No offense but I find your assertion that homosexuality was fairly accepted in Victorian England to be incorrect, or at least lacking nuance. Nameless Offenses: Homosexual Desire in the 19th Century by H.G Cocks is a great book that talks about the relationship between language, especially in terms of law, and homosexuality in the Victorian era. Between 1810 and 1830, there was a large spike in indictments for sodomy, indecent assault, and other homosexual offenses. H.G. Cocks also addresses the assertion that indecent assaults were mostly perpetrated against children at the time and if you look at the data, it’s actually mostly men in their 20s listed as the victims while offenders were also adult men. Also, as I’ve seen others point out, many straight men were marrying young girls at this time as young as 16. While legality doesn’t equal morality, it does beg the question: Why is this a criminal offense for gay men when it’s acceptable for straight men? The idea that the Victorian legal system cared about pedophilia, but only when it’s for same sex offenders should give you a hint as to what their true intentions were. It was never about protecting children, it was about prosecuting homosexual acts. Indecent assault on its own is tricky language because in the Victorian legal system it could, and was, also be used to prosecute consenting men. Victorian legal code used heavily veiled language specifically to prosecute men engaging in homosexual acts without naming them specifically. In 1809, Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough wrote that public knowledge of homosexual acts, including one’s being prosecuted, would “diminish much of the abhorrence which it is to be wished should always belong to it.” Which is a pretty clear statement that at least to the legal system, homosexuality was not something that was tolerated, but was actively hated and vilified. The use of the language of “assault” when bringing up charges for homosexual acts was a clear and deliberate use of language to make such acts predatory in nature and existed on legal code long before Wilde, so insinuating that it’s somehow his fault for making gay men more vilified or predatory is again misinformed. I’m really not sure what research you did for this video given you list your makeup and hair products, but not your sources. If anyone is actually interested in learning about the Victorian legal system and homosexuality I would again highly recommend Nameless Offenses.
This is so articulate, and exactly what I wanted to say. I’ve been researching the era, especially queer history for 13 years and I don’t know where she got the idea that it was about protecting the boys. She says herself they were working class. The Victorian era didn’t give a darn about the working class. The age of consent in the UK is still 16, Wilde would not have been sentenced under modern law either. It is obviously horrible to have sex with teens as an adult, don’t misunderstand. However that’s not why he was sentenced. I’m also interested in the fact that she didn’t touch more on the Irish vrs English aspects of the case. I suppose the video would have been too long and maybe rambling.
But this is all nonsense, because there is a huge difference between words and acts. Example? If two men "do it", then do you really think they go to the largest city square and shout out loud WHAT they just did? No, NOTHING happens next. You only read books! Only Wilde was so stupid to write lyric books about boys. Yes, THEN you get the moralists hunting you. But I guess Joe Average had no problems with gay men, in those years you could not openly be gay, but there was no Spanish Inquisition either. Unless you WANTED to go to jail, as a statement. Then you could get it.
Seriously this is told with a complete absence of historical background. England in common with other constituent nations of the U.K. and most other European countries had had laws against buggery and sodomy since the early Middle Ages. While technically both buggery and sodomy are not exclusively synonymous (in context) with homosexuality, they were usually treated as such. These were treated as sinful and non-procreative sex acts which the church deemed to be mortal sins. Where legal records exist it was fairly commonplace from at least the Carolingian era onwards in Europe for trials of sodomites and buggerers to take place for which one of the commonest punishments was death. The records are admittedly spotty in England because many of these crimes were prosecuted in Ecclesiastical courts and much was lost during the dissolution of the church in England under Henry VIII. However Henry VIII was at pains to issue laws for temporal courts to enforce which also criminalised sodomy and made sure to continue to allow for the death penalty in such cases in his famous Buggery Act of 1533. The number of cases brought against heterosexuals (as we would define them) for the act of sodomy is not known, especially in cases not alleging rape. However cases against sodomites (which in time did become a synonym for what we call “Gay”) are recorded and only ones class and associated power tended to mitigate against successful prosecution or ultimate sanction therefore. How many cases were brought in manorial courts and assizes sheriffs courts etc over the course of the medieval period and early modern period is not known. The enthusiasm with which those laws were imposed depended on many often very localised factors. But England did regard sodomy/buggery as a crime, it was largely considered socially odious and shameful, prosecutions did occur and there were undoubtedly even executions. Indeed during the first 35 years of the 19th century (for instance) 50 men were hanged to death for sodomy alone. There is no possible case to imply that because you deem Oscar Wilde to have been a predator that he was responsible for worsening conditions for queer people in the U.K. then or thereafter. Indeed his punishment with hard labour was considered at the time to be progressive and clement, something the legal establishment complacently congratulated itself for for many decades afterwards.
Further to this, and as has been referred to by other commenters, it’s worth pointing out that Oscar Wilde was prosecuted under laws against buggery with some degree of rigour in no small part due to a generalised fear among many in the upper classes in Britain regarding class mixing and general moral decadence that was perceived to be a result of this. Ever since the industrial revolution which began in England in the 17th or 18th century depending on your definitions, the cities of the U.K. had swelled to some of the the largest in the world as huge numbers of poor moved from the country to seek employment in newly industrialised sectors. This had lead to a huge increase of class intermingling and in the eyes of the upper classes a dangerous rise in moral turpitude which they often believed poorer less educated people were intrinsically more prone to. Wilde’s dalliances with working class men and boys was a firm confirmation to many in the ruling class of something they and many before them had believed for a couple of centuries - that allowing the lower and upper classes to freely mingle together would lead to an increase in what they regarded as the most vile moral abominations. Upper class men frequenting infamous Molly Houses and other places where queer sex workers gathered in the larger cities was a matter of constant though largely disguised unquiet among many upper class people. It was seen as of vital importance to prevent anyone from thinking they could freely interact with people of other classes to prevent this kind of moral pollution as they saw it. Indeed Wilde’s prosecution of a man of senior class to himself probably failed in part because he was seen as the polluter of the moral honour of someone whose class intrinsically made them morally superior. Wilde was himself in turn successfully prosecuted for sodomy precisely because his own class status was not high enough to allow him the same degree of assumed virtue and his admitted sexual mingling with people of lower class was deemed to be precisely the vector of moral decay which had formed so much of the background to the moral panics of the period.
@@FumerieHilaire Thank you for this! I came to the comments looking for elaboration on the context of the class elements of the trial. The whole concept of "moral decay" and "vectors" of influence - whether from the more libertine areas on the continent or from lower classes in growing cities - is fascinating in a disturbing way. Even more so when considered in context of the popular eugenics of that era and in ours.
16 is the age of consent in the UK, 17 is the age of consent in Ireland and that's in 2022. What he was doing was creepy, predatory and wrong but you can't turn around when it was seen as fine to act the same with girls that age during that time period without addressing that that may be caused by homophobia or something of its ilk. Also, "One of the greatest writers to come out of Ireland or maybe even all of Great Britain", Ireland isn't in Great Britain.
@@rowan-priince1860 Wasn’t Ireland in the UK during the Victorian era? (Perhaps she meant UK and spoke Great Britain.). The distinction for Americans is a bit muddled. (For example, in the 80s we would say Russia, while meaning the USSR.)
