Hmm...

unfortunate to hear he was a victim of sexual abuse. At the same time, I think it would have been smarter for him to rethink what he was going to say.

The problem with his claim is that not everyone is at the same level during their teen years. Some kids may already be developing at age ten, while some may not even be close to starting at age thirteen. I do not condemn homosexuality- however, I definitely do not think I would condone a relationship between a teenager and a person much older than them. Even if it were a heterosexual relationship between a teenager and an older woman, the results may bring consequences and can potentially cause many moral dilemmas.

That doesn't mean anything involving older people and sex automatically links to sexual abuse. They are definitely always able to help younger people through stories, advice, etc. A relationship however ends up creating a sticky situation that I honestly do not think anyone wants to get into.

There's nothing "innocent" about "you can fuck a 13 year old if they've hit puberty. Puberty makes them an 'adult', so they can consent"

What? His statement wasn't abhorrable? He's trying to redefine pedophilia as being attracted to someone who hasn't hit puberty instead of being attracted to a child. He argues that once they've hit puberty, all bets are off. They're an "adult" and can "consent" (even though we have age of consent laws specifically because while you hit puberty at young age, you're still a child). Bear in mind that some kids hit puberty at 9 or 10. In Milo's world, it's ok to fuck them.

You're abhorrable for deflecting and, dare I say, defending Milo and his comment and calling it a "witch hunt". 

The only thing that was obvious from that video is that he was molested as a child ( i believe he was 13 cause he refused to say his age only teenager). He then goes on to try and play mental gymnastics to make it seem like no big deal that he was banged as a child by a much older man.

I've known two women who have also done something similar when they were raped. They made excuses and jsutified the whole thing. One girl even dated the guy after the rape to try and make it seem like it was a real relationship that she wanted. After finding out about this I googled it and apparently it's very common among rape victims it makes them feel like they were in control the whole time.

People who were raped as children often go on to rape other children as well. The bottom line is being raped as a child can seriously mess you up in the head. Poeple would be better served trying to offer him some help or someone to talk to seriously about this. Not attack him because he's doing everything in his head to not admit he was raped.

If Breitbart ends up criticizing a conservative, then you definitely know something is wrong.

That is not a redefinition, it is the definition. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children"

You are confusing pedophilia with 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

The legal age of consent is as low as 14 in many European countries (albeit with certain legal protections for minors.) 

See below: 

That's fucking gross. I never liked the guy, but that puts it over the line. This creep is gonna end up on a registry.

I hated that liberals never called out Lena Dunham over her scandal, and fuck the alt-righters that would defend this shit.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. From what I'm hearing, he is a disgusting pig, and deserves this. Promoting pedophilia is a horrific thing to do, and I can't see why anyone who stand up for him. 

Here is what I posted on another forum. 

Watching the video and reading the transcript, this is what I gather Milo is saying. I don’t necessarily agree with it all, but I can see how he came to the conclusions based on his [positive] experiences with his sexual activity at the age, and some facts/distinctions that are made ethically, legally, and clinically.

1. Pedophilia is not the same thing as Hebephilia and Ephebophilia.
2. Some post-pubescent minors under the legal age of consent do have sufficient social, mental, and sexual development to consent to sexual activity, even with older people.
3. He personally feels as if he was sexually mature enough to consent to his interactions at that age.
4. The legal age of consent is probably right, as it is.
5. There is a particular exception for gay men and post-pubescent teens? [I have to admit he is not quite clear about this?]

When one understands that is the argument he is making, it is clear why he views this as not defending pedophilia, while others view it as quite clear-cut.

So with understanding the points Milo made, I will try to predict whether or not he can deflect the damage done. These are probably the things he can do:

1. Make the distinction between the legal age of consent and an ethical or psychological claim of whether or not a minor can consent to sexual activity. Milo seems quite satisfied with the legal norms (which remember are quite diverse anyway: see map below.) His defense of his interactions were mostly ethics-based. Making this distinction will harm how social conservatives view him, but I suppose those who aren’t social conservatives can see where he is getting at.

      2. Make it as clear as possible that he was not defending pedophilia, but rather certain instances of hebephilia and ephebophilia, which can have a status that is not strictly illegal in many developed countries.

      3. Play the European card. It seems to me as if European countries — in general — have more lenient age of consent laws than the United States (albeit the U.K is not among them.)

      4. Make it an issue of the mainstream conservative movement silencing him.

How effective this will be, it is too soon to tell. I predict he’ll recover.

So, in essence, what he said was ok, because we aren't discussing the right terminology? Ok, He's not defending pedophilia then. He's still saying it's ok to fuck a child as long as they've hit puberty. Forget putting a "term" on it, and then parsing words over that term so that he's "technically right". He's saying it's ok to fuck a child as long as they've hit puberty.

That. Is. Wrong. 

And not only that, it's disgusting.