Oscar Wilde statue

Moonshiner52

Anyone else think it a bit strange we have a statue of a pedophile on the main street of our city?

misstearheus

Just. Lol!

Moonshiner52

He was pedo. Is it wrong to point that out in these politically correct times?

vicwatson

Moonshiner52 wrote: »

He was pedo. Is it wrong to point that out in these politically correct times?

Proof or GTFO

Ps Main Street of our city?? Wha

Arghus

Good man yourself...

Moonshiner52

He liked young boys. I know we're trying to the culture capital and all that, but really, we shouldn't have a statue of a pederast in our city.

flazio

Can you back these accusations up with credible sources? Was he ever convicted? Innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Moonshiner52

Look it up. It gets glossed over in the fan worship of the 'tortured genius' bs.

Mrs OBumble

I think you are confusing the words "homosexual" and "paedophile".

You do know that they're different, right?



Wilde was thoroughly investigated, and his taste for young men was part of this. Given the times, I'd be fairly sure that if there were offences against boys, rather than activities with men, that would have been highlighted.

Your Face

I remember my first beer.

Arghus

Tyson Fury, is that you?

vicwatson

Moonshiner52 wrote: »

Look it up. It gets glossed over in the fan worship of the 'tortured genius' bs.

No you look it up and tell us. Sigh

biko

I actually did a paper on this years ago in psychology.
Oscar was into Ephebophilia, not pedophilia.

Ephebophilia is the lust for children 15-19
Pedophilia is the lust for children below 11
In between the two is Hebephilia, 11-14

It's a simple mistake to make for someone like OP, but a pretty important distinction.


If anyone is a fan of Greek philosophers this was common there and accepted by society at the time.
If you are religious some religions allow marriages between adults and children.

So there's more to get upset about if you, like me, don't want "relations" between adults and children.

cgcsb

Silly post.

In Oscar Wilde's time life expectancy was about half of today and adulthood at age 14 was the norm. 14 year olds went to war. Physically nobody grew to be above 6ft tall without being entered into some sort of freak show.

Also the term 'boy' was commonly used to refer to a male person of lower social class. Oscar Wilde probably called 40 year olds that carried luggage for a living 'boys'. As far as I'm aware I don't think any of his lovers were even below today's age of consent.

ScumLord

The "virgin" Mary was probably a very young girl of less than 16 when god had his way with her. Is god a peadophile too?

nuac

ScumLord wrote: »

The "virgin" Mary was probably a very young girl of less than 16 when god had his way with her. Is god a peadophile too?

God only knows. While He is omnipresent and omniscient, I don't think he actually posts here. We may have some divinely inspired posters, tho'.

_Whimsical_

ScumLord wrote: »

The "virgin" Mary was probably a very young girl of less than 16 when god had his way with her. Is god a peadophile too?

Oh are we all cool with adults having sex with kids now?
Like fair enough it was a different time and there were different social mores and we can't really judge someone based on today's mores, I agree with that. I don't mind that there is a statue.But can't we fully appreciate Oscar Wilde's contribution to literature without completely trivialising what was very likely what we'd now call child abuse. The whole "oh isn't it funny" thing seems a bit off.

I'd kind of imagine that back when homosexuality was a crime and particularly frowned upon by general society that it was even worse than now to be a young teenager caught up in something that they probably weren't actively deciding was their own lifestyle choice to fulfill their own sexual needs. Like even now there aren't too many young boys looking for overweight middle aged men to have sex with as far as I know. It might have been of the time, but it was probably abuse and while we can't blame perpetrators in exactly the way we do now, we shouldn't condone it and not call it what it was either.

inisboffin

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Oh are we all cool with adults having sex with kids now?
Like fair enough it was a different time and there were different social mores and we can't really judge someone based on today's mores, I agree with that. I don't mind that there is a statue.But can't we fully appreciate Oscar Wilde's contribution to literature without completely trivialising what was very likely what we'd now call child abuse. The whole "oh isn't it funny" thing seems a bit off.

I'd kind of imagine that back when homosexuality was a crime and particularly frowned upon by general society that it was even worse than now to be a young teenager caught up in something that they probably weren't actively deciding was their own lifestyle choice to fulfill their own sexual needs. Like even now there aren't too many young boys looking for overweight middle aged men to have sex with as far as I know. It might have been of the time, but it was probably abuse and while we can't blame perpetrators in exactly the way we do now, we shouldn't condone it and not call it what it was either.

Is there any evidence that Wilde was a pedophile/pederast though? As in slept with young people under 16? Bosie, the straw that broke the camel's back, was certainly 'over age' - 21.

_Whimsical_

inisboffin wrote: »

Is there any evidence that Wilde was a pedophile/pederast though? As in slept with young people under 16? Bosie, the straw that broke the camel's back, was certainly 'over age'.

I think that there's evidence that he had dalliances with over 15 year olds. I don't really think the classification of sexual interest is as important as how it might be experienced by the teenager though. If it was a priest would be saying "oh well, it's only 15 year old's he's into, they're not small kids" or would we consider them capable of consent . I don't think we would or that the joke above about God being a pedophile would be widely thanked if applied to a conversation about it in that context.

As I say I don't have a problem with the statue or with him being lauded as a great literary genius. Trivialisation of abuse does get to me though.

inisboffin

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I think that there's evidence that he had dalliances with over 15 year olds. I don't really think the classification of sexual interest is as important as how it might be experienced by the teenager though. If it was a priest would be saying "oh well, it's only 15 year old's he's into, they're not small kids" or would we consider them capable of consent . I don't think we would or that the joke above about God being a pedophile would be widely thanked if applied to a conversation about it in that context.

As I say I don't have a problem with the statue or with him being lauded as a great literary genius. Trivialisation of abuse does get to me though.

I'm just wondering what evidence/source you're citing for him having underage sex with boys (or girls). Honest question.
I also think the point about 'God' was to point out that sex with an underage girl was (and still is) very common in some parts of the world, including ours in the past. Lots of sh*itty things were common.

_Whimsical_

inisboffin wrote: »

I'm just wondering what evidence/source you're citing for him having underage sex with boys (or girls). Honest question.
I also think the point about 'God' was to point out that sex with an underage girl was (and still is) very common in some parts of the world, including ours in the past. Lots of sh*itty things were common.

I'm not citing any sources or evidence. I don't imagine there is any "evidence" per se, like we aren't going to get photos or a study or sworn statements. Equally I doubt there's explicit "evidence" to say it happened in ancient Rome. However it's always been something that has followed Oscar Wilde and been the subject of some controversy around him. It may not be true at all. I am happy with his statue to stand and for his achievements to be lauded regardless,I recognise from his perspective it was probably fine in the context of the era. I just feel the conversation around adults having sex with kids should reflect that it's a conversation about abuse, not something that was grand if it was done 100 years ago or 1000 years ago because I imagine the effects of it were probably just as damaging as they are now, if not more so because victims were not respected.

inisboffin

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I'm not citing any sources or evidence. I don't imagine there is any "evidence" per se, like we aren't going to get photos or a study or sworn statements. Equally I doubt there's explicit "evidence" to say it happened in ancient Rome. However it's always been something that has followed Oscar Wilde and been the subject of some controversy around him. It may not be true at all. I am happy with his statue to stand and for his achievements to be lauded regardless,I recognise from his perspective it was probably fine in the context of the era. I just feel the conversation around adults having sex with kids should reflect that it's a conversation about abuse, not something that was grand if it was done 100 years ago or 1000 years ago because I imagine the effects of it were probably just as damaging as they are now, if not more so because victims were not respected.

There are plenty of Oscar Wilde's sexual histories 'documented'. When you say 'it' I assume you are referring to homosexual acts with underage boys? You refer again to adults having sex with kids, but it is in the context of a thread about a statue of Oscar Wilde, and you have not posted any links or evidence to tie the two together, that's my point.

