A man in an antiques shop picks up a brass cat and asks the dealer how much he wants for it,the dealer replies "£50 for the cat and £50 for its story" the guy decides to take the cat,but not the story on leaving the shop he notices some cats following him,by the time he gets to a nearby river there,s thousands following him,so he chucks the brass cat into the river and all the cats jump in and drown.the man goes back to the shop and the shopkeeper says "I knew youd be back for the story" the guy says "f##k the story have you a brass Adams?"....I lost in a pub quiz last night by 1 point...the question was "where do women mostly have curly hair?" ..apparently its Africa....All this talk about park n ride these days...I done it years ago and in the cemetry to....the worst job I,ve ever had was crushing lemonade cans...it was soda pressing....you just got to hand it to the Poleglass kids...because if you dont they will stab you and take it anyway..my mate asked me "what is nasal sex" I said "f##k nose....Im sick of getting text messages,telephone calls and e-mails about my dog after it savaged a psf,er, for f##k sake its not for sale!!..
Just downloaded the new playstation FIFA 11 commentary pack,very realistic,my wife just walked in and Andy Gray told her to get back into the kitchen...
Richard Keys and Andy Gray should be sacked after their ignorant,sexists comments on tv. Sky sports should set an example and give their jobs to female presenters...preferably ones with really big tits.....
michaelhenry absolutely correct. Larfed my arse off. No one outside of this place other than the odd emigrant would be arsed paying for SKY to watch it.
Marty i see Jordan and Amanda Brunker are your ideal, clued in, soccer pundits. Looking forward to Friday with unabated anticipation now!!
One for the girls to hit back with: For all those men who say"why marry the cow when you can get the milk free".Here,s an update for you!.Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage,why because women realize its not worth buying the pig just to get a little sausage!..
Spent £40 on e-bay last week 0n a penis enlarger.just opened it and some b##tard sent me a magnifying glass..and for Anthony... 2 jews go to the L/pool ticket office for season tickets,the woman asks"are you circumcised?" the jews reply "of course" the woman says"I,m sorry you have to be a complete knob to be a Liverpool fan!"..My daughter just walked into the living room and said "cancel my allowance ,trash my bedroom,throw all my clothes out the window,take my front door and car keys away and kick me out of the house"well she didnt actualy put it like that she said "dad say hello to Mohamed",,,
A fenian,a Jew, and a Prod are sentenced to 20 lashes and each get one wish. the Jew asked for a pillow to be tied to his back,but the pillow burst after 10 lashes.the Prod thinking he,s smart asks for 2 pillows to be tied to his back,but they burst after 15 lashes. the whipper says to the Fenian,"as you support Celtic you can have 2 wishes" the Fenian says "give me 100 lashes" the whipper says "F##k me whats your 2nd wish?" the Fenian says tie that orange f##ker to my back!!!
‘....a hundred years after the epitah of oscar was written,his image has constantly been remade,which has added to the complexity of his legacy,in britain,at least,his name was for a long time a byword of debauchery and disgrace,the perpetrator of a crime so horrible that one could not talk about it in polite society,.Yet now he is hailed as a hero,a martyr in the fight against bigotry and philistinism,as well as a gay icon.’
Of course if he were a priest it would be a different judgement. Is this double standards or what? A notorious pederast is a hero and a martyr and fighter against bigotry. Why not judge this child abuser with the same judgement so easily meted out to Catholic priests who adopted his lifestyle and practices?
‘Of course society has changed so fundamentally durin ths period that a revision of the prevailing judgements about oscar are inevitable.What is remarkable is that the debate which still rages so furiously.moreover oscar the social commentator is as influential today as he was in da noughty nineties,....his values and his judgements are startlingly relevent to our contemporary world...oscar was of course a master of paradox...’
It seems hypocracy is not confined to religion but is alive and well in ‘society.’
I condemn the sexual exploitation of Oscar Wilde just as much as I do that of his imitators within the priesthood.
'John the difference is Wilde didnt lecture us from the pulpit on morality,'
So there is 'good paedophilia' and 'bad paedophilia'?
Wilde’s paedophilia makes him ‘a hero, a martyr in the fight against bigotry and philistinism, as well as a gay icon’, whilst clerical paedophilia is a damnable crime for which there is no redemption?
I think it is clear that Oscar Wilde had sex with young men in their late teens and early twenties, but I'm not sure there is evidence that he had sex with boys under the age of 16. I wouldn't condone his hiring young male prostitutes though; that may well have been exploitive.
‘I think it is clear that Oscar Wilde had sex with young men in their late teens and early twenties, but I'm not sure there is evidence that he had sex with boys under the age of 16.’
I would call them boys rather than young men, and there is evidence that they ranged from 14 upwards, but were often in their ‘mid-teens’. Much of this abuse took place in Algiers, in Wilde’s early ‘sex tourism’.
Even in London, according to Engel:
“Wilde had two primary resources for the procurement of young boys. One was Alfred Waterhouse Somerset Taylor and the other was Maurice Schwabe….”
“According to Crofte-Cooke a friendly but dangerous competition of sorts developed between Tayor and Schwabe as to who could bring Wilde, the ‘best’ boys, - ‘nice’, ‘clean’ and ‘feminine’.”
There is also evidence that one of the original statements (by Margaret Cota, a chambermaid) made against him referred to ‘a common boy, rough looking’ aged about 14. This was not aired in his trials but came to light afterwards.
