[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

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.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

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.

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

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.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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?

[arista]

Originally Posted by arista

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

This is the Topic here

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

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.

I dont know if it was in your excitement to reply, or your rage that someone had dared to disagree with your opinion, BUT you appear to have overlooked a few things:

I did say that a 30-40 year male or female preying on a youth in their mid to late teens was distasteful to me. (Post 57 of this thread.)

I also mentioned that having a taste for mid to late teens (post pubescents adolescents) was not by any standards paedophilia, it has its own name, two in fact, its called Ephebophilia or Hebephilia (posts 53 and 57 - again).

Personally I dont care what a poll of members would decide having seen some of the posts on here by some of the illiterates - decent members please dont include yourself in that descriptor.

As for the word boy, in Victorian England it was used to describe male youths, immature men, but more importantly male servants and males of a lower class. You shouldnt really attach any significance to the use of the boy.

Given that the Marquess of Queensbury set out to destroy Wilde if there had of been any hint of Wilde having sex with children the Marquess would have not hesitated to mention it both at the libel trial and the two subsequent criminal trials.

To put that into context think about Queensbury's homophobia and the Victorian attitude to protecting children. It would have meant Wilde copping a lot longer than 2 years in jail.

As for admitting he had sex with a boy as in 15 year old, I didnt. There isnt any proof of that either, as I stated earlier witnesses against him were all aged over 18 at the time of his dalliances. As for me making assumptions I havent, I have gone off the evidence at hand. I suggest it is you making assumptions.

[BB_Eye]

Seriously... how do you resent somebody so much who died at least 100 years ago for something he is not even likely to have done and for which there is categorically zero evidence?

Wilde was known to have said on his deathbed -

"Either that wallpaper goes or I do"

He was gay

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

Wrong on both counts.

There was no legal age for consent for homosexual sex during Wildes time. Homosexuality was illegal. Incidentally since the introduction of The Offences Against the Persons Act of 1861, males under the age of 14 were deemed to have the same protection in law as females.


As for the age of consent for Jonathon Kings crime's. It had been lowered to 16 a few months before he went on trial for the offences, however at the time of the offences cited and for which he was charged and prosecuted the age of consent for homosexual men was 18. There is no statute of limitations on sexual offences.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Wrong on both counts.

There was no legal age for consent for homosexual sex during Wildes time. Homosexuality was illegal. Incidentally since the introduction of The Offences Against the Persons Act of 1861, males under the age of 14 were deemed to have the same protection in law as females.


As for the age of consent for Jonathon Kings crime's. It had been lowered to 16 a few months before he went on trial for the offences, however at the time of the offences cited and for which he was charged and prosecuted the age of consent for homosexual men was 18. There is no statute of limitations on sexual offences.

well obviously I know about there being no gay age of consent back then because Ive mentioned it in prior posts.

I was just stating the only available age of consent. As Ive said before(Im having to repeat a lot) if there had been a homosexual age of consent back then it would have been almost certainly higher than 16 going by what it was later introduced as.

The boys in the King case were 14-16. Yet he has been branded a paedo by the media. Which makes my point about modern day use of the word paedophile.

Anyways Ive already said all I have to say. I addressed your point about the witnesses called in Wildes court case. You seem to assume that Queensbury knew absolutely everything about Wilde's sex life and had access to every boy he'd ever had sexual contact with. That he could just go find every rent boy and get them to be a witness in court. Highly unlikely! Truth is, a lot of what we know about Wilde has surfaced in literature released since his death. Queensbury didnt have access to all this back then so he would have only had limited information. I doubt Wilde would have flaunted his encounters with the younger boys. We are talking about an underground world here back then.

Like I said, you conclude what you like about him. But nothing you say will change my opinion and Im not interested in changing anybody elses.