The age of consent was actually 12 years old pre 1875, it was then raised to 13 in 1875 and then raised again to 16 in 1885. Homosexuality was punishable by death from 1533 to 1861, at that time it was reduced to 10 years in prison. It was changed again in 1885 making any and all homosexual acts illegal, even innocent love letters between men were enough to convict which aligns with the legal system making an example of Oscar Wilde, obviously this decision was rooted in centuries old homophobia. A homosexual age of consent law was not passed until 1967 making the legal age 21, it wasn't equalised until 2001 bringing the age down to 16 to match straight age of consent. It goes without saying that the trial was held to make an example of one of the UKs most prolific homosexual men, it wasn't about the predatory behaviour, it was just another way to deter people from engaging in any and all things gay...
@@RLucas3000 It was in the UK, but the UK and Great Britain aren't the same thing. Great Britain refers to the main island that holds England, Wales and Scotland.
You were allowed too give very young girls gifts and spend time with them? Or only if you marry them. Because there is difference. First case is more like prostitution and laws could be more strict. But I know nothing about that era.
Guys I love how well researched and respectful these comments are. That is rarely something I find in youtube comment sections, and I have learned quite a bit. I have noted some of your sources and will look into them later because this topic is fascinating
I had a feeling just from the title that this wouldn't be my favorite video of yours, but really tried to give the benefit of the doubt. I wish the tone here was miles away from what it is. It's dangerous to put out this idea that basically boils down to, homophobia wasn't a huge issue until oscar wilde started crushing on teenagers. Homophobia was definitely harming the lower classes and those who didn't/couldn't keep it so lowkey, and the only reason anyone cared about wilde hitting on teenagers was because they were boys. While it was falling somewhat out of favor in the 1880s, plenty of straight men of the era were taking child brides with parental consent. The way you're putting it, it's almost set up like the homophobic system that persecuted him and everyone afterward wasn't actually that bad and if oscar wilde hadn't been hitting on teens, it would have all been sunshine and roses. That's just not the case, its largely understood that he was prosecuted as an example. He was a symbol of the deviant homosexual that would turn your child gay. The framing here is putting the blame in absolutely the wrong place.
@@BlueNorth313 you are fully either misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. When did I ever say we can't talk about gay pedophiles at all? My issue here is that not only is the video titled the way it is, but during the video she doesn't act like it was any kind of joke. Oscar wilde, like many men of the era, was into teens and that is super gross, but he didn't ruin being gay for everyone else. The homophobic system that persecuted him, and I cannot stress this enough, Did Not Care about protecting kids from pedophiles. They only cared about finding a gay pedophile and putting him on trial, because that system has thought all gay men were secretly pedophiles long before Wilde came along. The negative stigma associated with gay people was not caused by Wilde's trial, it predated him and would have carried on just fine without him, minus a period os hypervisibility in the 1880s. So, again, my issue is with the video implying that Wilde is The Bad Guy here, instead of a system that allowed straight men to prey on young girls all the time but made a huge public spectacle when a gay guy did the same. Also, I'm an adult that you have never met, don't call me dear.
The average age of marriage for a Victorian woman was between 20 and 22 in the United States and a bit older in England. The lowest the age of first marriage has ever been recently for women was in the mid 1940s through the 1950s.
I mean, Victorians didn't have the notion we have on children/minors. It was a completely different society, they would have arranged a marriage for 15 year old girls with any guy as rich as him, and just as old. So I don't really see how it would characterize him as a predator, specially because he wouldn't exclusively date under age boys (they weren't even considered under age at all back then). His trial WAS INDEED all about his sexual orientation. Not to recognise that is a huge step back , really.
@@2law2be sure but that was totally fine back then. 16/17 wasn't considered a child the way some countries consider it today. Adulthood strictly being 18 is a modern concept that isn't even standardized around the world. At the time of Oscar's trial, straight men were openly and legally marrying young girls without any issues or social backlash. His trial was purely around being gay, he did nothing out of the norm for the culture besides that. You can't look at the past through the lens of today, we have a completely different understanding around the behaviour for these kinds of things. There was no concept of child psychology/development the way we understand it now.
@@stonecake313 This may be relevant or not but SDIs like Syphilis were common amongst wealthy men who frequented the poor districts looking for prostitutes . many of these men who became infected with Syphilis believed that by having intercourse with a girl virgin would remove the disease . Mothers would sell their underage daughters ( some as young as 8 known as un-ripe fruit) to the rich. It seems even here the concept of childhood is blurred.
@@stonecake313 I think your getting confused with the timeline and social changes of the Victorian era. The Victorian era lasted from 1837 until 1901. Wilde's trial was towards the end and it was not socially acceptable or endorsed for men of his age to be married to young women of 16 or 17, never mind have sex with them while married or divorced. Whilst 16 and 17 year old's were not thought of as young children they were still treated as youngsters that had to be protected. The 1889 first act of parliament for the prevention of cruelty to children had been passed. The amended Acts were passed in 1894 etc. you see where society was heading and public thought was. The Education Acts were in full swing etc. and while this doesn't mean everything was grand many people today have a completely skewed view of the Victorian era. In the same way that the prevalence of skimpy clothing, sexualization of teens etc. does not mean we as Anglosphere societies condone the use of teen girls as sexual objects for men of Wilde's age.
@@2law2be I would not say that. I mean, he obviously preferred younger men than himself, but he wrote of many "beautiful boys" aged 29, 30, and so on. He was probably in 5/6 a five-year relationship with Miles, and he was older than Oscar. And there were, of course, the all the stories with 35 years older Whitman. But his last boyfriend, Maurice, with whom Oscar was so much in love, was probably 30-35. He was an ex-marine.
While I appreciate you wanting to tackle this subject, as many comments have said, this video really misses the mark and misrepresents the historical record & larger context of Wilde’s trials. You can only fit so much nuance into an 18 minute video & I applaud you for trying to do so.
It was only hinted at but the defamation prosecution appears to have been pushed by Lord Alfred Douglas who wanted to get back at his father. A mention of de Profundis might have illuminated this aspect of Wilde’s fall from grace.
Totally not apologising for Wilde’s behaviour with minors, but it’s very easy to underplay the importance of class in this story. Particularly since the whole British culture of class doesn’t appear to export without getting lost in translation. Bosie and Queensberry were easily from a higher class than Wilde, and they weaponised his association with the lower classes… as much an ‘indecency’ at the time than the age factor. Especially when marriages, drink and drugs and extremes of working conditions were entirely normal for young people of the time, but mixing with so many different classes was a deviant attack on the moral order of society. Nowadays the class horror has become somewhat more of a left-right political thing, but in a way that is far less grounded in money and politics than in the US… Class in the UK gives access to the mechanisms of power, whereas money and politics only generally give you the ability to work for the mechanisms of power. Hell - look back as recently as the 70s (and I horrified to think even less far back) for high-profile examples of establishment figures who have been enabled to routinely assault minors, in a time period when the law was far clearer… Just so long as you don’t offend the powers that be by being a social radical. Contrast with treatment of anyone marrying into the royal family that is considered ‘unsuitable’ and tell me that class is less of a big deal than age in the UK 🤢
@@bilis2866 If I say "R. Kelly was a predator who was able to shoot laser beams with his eyes", do you think that correcting my statement would make you a R. Kelly apologist?
The judge (Alfred Wills)of the Oscar Wilde trial was my great great great grandfather and idk man I live to anger that man as a very outwardly queer person. And based on my knowledge he was sentenced for “acts of gross indecency with other *male* persons” and not children so I get a distinct feeling that my ancestor was as homophobic as expected for the time and that Wilde was trialed for being gay
I wanted to take the time to mention a great queer historical creater Kaz Rowe. While they dont have a video on Oscar Wilde explicitly they do have several videos that go into a more nuanced look at being queer in times passed l such as delightful abd fascinating video on Queer life in the Wild West) as well as a video on Bram Stoker and the fears that made Dracula which does mention Wilde and the trial.