I think all of the male prostitutes who testified against Wilde at his trial were over the age of 16, and most did so because they were threatened with imprisonment themselves. Most of his homosexual relationships that have been documented were with young men whose ages ranged from mid-to-late teens to early twenties. Nevertheless, after further reading, I concede that it is likely that Wilde had sex with some teenagers as young as 13 or 14. While this is despicable, one must bear in mind that, in Victorian Britain, young adolescents (in the lower classes anyway) were effectively considered adults. Teenage girls could get married from the age of 12, and though this was rare, it was not unheard of for working-class girls to marry at 14. Also, young adolescents were often expected to work long, gruelling hours at various forms of manual labour. They were subject to the same harsh punishments as adults for breaking the law - they could be flogged, sent to penal colonies or even hanged. Thus, there was a much different attitude to adolescents (and indeed children) in Victorian Britain than there is today. Moreover, though Wilde may have been exploiting the rent boys he hired, I haven't seen evidence that his relationships with them were coercive or manipulative, so I'm not inclined to put him in the same category as Sean Fortune or Paul Shanley. Nevertheless, it is anachronistic to make Wilde out to be some kind of martyr for the modern gay rights movement - he should be celebrated for his writing alone, not for his questionable sexual mores.
I have to say, that I find it somewhat troubling, that messages were flying to and fro and people were condemning me for ‘defending’ priests who abused, (a defence which I have never made), and yet, in the case of Oscar Wilde there is only adulation, excuses or silence.
There are certainly differences between Oscar Wilde and deviant clerics. The most notable one is the fact that he sodomized boys while the whole weight of the law was opposed to his actions, whereas modern clerics have done it whilst society approves of their actions, but not of their victims’ ages.
If the same principles were applied they ought to be treated with the same revulsion, and I find it hard to see why they are not.
Especially as we are often told that children are maturing so much earlier these days, so I don’t accept that Victorian boys were just so mature that it isn’t really the same. It reminds me of the Moslem clerics justifying Mohammed consummating his marriage with Aisha, when she was nine, on the pretext that girls matured earlier in seventh century Arabia.
‘Moreover, though Wilde may have been exploiting the rent boys he hired, I haven't seen evidence that his relationships with them were coercive or manipulative,…’
His seduction of Edward Shelley, who was neither a ‘rent boy’ nor homosexual, was abusive of the highest order and indeed manipulative. A young man, with an interest in literature, going to see a man he looked up to and expected to help him, was plied with drink and abused in a way that haunted Shelley for the rest of his life and very soon led to him experiencing a breakdown, losing his job and his life crashing around him.
‘…so I'm not inclined to put him in the same category as Sean Fortune or Paul Shanley.’
If there is such a thing as a scale of abusers, I would say Wilde was not as bad as Sean Fortune, but no better than Paul Shanley. However, such an exercise is pointless.
‘Nevertheless, it is anachronistic to make Wilde out to be some kind of martyr for the modern gay rights movement…’
The word ‘martyr’ juxtaposed with ‘gay rights movement’ is incongruous.
‘…he should be celebrated for his writing alone, not for his questionable sexual mores.’
On that point, I totally concur, however I believe his ‘Fairy Tales’ ought to come with a suitable ‘x-rated’ warning.
Took Larry on a tour of the west Belfast that is including the heel -n-ankle ,spent a lovely few hours in the Eileen Hickey Irish Republican Museum,which if I may be so bold and give a little plug here for a great night coming up next Sat 5th Feb in the Sliabh Dubh for the museum a truley worthwhile project and in memory of a legend of a woman Eileen Hickey rip and the fab work that is still being carried out in her honour by her husband Johnny and brothers and sisters and the whole crew of volunteers great place, great people, Larry was wined and dined and as far as I,ve been told held for ransom! I cant remember how the f##k we got home the other night but I know we had a ball!
“John McGirr said ‘whilst clerical paedophilia is a damnable crime for which there is no redemption?’”
‘..u said it,not me.But if your asking sincerely,i would sincerely, certainly,earnestly, agree... because it's important to be earnest in todays world....’
Well I suppose we can thank God that Oscar Wilde converted, disavowed his wicked, predatory, homosexual lifestyle and was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed, (as did Lord Queensberry); and Douglas too, realizing the sinfulness of his homosexual past, became a Catholic and spent a lifetime of atoning for his sins.
If Wilde, who once said, “Catholicism is the only religion to die in”, can be redeemed, I guess anyone can, though typically I fear many die in despair, never realizing the enormity of their crimes.
“John McGirr said... ‘It seems hypocrisy is not confined to religion.’”
‘No it seems not.I agree that religon is hypocritical.’”
Religion is not hypocritical, but most of its practitioners are, as are most people, atheists included. Rare is the person who lives every moment in accordance with his beliefs.
‘Considering the catholic church sent the beast of ballyfermot, father Tony Walsh to england for four months councelling as punishment for raping young boys.’
Tony Walsh and those within the Catholic Church who knew of this and did nothing to stop it, are the ones to blame, not the Catholic Church, although the more I read the more questions I think the hierarchy have to answer.
'Trying in vain to compare a literary icon like oscar wilde to 'double standards...,
I do wonder though, if Tony Walsh wrote poetry would you regard him as a 'literary icon?'
