no good science supporting the claim that people who identify as gay commit more sexual abuse.
In fact, the vast majority of male abusers of kids identify as heterosexual, even abusers of boys.
As the Gunderson National Child Protection Center clarifies, “Abuse is about power and control and is not anchored by sexual orientation.”
That is true, yet Milo never argued otherwise, so there is no reason to bring up. This is more of a counter to those who would use Milo’s comments to treat gay men as sexual predators.
However, there is one element that is true that Milo and TJ mentioned during the Drunken Peasants podcast: many gay men’s first sexual experience were with older men. This is fairly common in the gay community. There are a number of reasons why this could happen. The men may conflate abuse with homosexual sex. There may be men interested in boys who target gay boys figuring the boys would be more willing to have sex and less likely to tell. There is also the reality that some gay men do sexually abuse boys.
None of that negates that many gay men lose their virginity to older gay boys or men in what, based on their statements, appears to be consensual activity.
3. Myth: Gay boys are “asking for it” when they are abused by men.
Milo never said that. He did not come close to saying where. I have no idea where Schroeder got this from anything Milo said.
Truth: I shouldn’t even have to debunk this. But I will. NOBODY asks for it, ever. Not boys, not girls, not gay kids, trans kids. No child has ever have been to blame for the abuse someone else chose to commit.
Other feminists would disagree. Feminists in particular seem to have the view that boys and men are to blame for their abuse via “male privilege”, “rape culture”, and “the Patriarchy”.
Of course, this is about Milo, and he never stated that boys or girls were responsible for their abuse.
4. Myth: You can be made gay if you are a boy abused by a man.
This make three times now Schroeder has done this. So let me repeat, for the third time: Milo never stated that. Schroeder’s statement is a strawman argument.
Truth: You can’t make someone gay. That’s not a real thing.
Actually, that is not entirely true. A person can experience certain types of sexual encounters and continue that behavior because it is the manner in which they learned to have sex. There is a historical example of this: ancient Sparta. The boys in ancient Sparta were socialized to engage in homosexual behavior, although they later married women and had children with them. That homosexual behavior is something they were “made” to do, meaning that their sexual preferences for other males were likely learned, not innate.
Much of one’s behavior is biological, yet many actions one takes are social or cultural in origin. It is entirely possible that a boy abused as a child may later think he is gay and engage in said activity as a result. This may be confusion about their sexuality. I would agree, however, that there is no evidence that simply engaging in that activity or being forced to do so would changes a person’s sexual preferences. Abuse committed by a man against a boy will not make the gay.
Fortunately, Milo never made that argument.
5. Myth: If you “enjoy” the abuse, or have an orgasm or erection, it wasn’t really rape/abuse.
Where did Milo say this? Point out in which video where Milo remotely suggested this.
Truth: Erection and even orgasm are reflexes, like when the doctor hits your knee with the little rubber hammer. That is not consent.
It is funny that Schroeder brings this up, because until about 5 to 7 years ago, this was a common assumption from feminists like Schroeder. They would argue that a woman was incapable of committing rape against men because it required the man to become erect and erections only occur with the man’s expressed intent. Medical evidence to the contrary would be dismissed, and male feminists would defend the dismissal by citing instances of when they could not achieve an erection due to fear, nerves, or disinterest.
This attitude changed because of people like me constantly challenged feminists on this view. So no, Schroeder, you do not get to present arguments that your side rejected and often continue to reject until it is politically inconvenient. And you certainly do not get to accuse Milo of making this argument when he never mentioned it on Rogan’s or the Drunken Peasants’s shows.
Repeat after me: Erection and orgasms are NOT the same as consent.
Tell that to the judges forcing boys raped by women to pay their abusers child support.
6. Myth: Abused boys grow up to become abusers.
Again? Honestly, where did Milo say this? Point me to the exact time code where he stated it so I can fact-check him in oblivion. Schroeder cannot because it never happened.