@@LunarWind99 Yes! And its small but I always smile when I see her Tutter Mouse. I loved Bear in the Big Blue House even though I was a little too old.
Hey Leeja love you and your content so much. I really appreciate how much effort and research you put into your videos. However, as a queer person, I would ask that you please consider changing the title for this video and perhaps making some corrections in the comments for this video. I am not arguing the point about Wilde being a predator or not because it is not necessarily relevant to my argument. In the video you essentially suggest that this trial popularised the belief that queer people are inherently predatory and that the crime he was charged for was concerning his predatory behaviour and not his homosexuality. However, when you put this trial into its historical context and also look at what was actually said during the trial and the evidence that the prosecution displayed against Wilde, you will see he indeed was mostly prosecuted for being homosexual. Furthermore, I am really uncomfortable with the idea that they were “okay” or “silent” about homosexuality as long as it was done in private. That was just not the case. Sure, the upper class could get away with it, have it be an open secret. They had power and privilege to do so. But to then extrapolate this to all of Britain and Ireland is ahistorical and does not reflect the law nor the social attitudes of the time whatsoever. Thus, with all this in mind, I as a queer person, find it really uncomfortable to suggest that Wilde aided in the henceforth prosecution of homosexuals and not see the trial for what it was making an example out of Wilde. Also it should be noted that they only made an example out of Wilde, an upper class person with immense privilege because he was so open and blasé with his interest in men and boys further proving the point that the trial was about his homosexuality not his predatory behaviour. The predatory behaviour was used as an excuse to prosecute him when in reality the trial was really about his homosexuality. And let’s not even get into the class dimensions of this as well because that’s a whole other can of worms…
@@BlueNorth313 you really hate the word queer don’t you? lmao. there’s nothing wrong with this comment. you’re acting as if he’s trying to cancel her over her video.
Imagine calling yourself “queer” after LGBT elders have fought to not be called such slurs. Say you believe in the gender ideology cult without saying it lol.🤡
Do you think that if he was having romantic or sexual relationships with female adolescents from "lower" classes (meaning prostitutes/sexual workers) he would be judged the same way? Or at least that it would be as scandalous as it was? Many "upper class" man back then married very young girls from lower classes and I don't think it would be that relevant to put on the first page of important news papers.
It would have caused a massive stir, because people didn't view prostitution and class mixing in Molly Houses like they regarded marriage. Not that it's any better, but there are lots of nuances around the topic. A child (independent of sex) was considered property of their parents. Agreeing to marriage was basically absolving the child of their childhood (a thing to note is that "young girls" weren't married all that often compared to what people might think. In fact, Europe married on average older than the US, and even older in general than the 40's and 50's, the youngest it has been. Nobility (3% of the population) married young. The others led their lives pretty much like today. But history focuses on the people who had influence, rather than every day people, hence the disconnect. Women at the time married on average at 26). Now back to class, while you could marry up and down, it was fairly limited in scope. You didn't have noblemen marry factory seamstresses like it was nothing. It came with big stygma (just like there are some widows who married younger lads and were caughts on the bad side of "proper society"). Class in Europe (and even more so in Victoria's time in Britain and Ireland) isn't as easy to understand as today's thinking. A widower marrying a famous painter, or a widow a doctor, was accepted. Marriying a farm girl or a stablehand, not so much, the gap was wayyy to large. Prostitution was "for lower class". Nobles had mistresses and lovers of similar status OR specific circles (gentlemen's clubs, salons...) where such activities were taken care of, rarely by "children". They expected sex workers of a certain "status" and "experience". These women, to appeal to that sphere, had to be educated and proficient in culture, arts, and... sex. A good point of references is the "demi-mondaines" in France, whom Victoria's son was a big fan of. You might know the name of Sarah Bernhardt. She only provided her services to high-status men. It is of note that these women often had longer careers than your average street corner prostitute, because their reputation they had built along the years became a marketing point, and was leagues more important than youthful looks. A good "comparison" to get an idea would be "vile circles of human trafic and road side soliciting are for mere walmart employees, while high-end call-girls are for men of quality". There was a real snobbery to it. In terms of newspapers... you'd be surprised. It was an era where the press was less serious than one might think. There were A LOT of papers on the same level as today's paparazzi. The scandal would have been unleashed, regardless of truth. People lived and died by their reputation. Hence why defamation was a criminal act.
@@k.v.7681 You have a good point. My questions and my argument were based on my perspective as brazilian woman of our time. I'm not that familiarized with the Ireland classes dynamics, what made me write those questions was thinking about my grandmothers, they got married with much older men when they were 15/16 years old, their mothers got married at a young age too. So I thought, they didn't really saw that as huge problem as we see nowadays. But it is out of context, these were very different realities from Oscar Wilde's. Interpreting his judgments requires context knowledge. So thank you for your comment!
@@luizaaraujo4494 My wife's Argentinian so I get your perspective. This has to be viewed in context of the society it happened. Much like today just saying it happened in 2024 doesn't really mean anything without context. My God they just made same-sex relations in Iraq illegal. The Victorian era lasted from 1837 until 1901. Wilde's trial was towards the end and it was not socially acceptable or endorsed for men of his age to be married to young women of 16 or 17, never mind have sex with them while married or divorced. Whilst 16 and 17 year old's were not thought of as young children they were still treated as youngsters that had to be protected. The 1889 first act of parliament for the prevention of cruelty to children had been passed. The amended Acts were passed in 1894 etc. you see where society was heading and public thought was. The Education Acts were in full swing etc. and while this doesn't mean everything was grand many people today have a completely skewed view of the Victorian era. In the same way that the prevalence of skimpy clothing, sexualization of teens etc. does not mean we as Anglosphere societies condone the use of teen girls as sexual objects for men of Wilde's age.
I really would rethink at least the title of this video. Oscar Wilde is a hugely important figure for many queer people and there's a lot to his story that gets glossed over here. British society was nowhere near as accepting of homosexuality as you've painted it - the fact that there were laws against the act of sodomy ought to be enough to tell you that. They were accepting but it was illegal to be who you were? No. Queer people had to keep their identities secret and that must have been suffocating to live like that, unable to share the truth of who you love with the world. With regards to the age of the young men that Wilde was involved with - the age of consent in the UK is sixteen. It wasn't at the time of the Wilde trial because there was no age of consent for male/male interactions - as in, it was all illegal. But it's sixteen today. I don't think it's appropriate for thirty-somethings to have relationships with people that young but even today, it wouldn't be illegal. It's very US-centric to assume that eighteen is the standard everywhere, and across all of history. I think that in buying in to the narrative of his being a predator you've played into the homophobic narrative put about by a homophobic legal system upholding homophobic laws. The idea of gay men being predators didn't start with Oscar Wilde, they made his story fit that narrative. That's the narrative they would have used for every gay and bisexual man prosecuted under those laws, and it's the narrative people still use today to push back against LGBTQ+ rights. If you look further back in British legal history you'll find it predates the Wilde trial. His trial is just famous because he's a celebrity and he didn't play nice. Regardless of whether you think Oscar Wilde was a predator or not, for many, many decades he was the only queer person many people would have heard of, and knowing something is out there as a possibility can be a beacon of light when you don't understand what you're going through. I really hope you'll reconsider some of this video's contents in that light. There's a certain point back in history where we aren't going to find gay figures that we'd consider unproblematic if they acted the same way today, because we aren't going to find anyone who did, regardless of sexuality. It was pretty fucking brave of Oscar Wilde to go out there and claim his sexuality as something beautiful rather than abhorrent and that bravery has inspired generations of queer people.
