An Open Letter To Milo Yiannopoulos — From A Friend (Guest Post)

Dear Milo,

I’ve heard you are in a spot of bother, and I am sorry about that. Were the shoe on the foot of a Democrat, then I am sure there would cheering and the pederasty movement would have a well-deserved boost, and there would be public agitation to lower the age of consent.

Pederasty? Did I say that? I am very sorry to have brought this up. We usually don’t speak of such things, and when we do, we are too shy to condemn them. I know that you are gay, and had an incident of abuse or awakening, depending on your point of view, when you were a young teen.

That is the true story. Whoever introduced themselves to you then, in whatever circumstances, is a criminal. You are, and I hate to say it, a victim. You aren’t a boo-hoo kind of victim, but what happened to you should not happen to a child. Full stop. The statute of limitations is likely up, and that is a pity. I don’t know if would do you any good to have this person have a modicum of justice, but it might, especially if another small boy or young man would be prevented from having to endure a similar ordeal. Whatever ink is spilled over you, dear Milo, this to me is the true story, and it ever will be.

When I grew up there were five little boys that I knew—all from different family circumstances, all of them, bright and smart and fun. One of them was my first official crush, and I must have been all of five years old, and so was he. There was a snow pile in the schoolyard, and we were king and queen of the mountain. The others I knew, too, and I even “dated” two of them, even though date is a chaste word. Once it was ice-skating and once it was a movie. We were always friends, but dating wasn’t in the cards, for what is now obvious reasons. But then it wasn’t obvious.

I learned later that when these little boys were little, they were visited upon by a friend, an older male, someone perhaps who was attracted to their brightness and wit.

They were funny boys. They knew what the convention was, and they tried to form attachments to girls. But they weren’t able to overcome what had happened. They felt that their lot in life was settled, that the map to their destiny was drawn by someone else, without their having a say in the matter.

Four of those little boys are now dead. Three died very young, one older but still young. One a suicide, and the others in situations that were brought on or complicated by The Disease. None of them married. None of them had children. They left their mothers behind, questioning, grieving, inconsolable, loving. Think of it: five families were prevented from being formed.

When I see you, and you are a wonderful human, I see the father and husband you could have been. What child would not love to be hoisted on your shoulders, and what woman would not blush from your attention?

I understand that the abuse happened, and that there is a direct line from the abuse to your “chosen” lifestyle—did you choose it, or did you think there was no other way? Or did that man so long ago set the course for you?

I get it. I honestly do. I know that I or you or anyone can’t snap our fingers and take you back to that age of innocence for a do-over, a second chance.

The balance of your life is your own. The course can be changed.


A Friend


  1. Michael Dowd

    Let us pray that Milo ‘gets’ your message and asks God to help him on the road to normalcy.

  2. Sheri

    While abuse may have lead to the choice (I say “may”, because all abuse targets—not victims—do not follow the same route), society encouraged and honored and normalized the choice. The abuser may have started it, but society fed into it and made it acceptable. Psychiatrists are the most guilty—they voted to make it normal for their own pleasure, with no regard to their patients whatsoever.

    Milo made his choice and is aware of how people feel on the subject. To his credit, he was not for gay marriage. He uses his title to create shock, which sadly seems to be the only way to grab attention anymore. That does not excuse his choice, however. I would note I have not heard him call himself “normal”.

    Pray for Milo if you want, but pray more that the evil psychiatrists and those who would destroy society with their depravity are reigned in and for those who will eventually do the reigning in. Sadly, the most likely way this ends is with a mutation of AIDS that kills millions or the peace-loving Muslims killing all the gays to rid the planet of them. (It would come full circle if AIDS ends it. After all, AIDS is precisely how it rose to its current level. NO ONE could ever criticize sick people, even if their actions brought on their illness. NO ONE could criticize gays because they were dying. It was AIDS and the deaths from it that freed the gays to pillage society and demand normalacy while eating up health funds with their “normalacy”.)

    Note: One does NOT need religion to justify why this homosex “normalization” was all a bad idea. An atheist with a brain can follow the evidence. People USE “religion” as a reason to reject the real evidence against the behaviour because they deny reality and science. The objections on this blog follow that track—attack religion and hope no one notices that there is no argument for normalizing homosex outside of getting even with religion while denying science and reality. Translation: The only reason to normalize homosex was to attack churches. Nothing about it was about fairness or equality—it was revenge, pure and simple.