I think I am sailing very close to the boundary Anthony talked about in his last comment on the "Hate TV" thread, but here it goes. My point is that Oscar Wilde's conduct may not have been as egregious as that of modern-day abusive priests because he mostly confined himself to sexual relations with young men, ie. males of the age of 16 and over, and these relationships, though possibly exploitive in that many of them involved sex for money, do not seem to have been coercive or manipulative. It is true that such relationships were unlawful at the time, but the law was an ass, as its brutally harsh treatment of children and adolescents shows. It is also true that Wilde probably crossed the age-of-consent line that our society has established for sexual relations and had sex with teenage boys as young as 14. (I haven't seen evidence that he had sex with prepubescent boys.) I think this was wrong because I believe that the only sexual activity young teenagers should have is with each other. However, the distinction between older and younger teenagers was probably not as sharp in Wilde's time, for as I understand it, adolescents under the age of 16 were often in full-time employment and were subject to the same brutal punishments for breaking the law as adults. That is not to say that young adolescents were more or less mature then than today, just that there was a different societal attitude to them at that time. Also, though his conduct was unwholesome and immoral, there is no real evidence that Wilde assaulted unwilling youths or that he coerced them into sexual relations. Edward Shelley was, I think, the only young man at Wilde's trial to claim to have been assaulted by the author. But there are a number of problems with his story. If Wilde did ply Shelley with drink and viciously assault him after he had passed out, why did Shelley return to Wilde the very next night to have sex with him again, especially if Shelley was not homosexual? Why did he then pursue a three-month sexual affair with Wilde? And after the affair ended, why did Shelley maintain a friendship with Wilde and rely on him for financial support in emergencies? Wilde was no saint and was probably a bit of a creep, but he was no Paul Shanley, who seems to have assaulted young teenagers or coerced them into sex. That, I think, is the essential difference.
‘… Oscar Wilde's conduct may not have been as egregious as that of modern-day abusive priests because he mostly confined himself to sexual relations with young men, ie. males of the age of 16 and over, ….’
I am very troubled by your word ‘mostly’.
‘It is true that such relationships were unlawful at the time, but the law was an ass, ....’
Maybe it is today’s law which is the ass, with its acceptance of homosexual acts, civil partnerships, ‘gay’ adoptions and even to the point that the British Government has approved the promotion of pro homosexual propoganda in schools, on a cross curriculum basis, from mathematics, to geography to science.
‘It is also true that Wilde probably crossed the age-of-consent line that our society has established for sexual relations and had sex with teenage boys as young as 14.’
I would delete the word ‘probably’. Here is another example:
“Chris Hare, a respected historian and former university lecturer, has just published Worthing, a History: Riots and Respectability in a Seaside Town. In it he points out that Wilde, a homosexual man married with children, had a documented taste for seducing teenage boys. At least one of his victims, a 14-year-old newspaper delivery boy named Alphonso, had to flee Worthing when the scandal of his relationship with Wilde became public knowledge. “
"This role model, a man preying on teenage boys with little or no education - I don't think that would be regarded as heroic today. I think it would be regarded as smutty and reprehensible," said Hare.”
‘(I haven't seen evidence that he had sex with prepubescent boys.)’
Nor have I, I only use ‘paedophile’ in the loose sense in which it has been used against renegade abusive clerics.
‘I think this was wrong because I believe that the only sexual activity young teenagers should have is with each other.’
You agree with sodomy, you agree with teenage sex. I rather think some of those abusive clerics would like you as a bishop.
‘However, the distinction between older and younger teenagers was probably not as sharp in Wilde's time, for as I understand it, adolescents under the age of 16 were often in full-time employment ….’
My own father was in full-time employment at 14, and my auntie went as a servant to England at 15. Both of them are still living, and I am sure reflected much of what happened in recent memory.
‘That is not to say that young adolescents were more or less mature then than today, just that there was a different societal attitude to them at that time.'
Yes and that ‘societal attitude’ made the judge at his trial say;
“People who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame,… It is the worst case I have ever tried… And that you Wilde, have been the centre of a circle of extensive corruption of the most hideous kind among young men, it is equally impossible to doubt.”
‘Also, though his conduct was unwholesome and immoral, there is no real evidence that Wilde assaulted unwilling youths or that he coerced them into sexual relations.’
Likewise, in the vast majority of clerical abuse cases. It is only in a minority of cases that assaults or coercion occurred.
‘….Wilde was no saint and was probably a bit of a creep, but he was no Paul Shanley, who seems to have assaulted young teenagers or coerced them into sex. That, I think, is the essential difference.’
Shanley was very much in the mould of Wilde from what I have read. He was a consistent advocate of sexual acts with young boys, much like Wilde. In fact there is a strong body of opinion to say that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as his conviction was not safe.
“Shanley's case remains controversial because the allegations of abuse came only after the victim (now an adult) alleged that he "recovered" memories of the abuse from approximately 20 years earlier. The notion of "repressed memory" is highly controversial and has been excluded from several courts of law. The manner in which the accusations against Shanley arose and enormous attention in the media also have given rise to questions about the validity of the convictions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Shanley
In no way am I defending Shanley, whom I believe was a wicked sexual predator. Neither would I defend Oscar Wilde.
"You agree with sodomy, you agree with teenage sex. I rather think some of those abusive clerics would like you as a bishop."
Touché. Incidentally, I don't think it is a good idea for young teenagers to have full sexual intercourse, but surely a 15-year-old lad should not be prosecuted for getting a bit frisky at a disco with a girl of a similar age?
'Yes and that ‘societal attitude’ made the judge at his trial say;
“People who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame,… It is the worst case I have ever tried… And that you Wilde, have been the centre of a circle of extensive corruption of the most hideous kind among young men, it is equally impossible to doubt.”'