One could argue based on evidence/no evidence that at the time of (the alleged) mother of God, she would have been under age, same way as the Roman boys were. It does feel slightly more skewed to be honest, purely based on Wilde's homosexuality/bisexuality, to say "it has followed him". If someone is a victim of abuse, by very nature, they are not respected, no matter when it happened. I also don't understand your point about probably not choosing a 'lifestyle' and how you come to that conclusion.

ScumLord

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I'm not citing any sources or evidence. I don't imagine there is any "evidence" per se, like we aren't going to get photos or a study or sworn statements. Equally I doubt there's explicit "evidence" to say it happened in ancient Rome.

Sex in ancient times was a completely different kettle of fish. In Greece older men used to bring boys into manhood and it was a role in society, many of the men were probably not homosexal at all, it was just the way that culture worked. It doesn't mean we should lock away all Greek philosophy because they had a wildly different culture to us that would have been abused by our standards. Spartans used to routinely kill newborn babies that didn't meet their high (and probably bizarre) standards. Were you thinking of that while watching 300?

Oscar wilde private life is something different from the work he produced. People can appreciate his work without condoning his lifestyle. If we got to see the real lives of just about any historical figure we'd likely find they all have some pretty horrible skeletons in their closet.

We fail to realise how drastically the world has changed in just the last 20 years. It's changed massively in my own lifetime by my own experience. When I went to school back in the 80s everyone was fine with beating kids at home and at school. It was condoned throughout society. Now those same people that beat children back then are now sheepishly joining the anti child abuse wagon.

_Whimsical_

inisboffin wrote: »

There are plenty of Oscar Wilde's sexual histories 'documented'. When you say 'it' I assume you are referring to homosexual acts with underage boys? You refer again to adults having sex with kids, but it is in the context of a thread about a statue of Oscar Wilde, and you have not posted any links or evidence to tie the two together, that's my point. .

The thread is regarding the suitability of his statue being in shop street when the OP believes he was a paedophile. My post continued on that established theme picked up by several posters. That is how the two issues tie together in my post.
By "it" I refer to the theme of the thread, ie Oscar Wilde's rumoured sex with minors. Is that not obvious? I wouldn't draw a distinction between homosexual or heterosexual sex in a context of abuse, would you?although I would recognise in that era,given the attitude to homosexuality,there probably were differences.
I don't see why I would be citing links for you or referring to the particulars of Oscar Wilde's documented lovers to offer an opinion. If you read back you'll see my points were not alledging that Oscar Wilde did engage in sex with minors but more on the tone of the discussion around that subject.

inisboffin wrote: »

One could argue based on evidence/no evidence that at the time of (the alleged) mother of God, she would have been under age, same way as the Roman boys were. It does feel slightly more skewed to be honest, purely based on Wilde's homosexuality/bisexuality, to say "it has followed him". If someone is a victim of abuse, by very nature, they are not respected, no matter when it happened. I also don't understand your point about probably not choosing a 'lifestyle' and how you come to that conclusion.

And now you've totally lost me.
I don't think there's much point in contemplating evidence of the virgin conception,if you're looking for that I'm afraid I can't help you. Also there was no sex involved in that story so it's irrelevant I would have thought.

Again I do not understand this point:

It does feel slightly more skewed to be honest, purely based on Wilde's homosexuality/bisexuality, to say "it has followed him"

Slightly more skewed than what?
Rumours of this nature have followed Oscar Wilde,whether fairly or unfairly. That's simply a statement of easily established fact, not an allegation. If you Google you will see it's the subject of mixed opinion by much more erudite minds than yours or mine.

Obviously I wasnt suggesting that some victims of abuse are respected while others are not. You misunderstood me. I meant that in the past children and young people were used for sex and suffered the same psychological toll of abuse that children today do but their suffering and victimhood went unrecognised by their society. They received no help, understanding, they were probably unable to air the fact that it happened at all. For that reason it was probably even more difficult.