  3. Michael Dowd

    Good comment Sheri. I agree. But I am not familiar with any recent books arguing against homosexuality. Such an effort against one of the gods of Political Correctness would probably result in the publisher of such a book being destroyed. But it would be a good idea to publish such a study.

  4. LOL! Wow, did Milo ever find out what his “friends” really thought of him! (and just how little they understood him)


  5. Michael 2

    Jersey McJones asks (not sure why he is asking it HERE): “did Milo ever find out what his friends really thought of him”

    Yes, and in that I consider him fortunate. I think I know what my friends think of me, but then, my thinking of their thinking is still my thinking and not really their thinking.

  6. BrianH

    I’m not following your thinking JMJ (not the first time, I would add). Are you saying that had Milo been a left-winger, his left-wing friends would have been okay with his stance on pederasty?

  7. Ken

    RE “…not familiar with any recent books arguing against homosexuality.”

    There ARE studies getting somewhat objectively to causal factors, for example Nat’l Inst. of Health (NIH) has done some e.g. “Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood?” which does seem to hint at early emotional trauma being a causal factor. Keyword search the quoted title and “NIH” and one should have no trouble finding it. That came out from a US Govt agency during the Obama Administration…so much for “political correctness” blocking that…

    As an aside, a closely related topic that is also physically and provably tangible, are human (and other animal) Chimera’s and hemaphrodites. Chimera’s are humans who are really a combination of two (perhaps more) individuals (Karen Keegan is a recent example). Hermaphrodites are individuals that include those whose dominant biological orientation may conflict with the apparent outward physical features.

    A point lost on those of certain beliefs is that nobody chooses to be gay. The real question is why/how does such an orientation occur? Since there is no choice to be of that orientation (a separate matter from “coming out” and living that way openly), and science is finding evidence for a mix of causal factors (emotional trauma and perhaps genetic predispositions interacting), the absence of “choice” is particularly threatening to those with certain beliefs — if gays didn’t choose, then nature must have — and that places gays among God’s children.

    And therein comes the hypocrisy — in the Bible they can point to a few clauses that make the behavior wrong … but the believers seldom stop at condemning only consensual behavior. Instead they try to, or advocate other to try, to condemn the existence of gays–condemning the mere orientation.

    That leads to truly bizarre beliefs, such as “The only reason to normalize homosex was to attack churches. Nothing about it was about fairness or equality—it was revenge, pure and simple.” Considering, for example, that ancient, and pagan, Rome was quite tolerant of homosexuality before Christianity, and even during Christianity’s ascendancy, the belief that a society’s recently, and limited, tolerance of “homosex” is “revenge, pure and simple [on churches]” defies rationality. If it wasn’t an attack when churches were coming into being it cannot be an attack after they’ve become established. There is no connection.

    Religiously-based belief systems are often hard-pressed to address Chimeras & hermaphrodites, and equally bizarre rationalizations are easy enough to find.

    Since the topic was about gays, and that invariably includes apocalyptic outlooks on marriage, now is as good a time as any to consider what the Bible’s actually says about marriage — what was both divinely acceptable and divinely mandated:

    King Solomon famously had 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Four of Jacobs 12 sons were from servants of his two wives, and Abraham’s first child was from his wife’s slave. Polygamy is ok.

    “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her” (Deut. 22:28–9). That kind of takes the edge off a competitive courtship, eh?

    “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Num. 31:17–18 and see also Deut. 21:11) That was ok then; still ok, apparently, per the Bible … but certainly not ok for our soldiers when they have to take over some territory.

    So the Bible says that capturing women (virgins only, please) is a reasonable way to get a bedmate. It doesn’t much matter whether the woman is on board with the project or not.

    Exodus 21:4 says that a male Jewish slave can be released, but any wife given to him by his master (and her children) remain the master’s property.
    So the Bible says that ownership trumps marriage.

    Say a man is married but dies before he has any children. Who inherits his stuff? To solve this problem, the Bible demands that another brother must marry this sister-in-law, with the firstborn child considered the dead brother’s heir. The Bible does more than simply document a curious Jewish custom; God enforces it with the death penalty (Gen. 38:8–10).

