Well.....the Americans certainly didn't give us any of the following:-

Powered flight (and no....it wasn't the Wright brothers!)
Radar
Periscope
Torpedo
jet propulsion

Nor was it any of these either:-

Telephone
Television
Lightbulb
Seisometers
Thermos
Sewing Machines
Fax machine
Tarmac
Penicillin
Tyres
and even the web (due to an Englishman)

or a million other things.


None of this however is anything to do with the likes of Gary Glitter - and Glee using one of songs. But then again, I suppose that's to be expected..... such is their ignorance at times.

Oscar Wilde was GAY - that doesn't make him a paedophile. If you're referring to his famous relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas, Douglas was 21 years old at the time! Or are you privy to secret information that nobody else is? If so, do tell.

I have my dear - just not on this forum:rolleyes: It might have escaped your limited concentration and attention that this thread is about Gary Glitter, the convicted paedophile. FOCUS FFS.

It's a darn sight better than ignoring important issues and/or trivialising them by joking about them and being sarcastic in sad attempts at humour and attention seeking posturing. As usual your "opinion" (and I use the word loosely in your case) is of zero interest or importance and contributes ***** all to this thread:bored:

Meanwhile I shall carry on "complaining" about what the hell I want to complain about, without running it past you or anyone else first. Got it?

yes, my dear, Im well aware of the difference between being gay and being a paedo. Thanks very much.

I wasn't referring to Alfred Douglas either. Although by all accounts it was he who introduced Wilde to the joys of boy prostitutes.

If you want to read up on the life and times of Oscar wilde and conveniently leave out all the stuff about his taste for young underclass and working class boys then go ahead. But I don't.

I have studied Oscar Wilde extensively and have full knowledge about the various rumours flying about at the time, all of which are to this day still unproved conjecture. However he was convicted for being a homosexual, not a paedophile, or perhaps you believe every bit of gossip you hear with no proof or evidence?

Back on topic, after your failed attempt to deflect the argument away from the debate in hand, the fact is that Glitter is a paedophile convicted on hard evidence, testimony and irrefutable proof. If you don't get the difference, I can't help you.

you are free to believe what you like about Wilde just like I am. I called him a paedo and I stand by it 100%. Just because he wasn't actually convicted for it doesn't make it a lie. Every bit of gossip? LOL

as for deflecting I have no clue what you're on about. If you read my posts Im not even defending him so have no reason whatsoever to deflect! Geez you really need to concentrate more. :pat:

So you admit you just "choose" to believe the accusations? - Well of course you have to say that, otherwise you might just look like a gullible idiot!:xyxwave:

Of course you have a motive to "deflect" because you have tried to trivialise the debate on this thread without much effect by bringing in other so called examples. So don't play dumb when you're caught out - it's just pathetic.

seriously what the hell are you on about? I have no interest in trivialising anything. You're the pathetic one misreading peoples posts all the time and going off on some ridiculous rant.

My opinion about Glitter is that he is a hardcore paedo and Glee should not have chosen is work for the show. But now they have then he is entitled to the royalties. Is that clear enough for you?

seems you're the queen of deflection. So desperate to seize the upperhand you twist everything. Sad sad sad.

ps; you choose to believe that Wilde had no interest in young boys even though it's a very well known aspect of his life. At this point proof is impossible so it all comes down to how one chooses to interpret what they read about him. I suggest YOU are the gullible idiot if you can read about his life and not think he ever touched an underage boy!

Are you saying Oscar Wilde had a sexual attraction to children (sexually-immature prepubescents)?

A predictable rant from someone who believes in his own twisted logic.:pat::laugh: I don't "choose" to believe in anything - I base my opinions on tangible, solid proof or the evidence of my own eyes. Why don't you try it sometime? Has it occurred to you that a lot of the vitriol directed towards Wilde back in the day was based on homophobia? It's also entirely possible that there were attempts to accuse him of all sorts of aberrant behaviour in order to gain a conviction. Even in our so called enlightened times a lot of people still believe that homosexuals are also paedophiles.

Back on topic, I don't need to court your's or anyone else's approval before denouncing idiot producers of a crummy US show (which primarily appeals to a young audience) who have chosen a fairly average song by a convicted paedophile, when they had the option of choosing from thousands of other equally average songs - (in particular the title of the song is hugely inappropriate given GG's proven predilection for sex with children).

Let's face it you just don't like being picked up on your random, ill thought out throwaway comments, to which I can only respond by saying "tough".:xyxwave:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...song-a-007.jpg

Ch4 backs the song saying
"The scene is editorially justified and we do not seek to censor material in the proper context."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...wyneth-paltrow

There wasnt an age of consent at that time for homosexual acts. It wasnt legal full stop. Thats why he went to prison.

