Thursday, February 23, 2017

I said "so gay" on Facebook ... and someone was offended.

“In the gay world, some of the most enriching ... 
relationships between younger boys and older men 
can be hugely positive experiences.” - Milo
This teen boy clearly consented just by getting in the car.

I was responding to a thread on Richard Dawkins.

Yesterday on Facebook a friend posted an article from Salon wherein Dawkins said 'mild pedophilia' or a little 'touching up' is not so bad: 
The biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up" ... - Salon
While recuperating, I had been updating myself on the flurry of articles examining Milo Yiannopouloswhose endorsement of what I call man-boy love, or as others prefer to call it pedophilia or even ephebophilia, for clinical/legal reasons perhaps?  Yet when it is male on male, it's historically and academically referred to as pederasty.  Call it what you will, it's gay.  Which explains why I took issue with the Dawkins statement.

Of course, gay people don't want that sort of attraction/orientation identified with gay or lgbtq culture, suggesting it is myth - but I disagree completely.  To be sure, not all gay men are interested in adolescent boys, and not all men who have been mildly touched up or involved in “relationships in which (those) older men help (those) young boys to discover who they are” seek relationships with younger men when they are older.  Nevertheless, it is a gay phenomenon.  Hence I responded on Facebook:
"He's totally amoral - our culture is totally amoral - therefore, as he says, 'a little touching up' is perfectly fine. Imagine the kid that is exploited and damaged by more than 'a little touching up'. Milo claims the same. So wrong, so disordered, so gay." - Me
Another person agreed with me, but asked if it was necessary to add the 'slur' at the end.  I said it was.  It was my point - although it wasn't necessarily a slur - perhaps I should have said 'that's so queer' because queer culture is more about sexual fluidity, genderlessness and as related to cases like this, consent and the need to lower the age of consent.

I've written about this stuff many times over the years, my POV maturing as I explore my thoughts in and through writing about it.  In my experience, growing up in the 1960's - that is, coming of age in that period, it was very common for older gay men to cultivate relationships with teen boys.  My experience was similar to that of the much younger Yiannopoulos', who says he was in a gay relationship at the age of 17 with a 29 year old man, although later defending himself against gay critics for using such sloppy phrasing, Milo originally explained that “in the gay world, some of the most enriching ... relationships between younger boys and older men can be hugely positive experiences.”  LGBTQ 'authorities' freaked out, because in saying this, the 'myth' that homos are on the lookout to molest boys is resurrected and decades worth of pro-gay propaganda, normalizing and sanitizing gay culture, is threatened by that.

(Please note: My age gap with Yiannopoulos and his experience, is similar to the age gap between my personal experience and the experience of Christopher Isherwood with his much younger lover, Don Bachardy.  I mention it to emphasize such attractions and relationships have an established history and cannot be easily dismissed as a gay myth.)

Amorality is the new morality, yet it can only be determined by subjective reasoning, and new language is required to do that.  On one hand you can't say 'gay', or 'that's so gay', but you can say 'gay' and 'I'm gay' if 'you're queer'.  Kinda sorta.  So the woman who responded to me on Facebook, wasn't looking for an argument, but evidently she did think my saying, 'that's so gay' was a slur.  But I digress.

They cancelled my book.

Milo's "bitchy gayness" and sincerity makes him likeable.

Evidently, Yiannopolous has some problems with being gay.  Therefore he may not be 'completely' amoral, according to conservative religious people?  My whole thing about the current amorality occurred to me recently as a result of the great acceptance shown to Trump and conservative politics by conservative Christians, including devout Catholics.  Not to mention watching Ellen looking for a new boyfriend for Jennifer Lopez, while I was laying bed with the flu.  No doubt, relativism has certainly played a huge role in the erosion of morals.  I'm not a social scientist so I can't really address that intelligibly, it's more an intuition or impression I get.  Anyone with a well formed conscience ought to be able to understand and recognize moral collapse into amorality, right?  Or am I rambling on and on?  Perhaps I'm too ill to write intelligibly?

It's all very complicated.*

Yiannopoulos appears to have garnered respect and sympathy from the strangest sources.  I haven't quite figured that out as yet because I've mostly listened to those critical of the support, who also seem to think Milo is in need of compassion, help, and even intervention due to his screwed up past which apparently catapulted him to his current celebrity status.  Okay - now I'm rambling.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to me that Milo continues to look back on his first love affair as an enriching and positive experience.  I can say I learned a great deal from my experience, but it was in no way enriching or positive.  Someday maybe I can write about it - although why bother?  Yet it pretty much destroyed my reputation for the rest of my life - professionally that is, if I may phrase it that way.  The relationship also really screwed up, or disordered any moral direction I might have had.  A complication which gives deeper meaning to 'objective disorder' when speaking of a May-December homosexual romance.  The facade seemed glamorous and sophisticated to me at the time, but when I felt myself becoming immersed in that milieu, it was at times painfully obvious I was not well socialized and easily scandalized, or frightened by my proximity to the debauched aspects of gay life in the 1960's, so commonly characterized by dishonesty, promiscuity and intemperance.