    The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed some changes to the terms of marriage. Canon 50 includes a prohibition on marriage up to (thru) the fourth degree of consanguinity [thru the fourth generation of blood relative] (the prior prohibition was thru the 7th generation blood relative, a point discussed in Canon 52).

    The fourth generation was chosen “because there are four humors in the body, which consists of four elements.”

    THAT is the documented rationale for choosing thru the 4th.

    Canons 50-52 updated the R. Cath. Church’s critieria for marriage, generally which are accepted by all seceding Protestant denominations that came later.

    The typical Bible believer will with straight face assert modern views of marriage as being ‘Bible-based’ … even though they clearly ain’t.

    And astute readers will recognize that the asserted reality about four elements & four humors are utter balderdash. But such is one foundation for the modern view of ‘Biblically-based-marriage.’

    There. That ought to kick-off either some considered & thoughtful discussions, or, mindless emotional vitriol.

  8. I have found one video of the discussion of pederasty with Joe Rogan. It was not a discussion about pederasty though. Milo did not support pederasty in that video. The discussion was not actually about pederasty.

    Does someone have a link to a different video showing this support of pederasty?

    There is another video of Milo supporting “crotch grabbing”. But that video too clearly demonstrates that he wasn’t supporting crotch grabbing. He was much closer to supporting a women punching a man who grabs her crotch than he was to supporting the grabbing.

    He was trying to point back to the middle. He was trying to explain that there is a coarse ground in the center when day to day life happens. We have rules to bound that life. The rules are more than imperfect though and don’t handle edge cases very well. A woman slapping a man behaving badly handles it much better. Her boyfriend punching the guy behaving badly handles it also. But that is violence and violence is bad…

    Except it isn’t.

    And in between is reality. Spare the rod, spoil the child. It is short. It is sweet. It perfectly describes the raising of a child to a well adjusted adult. Misunderstand it just a little though and you end up with a child beaten into a pulp. Misunderstand it the other way and you have a child who thinks everything is free and he can do anything he wants.

    That is what I hear in the videos I have seen associated with this controversy.

    Are there more faulty videos?

    I try and explain my position on abortion in a way that is shocking also…

    “Parents shall have full power to exert high, low and middle justice on their children until such time as the child declares its majority”.

    Someone can easily paint me as an evil man for saying such a thing. It is not meant to be absolute truth. It is just meant to counter the other end of idiocy where we are debating the right to choose and the definition of life starting. The idiocy is not the debate. The idiocy is the insolubility of the situation. Both aspects are completely correct within their own framework. I will not force my framework on anyone. I will also not let you force your framework on me. So we stutter and try to find a middle ground where we aren’t murdering each other over the definition of “to be”.

    I am not a fan of Milo. I am not a fan of Breitbart. I am not a fan of Trump.

  9. On a different note:

    One of my scouts said the following about the leader of another scout troop:

    “He only ever smiles when he sees scouts suffering!”

    I attempted the parry.

    “Can you tell me how him smiling at the suffering of his charges is not an evil act?”

    Fortunately, one of the people in the car was able to find a way of looking at the smile and not thinking it was caused by evil thoughts.

    That does not mean that the smile was not caused by evil thoughts. There is a chance it was.

    If you have made it past the Churchill Barrier * successfully, it isn’t hard to find the reason that a smile at the suffering of scouts is not evil.

    *Churchill Barrier —

    (I made the term “Churchill Barrier” here on the fly. AIA if it causes anyone to flip out, but there are only a couple who visit this site that are likely to suffer badly).


    This is the video I think is directly tagged to it.

    I am stuck in a middle ground where I can’t quite say anything without being wrong.

    I can only bow to the open letter that is the head of this thread for its recognition of the complex place that the video comment came from.

    In a related note, I try to say that if I hug my wife 10 times in a day, that isn’t overly weird. If I hug her 100 times, I am probably in need of therapy. Where the line for the need for therapy lies somewhere between 10 and 100. There is no actual line. There is a line less than 10 where therapy may also be indicated. There is a line greater than 100 where therapy is not indicated. In order to generalize rules we have to write them down. Once a rule is written down, it draws a line upon which evil can be bred.