Rent boys at the time would have been adolescent as in post pubescent working class males. Not prepubescent males. This would make Wilde an ephebophile. Ephebophilia or Hebephilia has been defined as sexual attraction to adolescents.

Incidentally the rent boy (male prostitute as opposed to boy) who testified at Wildes sodomy trial was Charlie Parker at the time of the trial he was 21, he had first met Wilde at the age of 19.

Even if we believe some of the narratives on his life which in the worst case state he entered a world of regular sex with youths such as servants and newsboys, in their mid to late teens, whom he would meet in homosexual bars or brothels. Mid to late teens = 15 - 19, hardly paedophilia.

Trying to impose modern day moralistic views on something even 100 years ago cant really be done.

Well you can make assumptions about the age of the boys he indulged in but truth is you have no idea how young the boys could possibly have been. Given that he was said to be picking up boys in London, North Africa and Italy(and God knows where else) I think its a bit naive to assume he imposed some strict age limit on the boys he would touch. Im pretty sure there would have been lots of very young homeless boys of all ages back then selling themselves to the likes of Wilde.

but, of course, fans of his are gonna want to put the best spin on it because otherwise they'd have to admit to idolising a paedo. God forbid.

Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that he had a massive sexual desire for boys. All the literature about him and around him makes very strong references to it. You'd have to be very naive to think there's all that smoke without any fire.

Yep I can appreciate that he may have had access to what we would class as underage males, he may have even dabbled in it. And no I dont hold up as a hero, I think the age difference between him and his lovers just a shade on the sick side.

However given that the age of maturity at the time was 21 anyone under it would be classed as "boy". The age of consent at the time (only really applied to females ) had ten years earlier been increased from 13 to 16.

Wouldnt the prosecution have found and produced evidence of sex with prepubescents in court during his sodomy trial or wouldnt Douglas (Marquess of Queensbury) have used the ages of the boys involved during the libel case that lead to the sodomy prosecution?

Douglas did in fact state at the libel trial that "Wilde had solicited 12 boys to commit sodomy between 1892 and 1894". Yet the witnesses he intended to produce including some of those "boys" and had entered into court rolls were all over 18.

well I would assume thats just the ones that could be found. The servants etc. What about the rentboys living on the streets? Presumably thats where he would find the younger ones. Then there's his foreign trips...

I called him a paedo because that is what he would be classed as today if he were conducting the same behaviour. I appreciate it was a different era but Im sure sex with children was still viewed with disgust. Especially by somebody of his age. The age of consent was still 16 round the time of his trial. Obviously there wasn't a gay age of consent but if there was one it would probably have been 2-5 years higher considering what it later became(now its the same).

There is absolutely no evidence to assume he carried out any form of paedophiliac actions, he had a preference for young men.

If there was any evidence at the time it would have come out. In either the libel case he instigated against Douglas or in the trials for sodomy.

Yes he was homosexual yes he liked younger lovers. Whilst there is something distinctly unpleasant and unsavory about adult males (or females) in their 30's or 40's pursuing young people in their late teens or early 20's. Its not illegal nor is it paedophilia. Its called Ephebophilia or Hebephilia


Do you not think Douglas would have not only accused him of homosexuality but also procuring the sexual services of children if there was any sort of inkling of it?

Douglas, hated not only any form of homosexual behaviour but also Wilde in particular, after all this was the man who had seduced and corrupted his son.

Wilde and his legal team withdrew the libel case against Douglas when it was apparent not only would Douglas prove beyond doubt (by witnesses) that Wilde was homosexual but would have also listed his own son as a witness against Wilde. Thereby bringing Wildes beloved Bosie into shaeful standing.

Douglas in turn handed over all the evidence he had gathered to defend himself in the libel case to the Crown and forced a prosecution leading to Wildes two trials.

There was nor is any evidence to suggest Wilde had any form of sexual liaison with prepubescent males. Only assumptions.

If Michael Jackson's music can be played then why can't Gary Glitter's?

Michael Jackson was not a convicted paedophile.

He was an unconvicted paedophile.:nono:

which makes it your opinion.

Precisely. If a person has been taken to court and there has not been enough evidence to convict him of the charge (in this case paedophilia), then he is presumed innocent of the allegations. Oscar Wilde was jailed for sodomy and gross indecency with men, ie for being a homosexual NOT a paedophile.

Oscar Wilde was a paedophile.

Yes he was

seems some think there needs to be a court document stating it for it to be true. No.

I defy anybody to read up extensively on Oscar wilde and not come away knowing that he had a strong lust for boys. Booze and boys were his weakness.

Supposition, hypothesis, speculation, suspicions, circumstantial evidence and plain old gossip do not translate to hard, irrefutable facts, no matter how many times and in how many ways you care to repeat them:rolleyes::pat:

Precisely. Well said. I also think - and I'm very much a Wilde fan so have read a number of biographies - that his attachments were very strongly emotional. He is also consistently portrayed as an almost curiously gentle man where friendships and relationships were concerned. Ascerbic, certainly, with the pen; but witty, soft and gentle according to all reputable sources. Flinging that word around is tantamount to baiting. It's a cheap reaction seeker.

At the moment, what concerns me is the memory lapse about Chris Brown punching Rihanna in the head. That seems to have become perfectly acceptable.

I'm wondering how you can defy me to do something I've already done? :conf: His weakness was probably his brilliance and the preponderence of Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Like Ive said before, some don't want to acknowledge his boy fiddlings because it then makes it extremely awkward to celebrate "his brilliance". As you put it.

I'll lump you in that category. :pat:

Prove it.

you prove he wasn't

you must be very naive to think that in all the places he hung out(north Africa was a very common haunt for boy fiddlers back then btw) and solicited young males that he never went with boys of a very young age.

unless you think that he insisted on them producing a birth certificate before he touched them? LOL

you draw your own conclusions and leave me to draw mine. Cheers.

He visited places where he could be himself without the risk of going to prison. And by being himself I mean having consensual sex with men - young men, probably, but men nonetheless. At the time, he couldn't do that in England (or Ireland), Being gay and becoming aroused by children are two entirely different things. It's a dangerous, ignorant habit to lump them in together.

but I'm not doing. His well documented desire for youthful boys is not about homosexuality. I'm not in the habit of labelling all homosexual historical figures as paedophiles, thanks.

Just him and Gary Glitter. If Glitter counts as a historical figure! When I can think of another one Ill let you know. :xyxwave:

It was a well documented desire for youthful MEN.

This topic is about E4
playing a Glee Episode with Gary Glitter Song,
Ch4 back it

All media are bereft of any morality - money talks, end of.:bored:

Sorry mate but in this country as well as numerous others the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Innocent till proven guilty and all that.

You care to back up your gossip or speculation with any proof at all?

Any sort of evidence?

Other than your suspicions?

Nope, thought not.

who cares? You don't have evidence regards the ages of the numerous boys he went with either and thats what it comes down to.

And I'm not trying to persuade anybody. Think whatever you choose. The paedo accusations have hung over him like a black cloud for over a century so Im not making any exclusive revelations here! As Ive said all the literature surrounding him is littered with quotes and references about his numerous sexual encounters with rentboys and servants. If you choose to read all that and romanticise it thats your problem. Fact is, he lusted after boys.

But as he's been a corpse for over 100 years I don't think we need worry about children being sexually abused by him at this point.

and you yourself even suggested the random age group 15-19. So if you think 15 then I don't see why you struggle to think boys lower than that age is a great stretch. Especially when soliciting boys in the underground world of Victorian gay prostitution. But even a 15 year old is a boy btw so you have actually agreed he had sexual encounters with boys. :whistle:

seems the only difference between us is that you seem sure he imposed a strict minimum age rule of 15 whereas I say its very probable he went with even younger.

Maybe we should do a poll of how many people think a 40 year old man having sex with 15 year old boys make him a paedo?

But whatever.

So here's where our difficulty lies - because I wouldn't consider that paedophilia. Most men admire teenage girls in a sexual way. They don't act on it, but they are sexually attracted to them. However, if he had sex with an 11 or 12 year old boy, it's a completely different thing. Then, and only then, he would be a paedophile. Many girls were married at 15 and 16 when Oscar Wilde was alive. As has already been said, you cannot apply the same moral standards in a completely different set of social circumstances.

But the central point remains, he was NOT a paedophile. He fancied younger men. If he's a paedophile then so are a very, very great many men who would consider themselves to be perfectly normal.

LOL. I love how you keep using the word MEN.

Keep deluding yourself, lady.

Jonathon King also had a taste for boys around 15 too. Ended up serving 4 years in prison. I somehow doubt you view him through the same rose coloured spectacles!

the legal age of consent then was 16. The fact that homosexuality was illegal doesn't exactly help your case for taking into account the period it occured. It just also means he was knowingly committing a crime....and encouraging boys into doing so too. Rentboys and working class boys who, by all accounts, would have been extremely uneducated and easily manipulated. Or easily bought.

I called him a paedo because that is what he would be classed as today. Just like the likes of King and Glitter. Grown adult men who prey sexually on underaged children. And I know the precise definition is pre-pubescent children but it's general modern day use is not that specific. And who the hell knows how young some of those desperate, homeless Victorian rentboys were?

This is the Topic here