To my mind, it was the homosexual nature of the relationships that most appalled the judge. I doubt he would have been half as indignant if Wilde had been having sex with young female prostitutes. Anyway, my point still stands - namely, that young adolescents in Victorian Britain were in many ways treated as adults. This does not excuse Wilde's conduct, which I believe was wrong, but it perhaps explains why he might not have distinguished between 16-year-olds and 14-year-olds.
"Likewise, in the vast majority of clerical abuse cases. It is only in a minority of cases that assaults or coercion occurred."
From the bits I've read of Podles book and elsewhere, most clerical sexual abuse victims claim the sexual activity with priests was unwanted and that abusive priests, though not usually violent, used their position of power to trick, manipulate and indeed coerce reluctant victims into sexual activity. This would constitute sexual harassment or abuse even where the victim is above the age of consent.
"Shanley was very much in the mould of Wilde from what I have read. He was a consistent advocate of sexual acts with young boys, much like Wilde. In fact there is a strong body of opinion to say that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as his conviction was not safe."
It is true that the charges which Shanley was actually convicted of look a bit dodgy, but as Podles documents in his book, there were other instances where Shanley actually forced young teenagers to have sex with him.
On reflection, I would say it is possible that Oscar Wilde used his position as a famous author to pressure or manipulate unwilling young males, some under the age of 16, into having sex with him. I just haven't seen much evidence that he did. His relationship with 14-year-old Alfonso Conway was potentially abusive, but since Conway did not testify against Wilde, we cannot know for sure whether Conway was an unwilling victim or not. To be sure, for a grown man to have any sexual contact with even a very willing 14-year-old boy is wrong because the latter is young, vulnerable and probably not ready for a full sexual relationship; but it is not as contemptible as pressuring and harassing a reluctant youth into sexual relations. At Wilde's trial, two young men, Alfred Wood and Edward Shelley, did claim that they were unwilling participants in their sexual activity with Wilde. However, both were in their late teens and their testimonies are compromised by the fact that both continued to visit Wilde despite his allegedly abusive behaviour; also Wood had blackmailed Wilde by stealing letters that Wilde had written to Bosie. So while Wilde definitely had a case to answer and deserved to be prosecuted for having sexual relations with boys under the age of 16, he was probably not the abusive monster you think he was.
I think it is somewhat hypocritical of our society to have wildly different ages of consent and criminal responsibility, which are 17 years of age and 12 years of age respectively. I mean, why are young teenagers mature enough to be prosecuted for a criminal offence yet at the same time too immature to consent to sexual relations? Most of the people who were demanding that the 10-year-old killers of James Bulger be tried as adults would have baulked at according them the other rights and responsibilities an adult enjoys, such as the right to vote or the right to leave school. But when it boils down to it, either young teenagers are legally responsible for their own actions or they are not. In either case, it seems to me that both the age of consent and the age of criminal responsibility ought to be equal. However, this presents a dilemma: we cannot set this age-limit at 16 or 17, for this would allow young teenagers to break the law with impunity; but setting the age-limit at 12 would leave youngsters more vulnerable to exploitation or abuse by adults. A possible solution would be to set the age-limit at 12, but to prosecute any adult over the age of 18 who had sex with someone under the age of 16. There might be problems with this too, though. Anyone got any better ideas?
I'd also be interested in reading other people's opinions on the issues raised by John and myself in this discussion, which I must admit I found unsettling.
‘I think it is somewhat hypocritical of our society to have wildly different ages of consent and criminal responsibility, which are 17 years of age and 12 years of age respectively. I mean, why are young teenagers mature enough to be prosecuted for a criminal offence yet at the same time too immature to consent to sexual relations? Most of the people who were demanding that the 10-year-old killers of James Bulger be tried as adults would have baulked at according them the other rights and responsibilities an adult enjoys, such as the right to vote or the right to leave school. But when it boils down to it, either young teenagers are legally responsible for their own actions or they are not. In either case, it seems to me that both the age of consent and the age of criminal responsibility ought to be equal. However, this presents a dilemma: we cannot set this age-limit at 16 or 17, for this would allow young teenagers to break the law with impunity; but setting the age-limit at 12 would leave youngsters more vulnerable to exploitation or abuse by adults. A possible solution would be to set the age-limit at 12, but to prosecute any adult over the age of 18 who had sex with someone under the age of 16. There might be problems with this too, though. Anyone got any better ideas?’
This is a very thought provoking post. A probing exploration of these issues will decrease the size of the comfort zone considerably. It underlines the black and white view of the world which is largely mythical and exists only where things are truly black or white. Most of us live in that massive grey region in between. I think it also underscores the point that to a large extent we don’t make the choices we do because they are totally right, but because more good than bad will result from them. In that sense any choice will always leave scope for the purist or fundamentalist to launch a critique. Situational logic goes a long way toward explaining things: given the circumstances governing decision making what other choices could have been made? I think that is the appropriate question. Generally we go for the best decision not the perfect decision. Those who seek to perfect are the totalitarians.
Former IRA volunteer and ex-prisoner, spent 18 years in Long Kesh, 4 years on the blanket and no-wash/no work protests which led to the hunger strikes of the 80s. Completed PhD at Queens upon release from prison. Left the Republican Movement at the endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement, and went on to become a journalist. Co-founder of The Blanket, an online magazine that critically analyzed the Irish peace process. Lead researcher for the Belfast Project, an oral history of the Troubles.