It's odd how stories like those which claim that a 'mild pedophilia is not harmful' can trigger flashbacks of earlier events of abuse in my life.  Such statements do so much harm, gay people should be ashamed for not admitting, that under the LGBTQ umbrella - they've always accommodated that behavior - if not publicly, then secretly.  In fact, in my experience, they covered up for people who were into it.  Today I think the behavior fits in with the Q of LGBT - that is - queer.  I may be wrong - but I think it's there someplace.

Yiannopoulos once stated: "There are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way."  For me his reasoning comes very close to the mental gymnastics it takes for a so-called ex-gay person to come to the conclusion that 'homosexuality is chosen'.  Even though there are some people who can do that, so what?

That said, just because it is controversial, the attention this guy is getting is good - albeit saturated in contempt from the right and the left - it has the potential of dispelling the myths.  For the time being.

Go to the light while you have it.

My apologies if I have offended anyone with this - remember I'm old.

And experienced.

So now I wonder why Voris is on a campaign to out priests?  Talk about 'bitchy gayness'.

*[H/T Mark Shea for his post on the Culp's support of Yiannopolous, which kept me awake last night as I suffered through my illness.  What?]

Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy.


  1. I like Milo. Have been watching him off and on for the past year on YouTube. I don't like some of language he uses or when he brags about his sex life but when he sticks to the issues, he does make sense. He is smart and has a colorful sense of humor. He professes to be Catholic and there are a few times when I've seen him wear a Crucifix. He says he's prolife and credits the Catholic Church for the good it has done over the centuries.
    Too bad for all of this other stuff that's going on but you explained it well

    He's on my list to pray for.

  2. I love Milo. I am praying for him. He reminds me of Oscar Wilde. He will soon see -I believe-- that he must turn away from the demons that seek to consume him.

  3. He's blessed to have people praying for him and feeling such compassion.

  4. I do not know what to make of this whole countercultural world. Is that even an acceptable word anymore? Growing up I now know that several times older men were probably hitting on me. I did not know it then but I instinctively was alarmed and got away quickly. I had absolutely no experience or knowledge to know what it was all about. Milo seems very confused to me and narcissistic. I will pray for him too. For years now I have asked God to help children in trouble when I pray the fourth and fifth joyful mysteries. How sad that so many are harmed for someone else's selfish desires.

    1. I'm so glad you were never harmed in that way.

  5. Milo's "bitchy gayness" and sincerity makes him likeable.

    Totally agree. And you never offend me. People need to get over themselves. Milo's opposition to the PC police is also what makes him likable. Speaking in a pretentious fabricated manner is something I cannot ...identify with. Yeah, the Voris campaign, I guess he figures the stakes are high enough. Maybe Fr. Martin wants to be outed, idk. Maybe it's time Fr. Martin gets added to The Egg(I think of The Egg often when roaming Catholic social media)?

    1. Haha - I actually lifted that 'birchy gayness' label from Shea's post quoting Austin Ruse. (My use of SNL's skit is supposed to represent Ruse and Janet Smith lecturing on Milo.) I've not really heard Milo speak save for a sound bite or two - to be honest, I'm just reading what others say and commenting along those lines.

      The thing I'm trying to 'mine' as it were is the fact that homosex is so big that actual sins or moral defects are ignored - totally ignored - by the homos and by commentators. The harm done to a kid by sexual abuse and grooming produces profound moral confusion - it isn't just about identity, but character. I'm not smart enough to develop this in a com box, but 'pride' is the root of all sin. Gay people or straight - suggesting a mild touching up, or gay mentoring in or out of a relationship,does great harm to a kid - the sexual/romantic/loving stuff is beyond gravely disordered.

      BTW - Fr. Martin is the man in the egg where the 'purple Martin' is removing the biretta too small for his head. He's depicted with a very large head. Haha!

      As for Voris - I can't know what his motives are, but I can tell you when humble, penitent former homos start feeling oppressed or dissed because of their past ... sometimes outing other people helps deflect the sense of shame. When anyone tries to expose the sins of others - no matter what - it's a moral defect. Whis goes back to my point, homosex is so big, one ignores the spiritual sins and most especially, the root sins. Voris might think he has a higher calling to do this.

      Anyway Matt - I'm glad I never offend you. Thanks much for your friendship!

    2. I thought you got that quote from either Bp. Fellay or BILL DONOHUE. LOL. Yes, and some whom feel justified will defend anything no matter how horrible once their pride has taken a hold.

      The Egg is prophet. Or maybe its creator is. Who'd a thunk we'd end up here, the whole world revolves around The Egg!

      Yes, I thought it odd the Detroit Archdiocese was sending details of Voris' past sex life to the WaPo. He's triggered now. I'm always suspicious of self appointed champions of causes.

    3. I should do a new egg.

  6. "Milo's "bitchy gayness" and sincerity makes him likeable."