Yeah, it was Oscar Wilde who created all the troubles for gays ... said no one except this terribly misinformed YT'er. Stop it, please just stop it and go get a history book. Geeez.
Ireland is not part of Great Britain and it's offensive to many to suggest it is (even if we were at one point under their rule we were never part of Britain). Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but Wilde is not from Northern Ireland. I know Wilde spent much of his time in Britain so I understand that may be your meaning but to say 'one of the greatest writers to come out of Ireland maybe all of Great Britain' implies Ireland is part of Britain when it is not. I know it was most likely an error but just fyi for the future. Edit: Because people are reading a tone in this that wasn't intended, I'm not angry and this isn't a rant. I know a lot of people outside of Ireland aren't taught our history and aren't aware of the connotations of certain terms. I just decided to be informative but I've seen someone call this a rant so thought I should clarify. Also because it came up in the comments just thought I'd add the British Isles is a geographic term but is also disliked by many people from the Republic of Ireland
Yeah, thousands of people died for decades due to the conflict, and it's still a sensitive topic between Northern Ireland and The Republic today. I'm Australian and I didn't realise until I moved there, so I'm sure Leeja just wasn't aware :) I'm not sure about America but it's not taught in schools here.
@@katieggg100 honestly in America we’re pretty uneducated about British history beyond how they relate back to American conflicts, I have British cousins and I spent years not even realizing that the UK was not synonymous for England. Also I don’t know if there’s a difference between Britain and England either.
@@cassiopeiathew7406 that's so interesting! Yeah I've heard from my American friends that their education system focuses mainly on their own history rather than world history. Australia is okay but we're still part of the monarchy so we learn everything through a British lense which tends to leave out a lot of the terrible things Britain actually did lol.
@@cassiopeiathew7406 England is a country, and Britain, geographically refers to the island which has the countries England, Wales, and Scotland. Politically it refers to these countries, and islands like the Isle of Wight. The UK refers all of that plus Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is separate. Geographically, all of the places mentioned are referred to The British Isles.
I’ve already seen soooo many comments defending Oscar Wilde (i agree!) and I feel like I have to add something to this rn...you as the creator of this video are wrong since they (= the justice system and the English society at around 1900) were most certainly NOT caring a single shit about “protecting the innocent minor” when Great Britain was literally the leading European (colonial) country to encourage CHILD LABOUR at the time. The government back then was realistically not so empathic when it came to exploiting literal 10 year olds!!! On the other hand, making every gay appearing man seem like a pedophile had the exact effect you described here - people painted a wrong and super damaging stereotype which unfortunately still exists to this day. But that is not Oscar Wilde’s fault. Yes, he was attracted to minors. But they did not charge him as a pedophile (instead it was was dealt with as “sodomy”). Yes, they should’ve been more aware of the very obvious age difference but those were other times (I hate that phrase too don’t worry!!) where even marriages between 12 year old girls and 14 year old boys were a thing (at least until 1929 I believe)...
While as a young British Gay Man I appreciate the fact you're highlighting Wilde's impact on homophobia towards Gay and Bi Men, he only perpetuated a long standing aspect of homophobia towards Gay Men: Gay Man = Pederast. It's also profoundly untrue and flippant to say that things were basically pretty dandy for Gay Men in the C19th and I don't know if you meant to but the way you talk about how "what *was* frowned upon was predation, which apparently was enough of a thing at the time for people to be concerned" makes it sound like you're blaming Gay Men for actually being predators at the time and bringing that discourse on themselves. When in reality what was going on was the long standing homophobic perception of Gay and Bi Men as (partially class-related) predators and paedophiles; something as old as the Gannymede myth. The different aspects of homophobia towards Gay Men are deeply rooted in the development of British culture over hundreds and hundreds of years. Sorry that was badly written but I cba editing. I appreciate that you meant well and I agree passionately with the main jist of what you're trying to say but there are some details that are incorrect and offensive (I only made it halfway through because the misundearding and disrespect for the issue got too triggering tbh).
I don't think it's as simple as blaming Wilde for the stereotype that being gay means being a pederast. People often misunderstand the full context of what happened during his trials. The entire trial was orchestrated in advance, not because of concerns about prostitution, but primarily because Bosie's father wanted to ruin Wilde. At the time, people didn't see homosexuality as an inherent part of one's identity-they genuinely believed it was something one could choose. They thought men like Wilde were corrupting young men into homosexuality. For instance, they believed Bosie wasn't really gay but was seduced by Wilde, despite Bosie's numerous affairs around London. Detectives actively sought out witnesses, some of whom had no actual connection to Wilde, and there is evidence that some were paid for their testimonies. Unpublished documents reveal that witnesses were coerced into testifying and threatened with imprisonment if they didn't comply. Only one person has reviewed these documents, and they confirmed that witnesses were forced to testify. We are still awaiting the publication of these documents. There was substantial evidence of homosexual activities among the young men involved. For instance, Shelley lied in court. The goal was to get rid of Wilde, and they succeeded. Even Wilde's cross-examiner, E. Carson, eventually realized that the trial was designed to imprison Wilde and tried to help him, but it was too late. Some witnesses were deliberately kept out of court to avoid libel charges or to prevent shifting attention from Wilde to Bosie. Most of the evidence was actually against Bosie, not Wilde. However, Bosie, an aristocrat, was protected, whereas Wilde, a middle-class Irishman, was not. Similar scandals had occurred before but were often covered up because they involved important men. Regarding the relationship between Bosie and Wilde, it was evident that Bosie abused Wilde. But, there whole issue of Greek and Hellenistic ideals. According to Dowling's examination, identifying with these concepts was one of the few ways Victorian gay men could have a sexual life, as it was the only positive connotation associated with homosexuality at the time. For example, A. Symonds was a gay man in Victorian times. He initially lusted after older, very masculine, large men, and hated himself so much for that that he developed a wish of castration. And later in life, somehow, he was able to accept himself only by projecting his desires onto the concept of "Greek love," so he started dating younger men. It was the only way for him to have a sexual life at all. It might seem a little strange to us now, but nowadays you can simply google "gay" and find a wealth of information, including thousands of gay men's representatives, p0rn, gay literature and so on, without worrying about being prosecuted. And Oscar himself (although this is not proven, as I was quite closeted for the first 30 years of his life- - he even wrote to a priest for help). He was probably with Miles for +/- 5 years, who was older, more masculine and dominant. And he had perhaps sexual relations with Pater, who was much older. Of course, there's also the whole Whitman story. But it seems like he was more interested in more masculine men than himself. It changed when he was introduced to this whole gay subculture by Robbie. Therefore, the perception of gay relationships involving older and younger men is not rooted in the Victorian era or in Wilde, but dates back to antiquity.