The pen may be mightier than the sword but Brians brushes are in a deadly class of their own,
ReplyDeleteA man in an antiques shop picks up a brass cat and asks the dealer how much he wants for it,the dealer replies "£50 for the cat and £50 for its story" the guy decides to take the cat,but not the story on leaving the shop he notices some cats following him,by the time he gets to a nearby river there,s thousands following him,so he chucks the brass cat into the river and all the cats jump in and drown.the man goes back to the shop and the shopkeeper says "I knew youd be back for the story" the guy says "f##k the story have you a brass Adams?"....I lost in a pub quiz last night by 1 point...the question was "where do women mostly have curly hair?" ..apparently its Africa....All this talk about park n ride these days...I done it years ago and in the cemetry to....the worst job I,ve ever had was crushing lemonade cans...it was soda pressing....you just got to hand it to the Poleglass kids...because if you dont they will stab you and take it anyway..my mate asked me "what is nasal sex" I said "f##k nose....Im sick of getting text messages,telephone calls and e-mails about my dog after it savaged a psf,er, for f##k sake its not for sale!!..
ReplyDeleteClassics Marty, didn't see the brass Adams coming, very good
ReplyDeleteJust downloaded the new playstation FIFA 11 commentary pack,very realistic,my wife just walked in and Andy Gray told her to get back into the kitchen...
ReplyDeleteWhat has the GAA and andy sexest
ReplyDeletegray got in common- neither will be on sky sports this year
Richard Keys and Andy Gray should be sacked after their ignorant,sexists comments on tv. Sky sports should set an example and give their jobs to female presenters...preferably ones with really big tits.....
ReplyDeletemichaelhenry
ReplyDeleteabsolutely correct. Larfed my arse off. No one outside of this place other than the odd emigrant would be arsed paying for SKY to watch it.
Marty
i see Jordan and Amanda Brunker are your ideal, clued in, soccer pundits. Looking forward to Friday with unabated anticipation now!!
One for the girls to hit back with: For all those men who say"why marry the cow when you can get the milk free".Here,s an update for you!.Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage,why because women realize its not worth buying the pig just to get a little sausage!..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpent £40 on e-bay last week 0n a penis enlarger.just opened it and some b##tard sent me a magnifying glass..and for Anthony... 2 jews go to the L/pool ticket office for season tickets,the woman asks"are you circumcised?" the jews reply "of course" the woman says"I,m sorry you have to be a complete knob to be a Liverpool fan!"..My daughter just walked into the living room and said "cancel my allowance ,trash my bedroom,throw all my clothes out the window,take my front door and car keys away and kick me out of the house"well she didnt actualy put it like that she said "dad say hello to Mohamed",,,
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA fenian,a Jew, and a Prod are sentenced to 20 lashes and each get one wish. the Jew asked for a pillow to be tied to his back,but the pillow burst after 10 lashes.the Prod thinking he,s smart asks for 2 pillows to be tied to his back,but they burst after 15 lashes. the whipper says to the Fenian,"as you support Celtic you can have 2 wishes" the Fenian says "give me 100 lashes" the whipper says "F##k me whats your 2nd wish?" the Fenian says tie that orange f##ker to my back!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete‘....a hundred years after the epitah of oscar was written,his image has constantly been remade,which has added to the complexity of his legacy,in britain,at least,his name was for a long time a byword of debauchery and disgrace,the perpetrator of a crime so horrible that one could not talk about it in polite society,.Yet now he is hailed as a hero,a martyr in the fight against bigotry and philistinism,as well as a gay icon.’
ReplyDeleteOf course if he were a priest it would be a different judgement. Is this double standards or what? A notorious pederast is a hero and a martyr and fighter against bigotry. Why not judge this child abuser with the same judgement so easily meted out to Catholic priests who adopted his lifestyle and practices?
‘Of course society has changed so fundamentally durin ths period that a revision of the prevailing judgements about oscar are inevitable.What is remarkable is that the debate which still rages
so furiously.moreover oscar the social commentator is as influential today as he was in da noughty nineties,....his values and his judgements are startlingly relevent to our contemporary world...oscar was of course a master of paradox...’
It seems hypocracy is not confined to religion but is alive and well in ‘society.’
I condemn the sexual exploitation of Oscar Wilde just as much as I do that of his imitators within the priesthood.
John the difference is Wilde didnt lecture us from the pulpit on morality,
ReplyDeletemarty,
ReplyDelete'John the difference is Wilde didnt lecture us from the pulpit on morality,'
So there is 'good paedophilia' and 'bad paedophilia'?
Wilde’s paedophilia makes him ‘a hero, a martyr in the fight against bigotry and philistinism, as well as a gay icon’, whilst clerical paedophilia is a damnable crime for which there is no redemption?
I don’t agree with that analysis at all.
John,
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that Oscar Wilde had sex with young men in their late teens and early twenties, but I'm not sure there is evidence that he had sex with boys under the age of 16. I wouldn't condone his hiring young male prostitutes though; that may well have been exploitive.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete‘I think it is clear that Oscar Wilde had sex with young men in their late teens and early twenties, but I'm not sure there is evidence that he had sex with boys under the age of 16.’
I would call them boys rather than young men, and there is evidence that they ranged from 14 upwards, but were often in their ‘mid-teens’. Much of this abuse took place in Algiers, in Wilde’s early ‘sex tourism’.
Even in London, according to Engel:
“Wilde had two primary resources for the procurement of young boys. One was Alfred Waterhouse Somerset Taylor and the other was Maurice Schwabe….”
“According to Crofte-Cooke a friendly but dangerous competition of sorts developed between Tayor and Schwabe as to who could bring Wilde, the ‘best’ boys, - ‘nice’, ‘clean’ and ‘feminine’.”