Truth: The vast, vast majority of boys who were abused will never grow up to abuse anybody.
This is a myth born out of too many criminal defenses of child abusers trying to gain sympathy in court.
Actually, it is not. It comes out of Schroeder’s political movement. Feminists jumped on the claims made by men accused of abuse and used it is “proof” that sexual violence is a cycle. Feminists use this to this day as a means of arguing that boys and men need to be taught not to rape and abuse. Schroeder does not get to point the finger that anyone else. This comes directly from feminism.
The same is true with the research. Yes, there are researchers who took advantage of the hysteria around child sexual abuse and peddled the claim that victims would be become abusers because so many abusers claimed to be victims. Yet a large portion of that research was fueled by feminist theories about male behavior. This is the reason why one does not find the same assertions being made about female victims despite female abusers claiming a higher rate of child abuse than their male counterparts.
But that is beside the point. Milo never mentioned any of this, so there was no reason to bring it up.
7. Myth: A person in a position of power can “mentor” a minor boy’s sexuality.
Wow. Schroeder finally got to something Milo actually said.
Truth: If the man learned some things about sex from his abuser that he later enjoys in his consensual sex life, that does not negate the fact that the abuse was a crime.
That is true, yet that also does not negate Milo’s point that the older person can teach the boy about sex. You can still teach someone something as you abuse them. They are not mutually exclusive.
The proper refutation of Milo’s statement is not:
The abuse and the man’s future consensual sex life are separate things.
An adult having sex with a minor is abuse.
It is that one can mentor a child’s sexuality without having sex with them. You do not have to touch them to teach them about sex, what it feels like, what they might enjoy, and the things other people may want to do. That can happen through words in completely age-appropriate conversations. They may be frank conversations, yet they do not require touching.
That is the way to refute his point. Calling abuse does not change anything. This is why Milo’s joke about oral sex and Father Michael. It is possible for him to have been abused by said priest and yet legitimately learned to improve his oral sex skills during the abuse. It is disturbing to say that, yet calling it abuse does not make it untrue.
8. Myth: A boy or man cannot be raped by a woman.
Really? Back to the strawman? Fine. Milo never stated that. He never suggested it. The closest he came was stating in the Drunken Peasants podcast that sometimes some boys “seduce” their teachers, who then fall in love with the boys. He never stated that women cannot rape men or boys.
Truth: Yes, they can. The same legal rules apply to minor boys and adult women that apply to minor boys and girls raped by people of the opposite sex.
Except Schroeder does not actually think this. Her previous comments about sexual violence against committed by women and girls suggest that she says this because politically correct to say. Yet should anyone discuss the topic at length with her, she gets rather upset that anyone would think women and girls commit such violence, let alone that it harms the victims, let alone that it occurs at a rate worth acknowledging. Her response is pure virtue-signaling.
She also has a tendency to quickly shift the topic back to the “real” victims: women and girls. In full disclosure, I responded to the article as I read it, so I wrote the previous statement before reading this:
The biggest difference between a boy who is raped by a woman and a girl who is raped by a man is that society makes the boy into a hero (see Bill Maher’s “lucky bastard syndrome” for a ghastly example) when he really needs support and protection…
…while society turns the girl into a victim, or worse, a slut who was “too fast” for her age and “asked for it”. Both stereotypes are dangerous, but in different ways.
Schroeder could not allow boys to be the focus, although I will give her credit. She at least did not state that women have it worse, which is her usual refrain.
If Schroeder wanted to write her plagiarize the bullet points from MaleSurvivor’s facts sheet, she could have done so without trying to tie in Milo. Aside from his assertion that some boys consent to sex with adults and that such encounters may be beneficial, he never stated anything that contradicts what Schroeder listed.
I understand that people do not like what Milo stated. That does not give you license to put words in his mouth. It certainly does not give Schroeder license to feign concern for male victims by stating things people who actually care about abused boys already explained.
We do not need your help and we do not need your virtue-signaling.