6 Things Milo Yiannopoulos Never Stated About the Sexual Abuse of Boys

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.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “6 Things Milo Yiannopoulos Never Stated About the Sexual Abuse of Boys

  1. I read your post https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/milo-yiannopoulos-accused-of-supporting-pedophilia/ and this 1 but will comment here on the points you made-it will be a long answer because you aren’t saying anything that I have not heard and thought about.

    1st, I think people are dishonest and or deluded if they say Milo is being honest. Milo Yiannapolous can say that he is against pedophilia but he implied that he is OK with adults having sex with teenage boys because as Milo was sexually abused by a priest and this damaged his thinking, he calls it his first sexual encounter to justify in his mind that it’s consent and not sex abuse. This is unsurprising and Milo can’t be trusted.

    You can be sure that Milo does not think that Harvey B. Milk should have been punished for committing homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy in 1964. You can also be sure that Milo Yiannopolous would be against prosecuting Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt- 2013 Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt case in Florida, where a lesbian committed sex abuse on a teenage girl in a public bathroom and homosexual groups were against her being prosecuted for lesbian statutory rape-they even exploited children to rally for her carrying ‘stop the hate’ signs to protest prosecutor.

    Before continuing, with homosexuality, if knowing and willing adults want to do this then it’s their life, though I think it should be treated the same way as tobacco use. I do not care about gay marriage. My side lost the information war on homosexuality especially when it became about gay/lesbian marriage topic and we are now losing information war on transexuality (they must abolish sex changes). I also want to say that I am not a religious person so please do not make it a religious discussion because I do not follow any faith. Anyhow, let me answer some of the things you posted. Though information war is lost,ugly facts and truths do not change.

    You talked about childhood sex abuse-can it cause homosexuality? Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct. There are homosexuals and lesbians who say that childhood sex abuse (especially those who are victims of a gay priest) are reasons why they think they do same sex behaviors in adulthood. Had they not been repeatedly molested, would they have turned out straight instead of gay or lesbian? It doesn’t take an expert to know that sex abuse in youth can mess up the mind and cause people to behave in ways they normally wouldn’t. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.

    A kid can become a mugger by living in high crime neighborhood, seeing muggings in childhood and learning this conduct. Yes, there are muggers who were not raised in high crime neighborhoods but still became muggers, but that does not rule out other causes. Many emphysema victims did not smoke and were not exposed to 2nd hand smoke and got emphysema due to bad genes but it would be dishonest to deny truth that if a person smokes, he or she is more likely to get emphysema.

    Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Yes, it’s a proven fact that childhood sex abuse is a major cause of homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood. Anybody who denies the link is dishonest, delusional or both. I don’t deny possibility homosexuality could be genetic or inborn for some but that is unproven. Even if it’s true that homosexuality is inborn for some people, homosexual/lesbian conduct would still be bad for health.

    If Milo Yiannopolous had not been sexually abused by a priest when he was 13, would he have turned out straight instead of gay? Possible he would have turned out straight but though won’t say definite. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gay groups with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.

    While most gays and lesbians do not commit pedophilia, I have found that homosexual groups are more likely to tolerate pedophilia when it’s homosexual/lesbian. The fact that Milo would make jokes about his sex abuse by the gay priest makes me think that and his comments do not shock me because have heard this so many times before. Earlier in the post, I mentioned the 2013 Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt case and homosexual icon Harvey Bernard Milk (1930-1978). It’s homosexual groups who often push for lowering consent age laws-many places have lowered consent age laws to 16 and some have even lowered this to 13.

    I have found that homosexual and lesbian groups will often say that they are against pedophilia, but then they make excuses for Harvey B. Milk committing homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy in 1964 and push for trying to lower consent age laws. But there are other observations I have made.

    From the times I have known gays, gays like teenagers (usually 18 or 19 -barely legal) to men in early 20s. Once a man hairline recedes (while it varies this often is noticeable when a man is in early to late 20s), most gays find him too old because the youth is gone. And just because a gay is in a long term relationship such as 20 years, that usually is not their only relationship. They often bring teenage boys to their home. Of course they won’t usually admit this to avoid arrest going to jail and why they are secretive.

    It’s truth that gays like men who are boyish looking-those who still have a full head of hair and acne-there are many gays who have interest in 16 year old teenagers-such as Milk and Liberace. Once the acne clears, a man’s hairline recedes, full grown beard and so on such as in mid 20s, gays begin to lose interest because he looks too old.

    Homosexual groups often try to push things such as Laramie Project, Shepard is a Friend of Mine and Harvey B. Milk day in schools. Now I support homosexual groups free speech right to watch the 2 plays and I support homosexual or any1 elses free speech right to celebrate Harvey B. Milk day and have a Rainbow flag. But homosexual groups want schools to require students to watch Laramie Project, Shepard is a Friend of Mine and to have a Rainbow flag. This is wrong and it’s indoctrination, especially as students are usually not allowed to give facts and opinions which offend homosexual groups. Laramie Project omits ugly truths on who the victim was.

    Anyhow, those are my thoughts and if you want to reply, then please do so. I know that there are people who will be offended by what I have said here and will call me names such as the milder 1 of call me a Christian fanatic (though again I’m not Christian and not religious) to call me an ignorant idiot. You can call me ignorant,idiot, etc., but there’s nothing any1 can say to change my mind on this.

  2. ^^Adding to my post regarding Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt see this http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/05/24/theres-a-major-twist-in-the-story-about-a-high-school-students-lesbian-relationship-with-a-minor-as-younger-teens-parents-drop-alleged-bombshell/

    As said, homosexual groups rallied people including children to protest prosecuting Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt who committed lesbian statutory rape on a 14 year old girl. If a man (even 18 years old) were having sex with a 14 year old girl, he would have gone to jail for statutory rape and been reqd. to register as a sex offender. If a woman had sex with a teenage boy, she would go to jail for stautory rape and yes, cops and prosecutors are going after women who do this and women have gone to prison for having sex with teenage boys.

    But here, homosexual groups exploited kids to rally for a lesbian who had sex with a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and people harassed the victim’s parents for calling the cops. Homosexual groups often have the same view as Milo Yiannopolous has in that if it’s gay/lesbian pedophilia or gay/lesbian statutory rape, then make excuses for that as they did for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt. For homsexual groups to get children to rally for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt after she sexually abused this minor girl is wrong-exploiting children for causes.

    This lesbian sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom. She had no business having sex with a minor and she had no right to do indecency in a public bathroom. If an adult wants to do homosexual or lesbian conduct with other knowing and consenting adults in their own home or apartment and not harass others about it, then it’s their life, though it’s harmful behavior. Same as if an adult wants to use tobacco in their own house or place permitted.

    But when gays or here a lesbian does it with a minor, it is criminal and must be treated as a crime. The parents did the right thing calling the police to report this sex abuse and for people to condemn and harass the parents for doing this is wrong. She again had no right to be having sex with a minor and she had no right doing it in a bathroom.This rubbish must end.

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