There is also evidence that one of the original statements (by Margaret Cota, a chambermaid) made against him referred to ‘a common boy, rough looking’ aged about 14. This was not aired in his trials but came to light afterwards.
John,
ReplyDeleteI think all of the male prostitutes who testified against Wilde at his trial were over the age of 16, and most did so because they were threatened with imprisonment themselves. Most of his homosexual relationships that have been documented were with young men whose ages ranged from mid-to-late teens to early twenties. Nevertheless, after further reading, I concede that it is likely that Wilde had sex with some teenagers as young as 13 or 14. While this is despicable, one must bear in mind that, in Victorian Britain, young adolescents (in the lower classes anyway) were effectively considered adults. Teenage girls could get married from the age of 12, and though this was rare, it was not unheard of for working-class girls to marry at 14. Also, young adolescents were often expected to work long, gruelling hours at various forms of manual labour. They were subject to the same harsh punishments as adults for breaking the law - they could be flogged, sent to penal colonies or even hanged. Thus, there was a much different attitude to adolescents (and indeed children) in Victorian Britain than there is today. Moreover, though Wilde may have been exploiting the rent boys he hired, I haven't seen evidence that his relationships with them were coercive or manipulative, so I'm not inclined to put him in the same category as Sean Fortune or Paul Shanley. Nevertheless, it is anachronistic to make Wilde out to be some kind of martyr for the modern gay rights movement - he should be celebrated for his writing alone, not for his questionable sexual mores.
Alfie et alia,
ReplyDeleteI have to say, that I find it somewhat troubling, that messages were flying to and fro and people were condemning me for ‘defending’ priests who abused, (a defence which I have never made), and yet, in the case of Oscar Wilde there is only adulation, excuses or silence.
There are certainly differences between Oscar Wilde and deviant clerics. The most notable one is the fact that he sodomized boys while the whole weight of the law was opposed to his actions, whereas modern clerics have done it whilst society approves of their actions, but not of their victims’ ages.
If the same principles were applied they ought to be treated with the same revulsion, and I find it hard to see why they are not.
Especially as we are often told that children are maturing so much earlier these days, so I don’t accept that Victorian boys were just so mature that it isn’t really the same. It reminds me of the Moslem clerics justifying Mohammed consummating his marriage with Aisha, when she was nine, on the pretext that girls matured earlier in seventh century Arabia.
‘Moreover, though Wilde may have been exploiting the rent boys he hired, I haven't seen evidence that his relationships with them were coercive or manipulative,…’
His seduction of Edward Shelley, who was neither a ‘rent boy’ nor homosexual, was abusive of the highest order and indeed manipulative. A young man, with an interest in literature, going to see a man he looked up to and expected to help him, was plied with drink and abused in a way that haunted Shelley for the rest of his life and very soon led to him experiencing a breakdown, losing his job and his life crashing around him.
‘…so I'm not inclined to put him in the same category as Sean Fortune or Paul Shanley.’
If there is such a thing as a scale of abusers, I would say Wilde was not as bad as Sean Fortune, but no better than Paul Shanley. However, such an exercise is pointless.
‘Nevertheless, it is anachronistic to make Wilde out to be some kind of martyr for the modern gay rights movement…’
The word ‘martyr’ juxtaposed with ‘gay rights movement’ is incongruous.
‘…he should be celebrated for his writing alone, not for his questionable sexual mores.’
On that point, I totally concur, however I believe his ‘Fairy Tales’ ought to come with a suitable ‘x-rated’ warning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTook Larry on a tour of the west Belfast that is including the heel -n-ankle ,spent a lovely few hours in the Eileen Hickey Irish Republican Museum,which if I may be so bold and give a little plug here for a great night coming up next Sat 5th Feb in the Sliabh Dubh for the museum a truley worthwhile project and in memory of a legend of a woman Eileen Hickey rip and the fab work that is still being carried out in her honour by her husband Johnny and brothers and sisters and the whole crew of volunteers great place, great people, Larry was wined and dined and as far as I,ve been told held for ransom! I cant remember how the f##k we got home the other night but I know we had a ball!
ReplyDelete“John McGirr said
ReplyDelete‘whilst clerical paedophilia is a damnable crime for which there is no redemption?’”
‘..u said it,not me.But if your asking sincerely,i would sincerely, certainly,earnestly, agree... because it's important to be earnest in todays world....’
Well I suppose we can thank God that Oscar Wilde converted, disavowed his wicked, predatory, homosexual lifestyle and was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed, (as did Lord Queensberry); and Douglas too, realizing the sinfulness of his homosexual past, became a Catholic and spent a lifetime of atoning for his sins.
If Wilde, who once said, “Catholicism is the only religion to die in”, can be redeemed, I guess anyone can, though typically I fear many die in despair, never realizing the enormity of their crimes.
Antoin Mac C,
ReplyDelete“John McGirr said...
‘It seems hypocrisy is not confined to religion.’”
‘No it seems not.I agree that religon is hypocritical.’”
Religion is not hypocritical, but most of its practitioners are, as are most people, atheists included. Rare is the person who lives every moment in accordance with his beliefs.
‘Considering the catholic church sent the beast of ballyfermot,
father Tony Walsh to england for four months councelling as punishment for raping young boys.’
Tony Walsh and those within the Catholic Church who knew of this and did nothing to stop it, are the ones to blame, not the Catholic Church, although the more I read the more questions I think the hierarchy have to answer.
'Trying in vain to compare a literary icon like oscar wilde to 'double standards...,
I do wonder though, if Tony Walsh wrote poetry would you regard him as a 'literary icon?'