    I am sorry Milo. You attempted to step into a place and explain that cannot be explained because each of us must create our own explanation. That is the burden of Truth with a capital T…

    I have probably stepped into that zone myself. It is not possible to comment without being wrong. To not comment is equally wrong.

    I have opened my mouth and may appear stupid. Only in opening it can I be heard.

  11. Yawrate

    My simplistic view is that if the hardware (genitalia) can somehow be screwed up (genetically speaking) then the software ( the desire, the need) most certainly can be screwed up.

    That’s not say however that there are cases that are influenced by environment. Sexual assault at any age can lead to disorder.

  12. JohnK

    a. It’s irrelevant whether one initially ‘chooses’ a homosexual inclination. What is relevant is whether those who in later life learn and decide that those inclinations are wrong and choose to reject those inclinations, will be supported and encouraged, or excoriated as ‘homophobic’ or worse.
    b. Strictly speaking, ‘pedophilia’ is not precise enough. ‘Pedophilia’ can be an impulse or a temptation, to be resisted. ‘Pederasty’ classically is the term for homosexual ACTIVITY between a grown man and an ‘adolescent’ boy, although the term can be extended to girls as well. Some homosexual advocates will contend that not all pederasty is moral, and that the moral line can be drawn by age (which age, opinions vary); or not by age, but by both sexual ‘partners’ being able to orgasm (so for example: adult men with fully adolescent boys); or not by either age nor sexual maturity, but by a mutual agreement that the activity is pleasurable. And so on. We will not stray beyond that here.
    c. Regarding this: Grooming is a thing; and it is believed in, and believed ‘effective’. Here is Moira Greyland, who was sexually abused even in early childhood by both her parents, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Walter Breen. Because of spam restrictions, I seem not to be able to cite the URL directly. Search for “The Story of Moira Greyland (Guest Post)”

    My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited. Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.” If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish. As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur. As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

  13. Ye Olde Statistician

    that places gays among God’s children.

    Certainly. Where else would you place them? But they are not the only humans with inborn impulses: kleptomaniacs may also have been “born that way.” But that does not justify changing property law to accommodate their acting out?

    Religiously-based belief systems are often hard-pressed to address Chimeras & hermaphrodites

    I don’t see why. Augustine even wrote of them some 1500 years ago.

    The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed some changes to the terms of marriage. Canon 50 includes a prohibition on marriage up to (thru) the fourth degree of consanguinity [thru the fourth generation of blood relative] (the prior prohibition was thru the 7th generation blood relative, a point discussed in Canon 52).

    Ancient German tribes lived in communal longhouses in which extended families mingled. Therefore, the primary concern in early medieval Europe was consanguinity. The Lateran Council relaxed the prohibition because folks by then were less likely to be cohabiting with their more distant relatives. The council also required that the man make his proposal in public and the woman announce her acceptance in public due to the then-current scandal of “woods marriage.” That was where the man told the woman in private that he would respect her in the morning, no fooling. But then after performing the marriage act together, it became he-said/she-said. Public weddings thus protected the woman from abandonment. The local church being the typical public venue, the announcements and vows were made there. The marriage itself was largely private, save that even this was often done with witnesses watching. Previously, in Germanic tribal law marriage just was the marriage act. If you did the deed, you were married. Period.

    astute readers will recognize that the asserted reality about four elements & four humors are utter balderdash.

    Whereas we now know that solid, liquid, gas, and plasma are more than four primary states of matter? Similarly, the four-fold classification of temperaments based on introversion/extroversion and persistent/fleeting has been more elaborated by Meyers-Briggs in which the classical temperaments are Phlegmatic (SJ), Sanguine (SP), Melancholic (NF) and Choleric (NT).

  14. Oh sweet irony. I wonder how Milo must feel about conservatives now. And all this time, he thought the libs were dumb…


  15. Sander van der Wal


    How do you think the peadophiles are feeling right now with their supposedly Leftist friends throwing them under a bus : (The discussion on the Salon postings about Mainstreaming Peadophily).

  16. GRA

    @ Ken: Are you a homosexual? Seems like something a. a homosexual would say or b. an “ally” would say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *