[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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!

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.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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 and had entered into court roles 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).

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

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.