John,
ReplyDeleteI think I am sailing very close to the boundary Anthony talked about in his last comment on the "Hate TV" thread, but here it goes. My point is that Oscar Wilde's conduct may not have been as egregious as that of modern-day abusive priests because he mostly confined himself to sexual relations with young men, ie. males of the age of 16 and over, and these relationships, though possibly exploitive in that many of them involved sex for money, do not seem to have been coercive or manipulative. It is true that such relationships were unlawful at the time, but the law was an ass, as its brutally harsh treatment of children and adolescents shows. It is also true that Wilde probably crossed the age-of-consent line that our society has established for sexual relations and had sex with teenage boys as young as 14. (I haven't seen evidence that he had sex with prepubescent boys.) I think this was wrong because I believe that the only sexual activity young teenagers should have is with each other. However, the distinction between older and younger teenagers was probably not as sharp in Wilde's time, for as I understand it, adolescents under the age of 16 were often in full-time employment and were subject to the same brutal punishments for breaking the law as adults. That is not to say that young adolescents were more or less mature then than today, just that there was a different societal attitude to them at that time. Also, though his conduct was unwholesome and immoral, there is no real evidence that Wilde assaulted unwilling youths or that he coerced them into sexual relations. Edward Shelley was, I think, the only young man at Wilde's trial to claim to have been assaulted by the author. But there are a number of problems with his story. If Wilde did ply Shelley with drink and viciously assault him after he had passed out, why did Shelley return to Wilde the very next night to have sex with him again, especially if Shelley was not homosexual? Why did he then pursue a three-month sexual affair with Wilde? And after the affair ended, why did Shelley maintain a friendship with Wilde and rely on him for financial support in emergencies? Wilde was no saint and was probably a bit of a creep, but he was no Paul Shanley, who seems to have assaulted young teenagers or coerced them into sex. That, I think, is the essential difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlfie, (Part 1)
ReplyDelete‘… Oscar Wilde's conduct may not have been as egregious as that of modern-day abusive priests because he mostly confined himself to sexual relations with young men, ie. males of the age of 16 and over, ….’
I am very troubled by your word ‘mostly’.
‘It is true that such relationships were unlawful at the time, but the law was an ass, ....’
Maybe it is today’s law which is the ass, with its acceptance of homosexual acts, civil partnerships, ‘gay’ adoptions and even to the point that the British Government has approved the promotion of pro homosexual propoganda in schools, on a cross curriculum basis, from mathematics, to geography to science.
‘It is also true that Wilde probably crossed the age-of-consent line that our society has established for sexual relations and had sex with teenage boys as young as 14.’
I would delete the word ‘probably’. Here is another example:
“Chris Hare, a respected historian and former university lecturer, has just published Worthing, a History: Riots and Respectability in a Seaside Town. In it he points out that Wilde, a homosexual man married with children, had a documented taste for seducing teenage boys. At least one of his victims, a 14-year-old newspaper delivery boy named Alphonso, had to flee Worthing when the scandal of his relationship with Wilde became public knowledge. “
"This role model, a man preying on teenage boys with little or no education - I don't think that would be regarded as heroic today. I think it would be regarded as smutty and reprehensible," said Hare.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/jan/04/oscar-wilde-worthing-history
‘(I haven't seen evidence that he had sex with prepubescent boys.)’
Nor have I, I only use ‘paedophile’ in the loose sense in which it has been used against renegade abusive clerics.
‘I think this was wrong because I believe that the only sexual activity young teenagers should have is with each other.’
You agree with sodomy, you agree with teenage sex. I rather think some of those abusive clerics would like you as a bishop.
‘However, the distinction between older and younger teenagers was probably not as sharp in Wilde's time, for as I understand it, adolescents under the age of 16 were often in full-time employment ….’
My own father was in full-time employment at 14, and my auntie went as a servant to England at 15. Both of them are still living, and I am sure reflected much of what happened in recent memory.
‘That is not to say that young adolescents were more or less mature then than today, just that there was a different societal attitude to them at that time.'
Yes and that ‘societal attitude’ made the judge at his trial say;
“People who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame,… It is the worst case I have ever tried… And that you Wilde, have been the centre of a circle of extensive corruption of the most hideous kind among young men, it is equally impossible to doubt.”
‘Also, though his conduct was unwholesome and immoral, there is no real evidence that Wilde assaulted unwilling youths or that he coerced them into sexual relations.’
Likewise, in the vast majority of clerical abuse cases. It is only in a minority of cases that assaults or coercion occurred.
Alfie, (Part 2)
ReplyDelete‘….Wilde was no saint and was probably a bit of a creep, but he was no Paul Shanley, who seems to have assaulted young teenagers or coerced them into sex. That, I think, is the essential difference.’
Shanley was very much in the mould of Wilde from what I have read. He was a consistent advocate of sexual acts with young boys, much like Wilde. In fact there is a strong body of opinion to say that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as his conviction was not safe.
“Shanley's case remains controversial because the allegations of abuse came only after the victim (now an adult) alleged that he "recovered" memories of the abuse from approximately 20 years earlier. The notion of "repressed memory" is highly controversial and has been excluded from several courts of law. The manner in which the accusations against Shanley arose and enormous attention in the media also have given rise to questions about the validity of the convictions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Shanley
In no way am I defending Shanley, whom I believe was a wicked sexual predator. Neither would I defend Oscar Wilde.
John,
ReplyDelete"You agree with sodomy, you agree with teenage sex. I rather think some of those abusive clerics would like you as a bishop."
