And young women want to be that.

Depends on where its located, but most countries that allow legal sex work require permits, check-ups, insurance, etc. Thats the whole point of making it legal - they deserve the same protections any other worker does.

and loved by middle America

When I say “swans” I am referring to people who used to be “ugly ducklings” who grew up to become good looking. A person who is forever ugly is not an ugly duckling. You can only be an ugly duckling in retrospect. I don’t think we’re on the same page here.

I speculate that women are less likely to regret not having more sex when they are older. I also speculate that women are more likely to think, “I married the wrong guy.” If the husband was abusive or unfaithful, that is understandable. But if the guy just wasn’t cool enough and was her husband for 50 years, well,…

“Does anybody really lie on his death bed wishing he’d stuck is dick in more women? I doubt it.”

“Tell her you want to commit, then you get to fuck her.” Like???? Since when is shit this dire bwahahaha. I can’t articulate why that is so absurd to me. “No one wants to have sex with me so even though I don’t want to commit, and no one wants to have sex with me, I’ll be your boyfriend, so that I can sleep with you.”

That would be in very poor taste, but legally, they would be entitled to the same access to public fora as a group called “Californians for Clean Water.” Until it crosses the line of directly inciting violence, there’s not much you can do to limit hate speech in that sort of context. If this were a private…

The Right would say they aren’t “causing” anything.

Actually the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no 1A exception for hate speech. The protections against harassment only cover workplace contexts, not public fora. If Milo were an employee of the university, he wouldn’t be able to subject his coworkers to that kind of talking, but in a public forum, there’s no…

He was invited by the campus Republicans, and since the campus allows leftist pols to talk there they can’t deny campus Republicans their speakers either.

You are entitled to your say but you are not entitled to use publicly funded resources to do so. Free speech, sure. A platform and a microphone? No.

Well that is just a baseless accusation. I detest the Nazis of the right and I detest the authoritarians of the left. You could hate them both, it’s not mutually exclusive.

Federal funding isn’t relevant. There are no federal laws attaching free speech strings to funding like how Titles VI and IX attach race and sex based discrimination prohibitions to federal funding (religious colleges wouldn’t stand for it). But since they are a public university that is essentially an arm of…

It’s a public university that gets grant money from the federal gov’t, so they have to comply with federal non-discrimination act rules.

Sure, we could agree on that.

By allowing student groups to invite speakers, they are creating a limited public forum which means they can’t discriminate based on content or viewpoint.

They likely give equal rights to student organizations to set up speakers with little requirements on who they can invite. So people who either like him keep inviting him.

Before anybody starts complaining about Berkeley being “cowards” for not stepping in to cancel the Milo event: they can’t. That would be illegal.