I feel really conflicted by this. I still feel, as I have felt for years, that, ultimately, Wilde was persecuted by the state because he was gay, and he died due to the harsh treatment and lack of medical care during his time in prison. So I reacted against the title of this video, because it doesn't seem fair to me to characterize that as his ruining things for others. If anything, Great Britain's embarrassment at how they treated one of their most talented writers probably eventually helped to loosen the laws against homosexuality. Meanwhile, he was a sacrifice to the homophobic God of Christianity. I still think that's true, despite the fact that he was not only "problematic" in several ways, but also qualifies as a sexual predator today. My point was that it was the cruel and hateful homophobic abuse that not only destroyed his life but also "ruined it" for generations after. But learning that the trial did focus on the imbalance of power and age... well, I don't think it relieves them of the charge of hateful homophobia, but it does make it more complex. If I could believe it had really all been about protecting children, maybe it could be clearcut the other way. But that is still a lie, however the trial was framed. I guess it makes me realize that that "Greek ideal" of sexual abuse of younger men by older did need to be rooted out, and Wilde was a casualty of that as well as garden variety homophobia and of course the horrific prison conditions of the time.
I think the blatant homophobia of the "corrupting our youth" argument becomes more obvious if we look at the contrast to how relationships with young girls would have been viewed. Mind, we are not talking about young children, but 16-17 year-old adolescents. And sure, by today's standards this is still considered predatory behavior, as it should be in my opinion. But would anyone have raised an eyebrow, much less put him on trial back then, if he had had relationships with 16-17 year old girls? Considering the legal age for girls to get married (with parental consent) was 12 back then, I am inclined to think not. Considering this, i think the argument about protecting youths from his "immoral" influence is not so much about protecting adolescents from predatory sexual behavior and much more about "not making the kids gay". Also, considering the fact that a big part of the reason he even was prosecuted in the first place was an influential nobleman objecting to his relationship with his adult son and threatening to out the prime minister as gay, i think it is fair to say, that the trial was absolutely about him being gay and focusing on his relationships with adolescents was just the surest way for the prosecutors to get him convicted.
while obviously it needs not be said that a thirty something sleeping with a young boy of around 16 or 17 is HORRIBLY wrong from any perspective, he would not be a predator - even in the modern day - because the age of consent in the UK is 16 currently and 17 i believe in ireland, and in the early victorian age was as young as 12. I think? It was raised to 16 by the time wilde was doing his thing, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, age wise it is and was legal - just morally reprehensible
@@elizabethratcliffe3859the age of consent was 13 at the time and was raised to 16 partly because of the trial, you’re correct. Why they couldn’t have gone up to 18 is beyond me.
This was an attempt to tell the history.. but it’s not a great one. I mean the whole topic of the class system in Britain is completely disregarded in this, tbh context in general is disregarded. Do more than a quick Wikipedia read if you’re planning on making a video on a part of history next time…
I really dislike how she tries to make the point that the victorians were quite accepting of homosexuality when it’s very much the opposite and you could probably gather that from the fact that there was a law against homosexuality.
@@please_go_away2086 ehh? Like yes and no. That's the issue. I think it wasn't really villainized. But it wasn't "accepted" per say-perhaps more begrudgingly tolerated as a thing some ppl did, but still "unnatural"
@@FIRING_BLIND …I cannot tell if you’re being serious. So it was illegal and in your own words people thought it was unnatural but they tolerated it?? that makes no sense what are you trying to say
Maybe because I'm poor, queer and biracial, but the issue of class absolutely makes it much more predatory than I think a lot of middle class white queers want to admit.
The sheer amount of not only historical misinformation, but inaccuracies in pronunciation, makes you guilty of incalculable idiocy. For God's sake, pick up a book.
To the point of still associating gays with predators I was forbidden to come to my best friend's vacation house owned with others of his family because they found out I was gay and because they had young children. Young children I had even played with!
@@BlueNorth313 Drag is the overperformance of gender. Shows can be sexually explicit, but they do not have to be at all. Other people not understanding what drag is in its most basic form is not us being perverse, it’s them being ignorant.
A contextual thing to remember about that time is that UK's age of consent was (and still is) 16. People also started working and got married MUCH earlier than in our times.
The age of consent in many states today is 16. That consent is meant for other 16 year olds. Not 30 year olds. What that means is that two high school kids can't be prosecuted for having sex with each other. It does NOT mean that adults can have sex with minor children. And thats how it absolutely should be, for a multitude of reasons.
@@anonymoose116 There’s no such thing in the UK (except for teachers). All I’m saying is that Wilde should be judged based on the context of his time and place - and not the present day morality of another country.
@@anonymoose116 in the UK, when a person is 16 there is no limit on who they can have sex with, so long as it’s not a similar professional authority figure with safeguarding responsibilities.
It was raised to 13 (from 12 as hobbleit points out) in 1875 and 16 in 1885, so you are correct. Age of consent for gay sex was 21 up until 2000 though. I'm thinking of England and Wales, not sure about Scotland which has its own legal system. Not sure about Northern Ireland either.
Its crazy how the predatory antics of Oscar Wilde are ignored and he’s viewed as a crusader. Arthur Rimbaud basically pimped out and abused by a married poet ten years older than him!
the room Wilde died in is now a very gorgeous hotel room in Paris at L'Hôtel . Ironically I found the wallpaper to be quite beautiful from the photos but I couldn't tell you if it was the original wallpaper Wilde detested so much. Edit: I actually googled it and it turns out the wallpaper was redone in 2000 on his 100th anniversary of his death. There are now frescos based on ones done by a contemporary of Wilde Aubrey Beardsley
So is anyone gonna tell her that 16 is the age of consent in the UK as well as most of the US and that putting Oscar Wild in the same classification as R Kelly is hardly an appropriate comparison
How much should we try to step back from our current laws and norms? All this talk of "very young boys" had me assuming 9-12 years old, until you said 16. Yes the age of consent when you magically become a functioning mature adult who can make your own decisions in this country is 18, but it is 14 in Germany currently. Boy were expected to be men by 16 in the UK in the 1800s and would have been working and supporting themselves and others for years. I dont find it helpful to say that we "would have found him to be a predator today." There is no indication that we would have committed these acts growing up in a society that expressed that these acts corrupt children not by teaching them that homosexuality exists but by having sex with them before they can adequately understand the gravity of what they are doing...
@@BlueNorth313 It is predatory regardless of his intentions. It's still worth pointing out that at the time men were also having relationship with young girls of a different class. In fact, they could even marry a 16 year old. So the power imbalance is real, but had it been directed towards girls, it's unlikely that Wilde would have suffered any consequence.
@@BlueNorth313 I do agree that this case is a lot more complex than homophobia. The judgement was definitly helped by Wilde completely mishandling the trials and the prime minister being threatened. However, it's still safe to say that, public perception-wise, the archetype of the pederast played against him. It's not impossible to imagine that a straight Oscar Wilde could've gotten away with it, as he certainly wasn't the only rich guy frequenting young sex workers.
The photographs of gay lovers are definitly interesting. I can't speak too much for the English, but in France class definitely explains that discrepancy. For the working class, homosexuality was very much seen as a vice of the extravagant rich. No political side approved of gay people, but syndicalists may have been worse as there are records of them forcing employers to fire a coworker who had been outed as gay. Gay people could be arrested for public indecency or prostitution even when there wasn't any. So these photographed gay couples were wealthy enough to not have to worry about any of that, but even then most of them never outright declared that they were a homosexual couple. Still, I agree that we often overestimate how secretive some gay people were. There was even a monthly gay magazine that tried to make the case for homosexuality being accepted. It didn't last long, but the fact that it could even exist proves that there was a (albeit minuscule) place for early gay activism.