Touché. Incidentally, I don't think it is a good idea for young teenagers to have full sexual intercourse, but surely a 15-year-old lad should not be prosecuted for getting a bit frisky at a disco with a girl of a similar age?
'Yes and that ‘societal attitude’ made the judge at his trial say;
“People who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame,… It is the worst case I have ever tried… And that you Wilde, have been the centre of a circle of extensive corruption of the most hideous kind among young men, it is equally impossible to doubt.”'
To my mind, it was the homosexual nature of the relationships that most appalled the judge. I doubt he would have been half as indignant if Wilde had been having sex with young female prostitutes. Anyway, my point still stands - namely, that young adolescents in Victorian Britain were in many ways treated as adults. This does not excuse Wilde's conduct, which I believe was wrong, but it perhaps explains why he might not have distinguished between 16-year-olds and 14-year-olds.
"Likewise, in the vast majority of clerical abuse cases. It is only in a minority of cases that assaults or coercion occurred."
From the bits I've read of Podles book and elsewhere, most clerical sexual abuse victims claim the sexual activity with priests was unwanted and that abusive priests, though not usually violent, used their position of power to trick, manipulate and indeed coerce reluctant victims into sexual activity. This would constitute sexual harassment or abuse even where the victim is above the age of consent.
"Shanley was very much in the mould of Wilde from what I have read. He was a consistent advocate of sexual acts with young boys, much like Wilde. In fact there is a strong body of opinion to say that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, as his conviction was not safe."
It is true that the charges which Shanley was actually convicted of look a bit dodgy, but as Podles documents in his book, there were other instances where Shanley actually forced young teenagers to have sex with him.
John,
ReplyDeleteOn reflection, I would say it is possible that Oscar Wilde used his position as a famous author to pressure or manipulate unwilling young males, some under the age of 16, into having sex with him. I just haven't seen much evidence that he did. His relationship with 14-year-old Alfonso Conway was potentially abusive, but since Conway did not testify against Wilde, we cannot know for sure whether Conway was an unwilling victim or not. To be sure, for a grown man to have any sexual contact with even a very willing 14-year-old boy is wrong because the latter is young, vulnerable and probably not ready for a full sexual relationship; but it is not as contemptible as pressuring and harassing a reluctant youth into sexual relations. At Wilde's trial, two young men, Alfred Wood and Edward Shelley, did claim that they were unwilling participants in their sexual activity with Wilde. However, both were in their late teens and their testimonies are compromised by the fact that both continued to visit Wilde despite his allegedly abusive behaviour; also Wood had blackmailed Wilde by stealing letters that Wilde had written to Bosie. So while Wilde definitely had a case to answer and deserved to be prosecuted for having sexual relations with boys under the age of 16, he was probably not the abusive monster you think he was.
I think it is somewhat hypocritical of our society to have wildly different ages of consent and criminal responsibility, which are 17 years of age and 12 years of age respectively. I mean, why are young teenagers mature enough to be prosecuted for a criminal offence yet at the same time too immature to consent to sexual relations? Most of the people who were demanding that the 10-year-old killers of James Bulger be tried as adults would have baulked at according them the other rights and responsibilities an adult enjoys, such as the right to vote or the right to leave school. But when it boils down to it, either young teenagers are legally responsible for their own actions or they are not. In either case, it seems to me that both the age of consent and the age of criminal responsibility ought to be equal. However, this presents a dilemma: we cannot set this age-limit at 16 or 17, for this would allow young teenagers to break the law with impunity; but setting the age-limit at 12 would leave youngsters more vulnerable to exploitation or abuse by adults. A possible solution would be to set the age-limit at 12, but to prosecute any adult over the age of 18 who had sex with someone under the age of 16. There might be problems with this too, though. Anyone got any better ideas?
I'd also be interested in reading other people's opinions on the issues raised by John and myself in this discussion, which I must admit I found unsettling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlfie
ReplyDelete‘I think it is somewhat hypocritical of our society to have wildly different ages of consent and criminal responsibility, which are 17
years of age and 12 years of age respectively. I mean, why are young
teenagers mature enough to be prosecuted for a criminal offence yet at the same time too immature to consent to sexual relations? Most of the people who were demanding that the 10-year-old killers of James Bulger be tried as adults would have baulked at according them the other
rights and responsibilities an adult enjoys, such as the right to vote or the right to leave school. But when it boils down to it, either young teenagers are legally responsible for their own actions or they are not. In either case, it seems to me that both the age of consent and the age of criminal responsibility ought to be equal. However, this presents a dilemma: we cannot set this age-limit at 16 or 17, for this would allow young teenagers to break the law with impunity; but setting the age-limit at 12 would leave youngsters more vulnerable to
exploitation or abuse by adults. A possible solution would be to set
the age-limit at 12, but to prosecute any adult over the age of 18 who had sex with someone under the age of 16. There might be problems with this too, though. Anyone got any better ideas?’
This is a very thought provoking post. A probing exploration of these issues will decrease the size of the comfort zone considerably. It underlines the black and white view of the world which is largely mythical and exists only where things are truly black or white. Most of us live in that massive grey region in between. I think it also underscores the point that to a large extent we don’t make the choices we do because they are totally right, but because more good than bad will result from them. In that sense any choice will always leave scope for the purist or fundamentalist to launch a critique. Situational logic goes a long way toward explaining things: given the circumstances governing decision making what other choices could have been made? I think that is the appropriate question. Generally we go for the best decision not the perfect decision. Those who seek to perfect are the totalitarians.