The underage boys that Oscar Wilde was rumoured to have had relations with were mainly young, very poor prostitutes who had sex with older men for money. That is where I came to the conclusion that they were not involved with older men for their own gratification or as an expression of their own homosexuality. I think it's a fair conclusion. I doubt many gay teen boys list after heavy, middle aged men today either or find them the focus of their attraction.

_Whimsical_

ScumLord wrote: »

Oscar wilde private life is something different from the work he produced. People can appreciate his work without condoning his lifestyle. If we got to see the real lives of just about any historical figure we'd likely find they all have some pretty horrible skeletons in their closet.

I totally agree with you and made the same point in an earlier post. I can absolutely appreciate his contribution, I'm fine with the statue being up, by the same token though I don't condone his involvement with minors or feel the need to trivialise it. He didn't have the benefit of our more enlightened views and was not as culpable as someone engaged in the same activities today. However I imagine being a teenage prostitute was just as damaging then as now so it just gets to me to see people joke about it. Like your joke, and I mean no offence, you wouldn't apply that to a situation today where a priest might have been paying a financially struggling 15 year old boy for sex. I find it sad for those kids whether it was 100 years ago or now. That's where I'm coming from.

inisboffin

So the Oscar Wilde 'issue' is all based on here say. The same with the 'immaculate conception'. In essence we are debating whether or not a real person (now dead) abused children based on rumours. There was a mention of 'lifestyle' speculation that confused me, hence the reference. I am the one confused by it. It doesn't matter, I agree, if children (or their abusers) are hetrosexual or homosexual. You continue to refer to a *real* person (albeit dead) as someone who had sex with minors, yet all you do is tell me to 'google it' when I ask if it's any more than your speculation.
As for the immaculate conception not being sex, well in some accounts "the holy spirit came upon her" (not my words) "in the form of a dove". So there is another branch of sexual 'deviancy' that would apply in this case and would start with a 'b'.

Moonshiner52

Let's be honest, we wouldn't have a statue of writer known for his love of young girls, no matter how 'tortured and repressed' he was.

inisboffin

Moonshiner52 wrote: »

Let's be honest, we wouldn't have a statue of writer known for his love of young girls, no matter how 'tortured and repressed' he was.

LOL! Really?

Is that under or over 10/12?

Moonshiner52

And is there a statue to a nonce writer who liked little girls in Galway?

_Whimsical_

inisboffin wrote: »

So the Oscar Wilde 'issue' is all based on here say. The same with the 'immaculate conception'. In essence we are debating whether or not a real person (now dead) abused children based on rumours. There was a mention of 'lifestyle' speculation that confused me, hence the reference. I am the one confused by it. It doesn't matter, I agree, if children (or their abusers) are hetrosexual or homosexual. You continue to refer to a *real* person (albeit dead) as someone who had sex with minors, yet all you do is tell me to 'google it' when I ask if it's any more than your speculation.
As for the immaculate conception not being sex, well in some accounts "the holy spirit came upon her" (not my words) "in the form of a dove". So there is another branch of sexual 'deviancy' that would apply in this case and would start with a 'b'.

You are into utter nonsense territory now, if you're not willing to Google something yourself so be it. I have said I've made no assertion that he definitely did anything. I've explained my point,you have either misunderstood or are unwilling to understand. The rest I wouldn't dignify with a response quite frankly.

inisboffin

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

You are into utter nonsense territory now, if you're not willing to Google something yourself so be it. I have said I've made no assertion that he definitely did anything. I've explained my point,you have either misunderstood or are unwilling to understand. The rest I wouldn't dignify with a response quite frankly.

I've Googled away. You're the one who alternates between calling something possibly not true, known and a rumour. Googling the Immaculate Conception (you get different responses if you capitalise it btw) yielded some of what I put, so if Google is saying nonsense, don't blame me. And some of this came from 'erudite minds' so it must be true. I'm not trying to purposely twist your words, but at this stage it's grand, I think your responses make it clear exactly what you are saying.