@@BlueNorth313 I agree, it's an interesting subject that needs more investigation. It's possible that being a working-class gay man in England wasn't as socially dangerous. Maybe it also depended on where they lived, I suppose law enforcement mostly acted against gay people in important cities where gay communities were starting to form, which means that gay lovers in small towns could have been left alone. In France, the attitudes towards homosexuality were shifting with every regime change (and at that time France was facing a lot of political instability) so that may explain why people were kept on their toes. If the rumours at the time had any truth in them, the kingdoms of Italy were more tolerant of homosexuality, particularly in the South. Germans were also sometimes depicted as gay, as a joke. I wouldn't give much credit to that, as even nowadays it's a common political strategy to accuse a country (or their head of state, or their army) of homosexuality to imply that they are weak. Some things never change.
Sixteen is legal in the UK to this day, and certainly would be acceptable in his lifetime. Saying that the trial had nothing to do with him being queer is silly. Canceling any queer person who isn't perfect and blaming them for homophobia is just modern queerphobia from inside the left.
At the same time as Leeja seems to think that peer group homosexuality was "acceptable" in the UK, around the world, in British colony after British colony, Britain was imposing anti-LGBTQ legislation on societies that had never had any anti-LGBTQ traditions. And, today, thanks to those laws, imposed by the "Accepting" Victorians, in most former British colonies, LGBTQ lives are endangered. Definitely more research needed here...
In my opinion, the line between art and an artist is the artist being able to personally profit from the consumption of their media. If they're dead, they can't, so it's all good. If their alive, they can, so it's a no for me, bro.
We all are "still fighting" about it because it involves years of oppression and imperialism. You wouldn't refer to a person from any other former colony of the British Empire as being from Great Britain.
I think that those who defend "man-boy love" or sexual relationships between adults and pubescent children in general may miss the point of child protection because they become hyperfocused on the morality and/or normality of their own behavior, seeking to legitimize their experiences and justify their actions/desires. Like, in the effort to prove (to themselves if nothing else,) that they are not bad people or not causing harm, they view reality through a compromised lense, then convince themselves that their insight and experience is proof that the world just doesn't understand and simply over reacts on the basis of demonizing assumptions and wrathful possessiveness. They miss the fact that the differences in development stages, rather than numerical age, means their sexual targets cannot properly protect themselves from potential abuse (including unintended or unwitting abuse,) being taken advantage of, etc as is reasonable to expect of adults in sexual relationships and as commonly occurs in sexual relationships, again, even when everyone involved is well meaning and genuine about their emotional investments. As for artists' behavior, I have only this to say: Rowling is still stupid rich and still getting paid every year from Harry Potter. People like to act all righteous and get loud when it's about punishing someone, but they suddenly get real forgiving and understanding as soon as the moral outrage starts requiring sacrifice on their parts. It'd be nice if we could just go the understanding and forgiving route as a default and save the outrage for large-scale, serious problems only. Like, anger is an important social tool, not a drug, yknow?
"sorry I don't think Ireland is part of Great Britain but I honestly have no clue y'all keep fighting about it". Becuase the irish fought for centuries not to be ruled by Great Britain? Surely an American of all people would understand the sentiment?
Keeping track of the scandals of the Douglas family is a bit of an issue given the number of them and the lack of imagination in naming. The 9th Earl was also the Queensbury in the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules which is the basis for the modern rules for boxing. He was twice divorced by his wives for adultery which was fairly difficult for a woman to do in the Victorian era and eventually died of syphilis at age 55. His father (the 8th Earl) also died in a hunting “accident” which was probably suicide. Francis was named for his father’s brother who was part of the party that completed the first ascent of the Matterhorn but was one of the 4 who didn’t get back to Zermatt and his body was never recovered. There are also a number of Sholto Douglas’s but these shouldn’t be confused with the first Baron Kinross who commanded 12 group during the Battle of Britain who it seems was not a close relative.
Honestly, where I draw the line at horrible people's art is this: Is that person still alive? No? Then enjoy their work. They can't profit from it. There are so many great works that happen to be written by awful terrible people. F. Scott Fitzgerald (Racist, ...Google Zelda Fitzgerald) The works of H.P. Lovecraft (SUPER Racist, antisemitic, technophobe, low key N*zi supporter, etc) Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old first cousin when he was 27, but he's dead so he can't profit. L. Frank Baum (Advocated genocide of Native Americans) Virginia Woolf (Very classist) Shall I continue?
LOLing at the dorky American flexing because you went to Ireland and won't shut up about it, because I RESEMBLE that remark...Fun fact about Oscar Wilde: he came to St. Paul once and said of the experience: the furniture was dreadful....Bosie's sass to his dad is pretty ballsy given the rules for boxing are literally named after the Marquis of Queensbury.
Was 16 considered a child like we do today or is that just u looking at past norms from a modern lense? Cos I know through global history, there was no concrete definition of “childhood” like we understand it today through studies in child development. Especially stretching out to 16-17. It seems a unfair to paint this gay man as particularly predatory when age gaps were just as normal for the straights and a part of societal norms
As far as I know, that law only criminalized "gross indecency" between men, not all same-sex sexual activity. Also, prior to the Labouchere amendment to the "sodomy" law in the UK, it seems thar it was pretty hard to prove that "sodomy" (i.e. penetrarion) occured, so the grounds Wilde was convicted on were actually broader (and included masturbation and oral sex) in the new version of the law...
To me, adoring someone's art while very strongly disapproving of their behaviour (predators who wrote great songs, bands who sue their penniless fans...) is a moral justification for copyright infringement.
Brilliant video but if you even spent a day here In Dublin or Ireland you would understand how offensive it is to call an Irish person from “Great Britain” like genuinely it’s the worst insult you could say to someone after years of oppression and ignorance
I thought it was Bosie Douglas who pressured Oscar Wilde to sue his farther for slander? Been awhile since I read Oscar Wilde's letter to Bosie that Wilde wrote while in jail (Bosie then sold it for money to the press) but this point always got to me. He would have been let alone if he hadn't sued for defamation and no, he wasn't through in jail for being a homosexual. I always thought his works were over the top satires of the elites until I read a biography about the man and found out that that was actually how he acted.
Because he did. Whether people want to accept it or not, Oscar Wilde was severely abused by Bosie. Even George Bernard Shaw remarked that Bosie was utterly dominant over Oscar, who had no say in their relationship. When Bosie was around, Oscar immediately became submissive, doing whatever Bosie wanted. There are many stories about them, most of which are terrifying and include instances involving guns, threats, knives, and verbal abuse. Everyone who knew Oscar at that time noticed how much he changed since being with Bosie. He became unhappy, exhausted, terrified, and melancholic. His drinking increased significantly. Despite this, he still tried to maintain a facade of being fine and entertaining everyone, but it was clear that it was becoming increasingly difficult for him. Oscar attempted to break up with Bosie several times a year, but Bosie wouldn't let him go. We might call Oscar naive, but he was likely unable to say no to Bosie then. Oscar felt pressured to sleep with other men. There was, for instance, an incident where Bosie brought a rent boy to Oscar's hotel room without asking (but did he ever ask him what he wanted?..), and when Oscar tried to refuse, Bosie had one of his usual angry outbursts. But eventually, Bosie left Oscar alone. While in prison, Oscar was not allowed to send the letter, so he had to wait until he was released. Robbie Ross made a copy of the letter for Oscar but sent the copy to Bosie and kept the original. Oscar bequeathed everything to Robbie later on, including "De Profundis." Robbie eventually published it later in life.