    Milo's persona is annoying and a cliche now. I do agree with you that it makes him likeable to those far right wing loons (I refuse to use Alt-Right) because he is their Stepin Fetchit as it reinforces their beliefs about gay people, feminine, silly, promiscuous but "safe"..he is exactly what they think "queers" should be..sluts hiding out in dark parks or tossing out bitchy bon mots and despite his boasting, oddly asexual...(kind of like an Uncle Arthur kind of character..) Because of this he feels "safe" and "normal" to them..its those marrying "main stream" gays that scare them..the added bonus that he says that he doesn't think gay is normal and if he could choose he wouldn't be...(though then he would have no career would he?)

    As for the rest of that stuff...I think Milo's experience did effect him and not in a good way as most people male or female feel after such an experience..promiscuity, acting out immaturaly..unable to sustain a committed long lasting relationship...can only be satisfied sexually if its "dirty" or "bad."

    The whole thing is a freak show!

    1. You were writing while I was.

      So anyway - it is a freak show. You get what I'm getting at. See - he's screwed up because he was sexualized at an early age and, and, and, - the damage is bigger than gay or queer or homosexual. He's definitely queer. I agree with you when you say:

      ".I think Milo's experience did effect him and not in a good way as most people male or female feel after such an experience..promiscuity, acting out immaturaly..unable to sustain a committed long lasting relationship...can only be satisfied sexually if its "dirty" or "bad.""

      And it effects character, and more deeply, the soul.

      BTW - Men in pearls are repulsive. I would be tempted to push him down the escalator. Haha!

    2. Affects - not effects. I wish blogger comment boxes had an edit button.

    3. He wears "pearls" Oh my God!!! And I can hear him schreeching "GUURRRLLL" as he tumbles down..(and no doubt would use it to draw more attention to himself.)

      I do hope people don't think I am putting down people who were abused..its not their fault..I just noticed that people who have been and maybe don't seek therapy, etc..seem to act out in some negative ways...some also seem to want to draw a lot of attention to in Milo.

      I think the saddest thing is to try to create a fantasy that a bad experience like that was actually good, and advocating that for others!?!?!?!

    4. I don't think you are putting the abused down. Evidently now he doesn't believe those types of relationships are good. He may emerge next as a poster boy for ex-gays the way some Catholics are writing about him.

      I'm convinced people need to do interior repairs - spiritual, emotional work and quit focusing on the sexual orientation crap.

      That's kind of what all the 'ex' gays do. It's what Voris does when he puts priests like Martin and Rosica on the spot. I go back to what the Pope said - if a person is gay and seeks God, who am I to judge? We have to see beyond that stuff. I'm sure people will misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Take the booze out of the fruitcake, you still have fruitcake. Fruitcakes spend too much time pretending they aren't fruitcakes - know what I mean?

      I crack myself up. LOL!

    5. Just found out he thinks May-December romances can be good. He's screwed up.

    6. Well at least in a May December they are adults (or one would hope.)

      I don't older guy, tons of cash, not uh, physically up to strenuous activity, one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel ..sounds good.

    7. Just like the Jennifer Coolidge character in Best In Show.

      I used the May-December term because I think that's what a teen lover thinks the relationship is - or at least someone justified the relationship that way to me. At that time skinny Mia Farrow married Frank Sinatra, 30 years her senior, so I was cool! LOL! What a sham.

  7. Terry, it's all the dictatorship of relativism. Looking at the behavior of Catholics in the political realm, it strikes me how thoroughly postmodern everyone is, left and right. No one cares about truth or virtue unless they can use it as a club to beat the other side with. Everything is some sort of stupid Marxist dialectic - the "conservatives" as well as the "liberals". The love affair with Trump I've been watching in the Catholic media industry is just a symptom of how post-truth, post-moral, nihilistic we've become. None of the Catholics who are Milk fans would tolerate anything about him if he wasn't in their own "tribe". But he attacks their enemies and makes them feel good, so it's all good.

    1. And I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the desire to "tear it all down", this desire so eloquently expressed by Steve Bannon in his love of Lenin, is a desire born of Satan, a desire that is nihilistic at its core, and something you'd be hard-pressed to find any analogue to in the Saints and doctors of the Church.

    2. I totally agree - relativism and as Monsignor Pope said - subjectivism.

    3. Except unfortunately I remember an article before the election written by Msgr. Pope about how we should vote for a candidate and a party that expresses a Catholic moral vision, and then heavily implied that one of the major candidates/parties actually did so. Talk about willful blindness.

    4. More often than not I agree with his POV, I recall something he said Fr. Barron sometime ago which I disagreed with. I was unhappy with most who haunted me with hell and damnation as to who to vote for, but something odd happened to me which changed my mind about that. Maybe someday in a chat I can tell you what that was. LOL!

  8. That happened on my page. I have some lefties there. Sorry.

    1. No problem - it helped clarify some thoughts I had.

    2. You responded superbly. And this post is great, too.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.