AFAIK, sodomy is an archaic term and concept, basically meaning anal sex. In those days, it would have been a punishable offence in (heterosexual) marriages, as well. And so, what his lawyers made Wilde swear that he didn't commit, wasn't being a homosexual person (to put it in our terms, not theirs), but the act of anal sex itself. The terms homosexual and heterosexual had just been invented by the Austro-Hungarian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny a couple of decades previously, and, I guess, had yet to reach contemporary British society. Meaning that Wilde's actions were likely to be seen through the lens of a specific form of homoerotic relationships or friendships as practised in ancient Athens (not necessarily including anal sex). Remember, he and his acquaintances studied Classics in university, as an entry level requirement to contemporary elite society.
My opinion is if the person has passed, it’s ok to consume their art as long as you recognize they were problematic. They aren’t financially benefiting from their work anymore so you’re not supporting them to do more harm
I'd highly recommend reading Linda Dowling's book, 'Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford'. She looks at why Victorian gay men were so fixated on the 'Greek love' - love between younger and older men. It seems like this was the only way to accept oneself by identifying with this concept. Because it was the only positive connotation and justification for homosexuality. I know it's different for us, but these people had no representation at all. There was only taboo and hatred. There was only Greek mythology and Greek philosophy, and many genuinely believed that's how they should live out their sexuality because anything else would be sinful, unacceptable, and there would be nothing they could justify it with, like Wilde in his speech at the court. For example, A. Symonds was a gay man in Victorian times. He initially lusted after older, very masculine, large men, and hated himself so much for that that he developed a wish of castration. And later in life, somehow, he was able to accept himself only by projecting his desires onto the concept of "Greek love," so he started dating younger men. It was the only way for him to have a sexual life at all. It might seem a little strange to us now, but nowadays you can simply google "gay" and find a wealth of information, including thousands of gay men's representatives, p0rn, gay literature and so on, without worrying about being prosecuted. And Oscar himself (although this is not proven, as I was quite closeted for the first 30 years of his life- - he even wrote to a priest for help). He was probably with Miles for +/- 5 years, who was older, more masculine and dominant. And he had perhaps sexual relations with Pater, who was much older. Of course, there's also the whole Whitman story. But it seems like he was more interested in more masculine men than himself. It changed when he was introduced to this whole gay subculture by Robbie.
I don't really agree with this... queer people were never very accepted throughout history (not in ancient Greece either, educate yourselves please) and the extent to which they were able to slip under the radar was mostly just expanded by their lack of publicity... of course people like Wilde changed that by attracting so much attention, but it doesn't change how the nation concerned saw and treated gays and lesbians generally. I see this more as a stage queerness had to go through; it had to get worse before it got better. It might have been comfortable to not be noticed at all, but it certainly didn't help the case for their general acceptance among civil society.
If you read the letter of Oscar Wilde from prison to Bosie titled 'De profundis', Oscar tried to break up with him many times because of Bosie's financial demands and bad temper but Bosie would always come back apologising for his behaviour and nasty letters or notes he would leave.
Not people in the comments trying to defend Woody Allen,no matter how you put it whether Soon-Yi was his step-daughter or not he still groomed her he was still predatory to her there's nothing you can say that can justify him all your doing is outing that you support predatory behavior and are likely predators yourselves
I find the class distinction interesting when it comes to their perspective on the proprietary of a relationship. It's honestly not a thing I've really thought about before. When there's a massive class discrepancy people can be talked into a lot of things they might not otherwise do. We (well, most decent people) seem to understand this when it comes to age discrepancies, and power imbalances like someone's boss pressuring them for sex, but only acknowledge the power of class discrepancies when we want to shame a woman for her consensual upward mobility (by calling her a golddigger). It's unlikely the Victorians were thinking about this from the perspective of consent, but I guess I can't discount it completely.
Leeja this video is just incorrect on so many levels. Look at more contemporary examples, Alan Turing was chemically castrated when it was discovered he was gay. Certainly Oscar Wilde was a predator and should be condemned for that, but Lord Byron never saw a courtroom for having relations with his half sister. I really think this missed the mark.
I have known many gay men who do not ever exploit youth or abuse people. I have known of a few who have. I have known many straight men who do not ever exploit youth or abuse people. I have known of a few who have. The dividing line must always be between good behavior and bad, predatory behavior - not between gay and straight.
Gayness between women was accepted in the Victorian era because Queen Victoria, couldn't believe gay was a thing between women. THAT went under the radar.
Age of consent does not mean that a thirty something can have sex with a sixteen year old. It means that a sixteen year old could consent to sexual acts with someone who's within a certain age range close to their own, and that no one below the age of sixteen can consent to sex under any circumstance. I've also never seen a range to be greater than four years.
I read Oscar Wilde’s Wikipedia page an hour ago so I was looking for more info, but this is just that page but with some weirdly opinionated commentary and misinformation tacked on. I’d expect more effort from a lawyer! To anyone who sees this, just go read Wikipedia instead. You won’t be missing anything and you’ll get to form your own opinions. I expect that page was the primary source for this video.
The chief attourney for the defense at the first trial of Oscar Wilde was a man called Edward Carson, who would go onto play a key role in Irish history over the next couple of decades before independence. Woody Allen didn't marry his 13 year old step daughter, Soon Yi was the adoptive daughter of his partner and her ex Andre Previn and was about 17 or 18 (her exact birthdate is unknown, and still not cool btw) when they started the affair that led to the break up of his marraige. He was accused but never proven to have molested his daughter when she was a child. That whole thing is interesting and complex enough that it might be worth doing a video on. On the point at the end, when it comes to queer figures from other periods in history when everything was criminalised and the closet was the compulsory default, or even today for people who have to remain closeted for other reasons, personally I think we have to give men who used male sex workers a bit of grace. People will naturally look to explore their sexuality and when there're no good options how much can we really hold against those who opt for the bad ones, especially those like Wilde, Casement or Pascolini where their sexuality played a part in their untimely deaths either directly or by allowing their killers to escape justice themselves.
Wanted to comment on one part of this: The issue is not using sex workers overall (from a modern perspective), rather it's that because of their age and class, it's likely that the sex workers don't have enough power to give consent
It''s a werid thing, for his own time Wilde wasn't dating people too legally young for him to date, but no Ireland is not in Great Britain, anymore than Poland is in Germany, wtf. :) Also don't forget if Wilde wasn't Irish his trail wouldn't have been so harsh on him.
Hi Leeja. I do appreciate your content so much. I was wondering if you could do a future video about Megan Thee Stallion and her battle with her record label. Its been hot gossip recently and it will be good to understand both sides.
I didn't read up on this man before this video, just that he wrote a lot. But good lord. If he was here, in the 2020s? He would've absolutely joined NAMBLA.
"It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals and is so crassly indifferent to the various gradations and variations of gender and their great significance in life." ~ Emma Goldman
No offense but I find your assertion that homosexuality was fairly accepted in Victorian England to be incorrect, or at least lacking nuance. Nameless Offenses: Homosexual Desire in the 19th Century by H.G Cocks is a great book that talks about the relationship between language, especially in terms of law, and homosexuality in the Victorian era. Between 1810 and 1830, there was a large spike in indictments for sodomy, indecent assault, and other homosexual offenses.
H.G. Cocks also addresses the assertion that indecent assaults were mostly perpetrated against children at the time and if you look at the data, it’s actually mostly men in their 20s listed as the victims while offenders were also adult men. Also, as I’ve seen others point out, many straight men were marrying young girls at this time as young as 16. While legality doesn’t equal morality, it does beg the question: Why is this a criminal offense for gay men when it’s acceptable for straight men? The idea that the Victorian legal system cared about pedophilia, but only when it’s for same sex offenders should give you a hint as to what their true intentions were. It was never about protecting children, it was about prosecuting homosexual acts.
Indecent assault on its own is tricky language because in the Victorian legal system it could, and was, also be used to prosecute consenting men. Victorian legal code used heavily veiled language specifically to prosecute men engaging in homosexual acts without naming them specifically.
In 1809, Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough wrote that public knowledge of homosexual acts, including one’s being prosecuted, would “diminish much of the abhorrence which it is to be wished should always belong to it.” Which is a pretty clear statement that at least to the legal system, homosexuality was not something that was tolerated, but was actively hated and vilified.
The use of the language of “assault” when bringing up charges for homosexual acts was a clear and deliberate use of language to make such acts predatory in nature and existed on legal code long before Wilde, so insinuating that it’s somehow his fault for making gay men more vilified or predatory is again misinformed.
I’m really not sure what research you did for this video given you list your makeup and hair products, but not your sources. If anyone is actually interested in learning about the Victorian legal system and homosexuality I would again highly recommend Nameless Offenses.
Cocks lol
This exactly. Also H.G.Cocks is an incredible name to be paired with that book title
This is so articulate, and exactly what I wanted to say. I’ve been researching the era, especially queer history for 13 years and I don’t know where she got the idea that it was about protecting the boys. She says herself they were working class. The Victorian era didn’t give a darn about the working class. The age of consent in the UK is still 16, Wilde would not have been sentenced under modern law either. It is obviously horrible to have sex with teens as an adult, don’t misunderstand. However that’s not why he was sentenced.
I’m also interested in the fact that she didn’t touch more on the Irish vrs English aspects of the case. I suppose the video would have been too long and maybe rambling.
But this is all nonsense, because there is a huge difference between words and acts. Example? If two men "do it", then do you really think they go to the largest city square and shout out loud WHAT they just did? No, NOTHING happens next. You only read books! Only Wilde was so stupid to write lyric books about boys. Yes, THEN you get the moralists hunting you. But I guess Joe Average had no problems with gay men, in those years you could not openly be gay, but there was no Spanish Inquisition either. Unless you WANTED to go to jail, as a statement. Then you could get it.
It also merits saying that last men to be hanged for sodomy were hanged in 1835 (Smith and Pratt). The youngest one was in his 30s.
This video is a great example on why historical context is needed.
Without it you might end up saying some truly absurd things.
People ALWAYS do. Even when they know context, most of us are incredibly dumb.
Seriously this is told with a complete absence of historical background. England in common with other constituent nations of the U.K. and most other European countries had had laws against buggery and sodomy since the early Middle Ages. While technically both buggery and sodomy are not exclusively synonymous (in context) with homosexuality, they were usually treated as such. These were treated as sinful and non-procreative sex acts which the church deemed to be mortal sins. Where legal records exist it was fairly commonplace from at least the Carolingian era onwards in Europe for trials of sodomites and buggerers to take place for which one of the commonest punishments was death. The records are admittedly spotty in England because many of these crimes were prosecuted in Ecclesiastical courts and much was lost during the dissolution of the church in England under Henry VIII. However Henry VIII was at pains to issue laws for temporal courts to enforce which also criminalised sodomy and made sure to continue to allow for the death penalty in such cases in his famous Buggery Act of 1533. The number of cases brought against heterosexuals (as we would define them) for the act of sodomy is not known, especially in cases not alleging rape. However cases against sodomites (which in time did become a synonym for what we call “Gay”) are recorded and only ones class and associated power tended to mitigate against successful prosecution or ultimate sanction therefore. How many cases were brought in manorial courts and assizes sheriffs courts etc over the course of the medieval period and early modern period is not known. The enthusiasm with which those laws were imposed depended on many often very localised factors. But England did regard sodomy/buggery as a crime, it was largely considered socially odious and shameful, prosecutions did occur and there were undoubtedly even executions. Indeed during the first 35 years of the 19th century (for instance) 50 men were hanged to death for sodomy alone.
There is no possible case to imply that because you deem Oscar Wilde to have been a predator that he was responsible for worsening conditions for queer people in the U.K. then or thereafter. Indeed his punishment with hard labour was considered at the time to be progressive and clement, something the legal establishment complacently congratulated itself for for many decades afterwards.
Further to this, and as has been referred to by other commenters, it’s worth pointing out that Oscar Wilde was prosecuted under laws against buggery with some degree of rigour in no small part due to a generalised fear among many in the upper classes in Britain regarding class mixing and general moral decadence that was perceived to be a result of this. Ever since the industrial revolution which began in England in the 17th or 18th century depending on your definitions, the cities of the U.K. had swelled to some of the the largest in the world as huge numbers of poor moved from the country to seek employment in newly industrialised sectors. This had lead to a huge increase of class intermingling and in the eyes of the upper classes a dangerous rise in moral turpitude which they often believed poorer less educated people were intrinsically more prone to. Wilde’s dalliances with working class men and boys was a firm confirmation to many in the ruling class of something they and many before them had believed for a couple of centuries - that allowing the lower and upper classes to freely mingle together would lead to an increase in what they regarded as the most vile moral abominations. Upper class men frequenting infamous Molly Houses and other places where queer sex workers gathered in the larger cities was a matter of constant though largely disguised unquiet among many upper class people. It was seen as of vital importance to prevent anyone from thinking they could freely interact with people of other classes to prevent this kind of moral pollution as they saw it. Indeed Wilde’s prosecution of a man of senior class to himself probably failed in part because he was seen as the polluter of the moral honour of someone whose class intrinsically made them morally superior. Wilde was himself in turn successfully prosecuted for sodomy precisely because his own class status was not high enough to allow him the same degree of assumed virtue and his admitted sexual mingling with people of lower class was deemed to be precisely the vector of moral decay which had formed so much of the background to the moral panics of the period.
@@FumerieHilaire Thank you for this! I came to the comments looking for elaboration on the context of the class elements of the trial.
The whole concept of "moral decay" and "vectors" of influence - whether from the more libertine areas on the continent or from lower classes in growing cities - is fascinating in a disturbing way. Even more so when considered in context of the popular eugenics of that era and in ours.
16 is the age of consent in the UK, 17 is the age of consent in Ireland and that's in 2022. What he was doing was creepy, predatory and wrong but you can't turn around when it was seen as fine to act the same with girls that age during that time period without addressing that that may be caused by homophobia or something of its ilk. Also, "One of the greatest writers to come out of Ireland or maybe even all of Great Britain", Ireland isn't in Great Britain.
👏👏👏
@@rowan-priince1860 Wasn’t Ireland in the UK during the Victorian era? (Perhaps she meant UK and spoke Great Britain.). The distinction for Americans is a bit muddled. (For example, in the 80s we would say Russia, while meaning the USSR.)
The age of consent was actually 12 years old pre 1875, it was then raised to 13 in 1875 and then raised again to 16 in 1885. Homosexuality was punishable by death from 1533 to 1861, at that time it was reduced to 10 years in prison. It was changed again in 1885 making any and all homosexual acts illegal, even innocent love letters between men were enough to convict which aligns with the legal system making an example of Oscar Wilde, obviously this decision was rooted in centuries old homophobia. A homosexual age of consent law was not passed until 1967 making the legal age 21, it wasn't equalised until 2001 bringing the age down to 16 to match straight age of consent. It goes without saying that the trial was held to make an example of one of the UKs most prolific homosexual men, it wasn't about the predatory behaviour, it was just another way to deter people from engaging in any and all things gay...
@@RLucas3000 It was in the UK, but the UK and Great Britain aren't the same thing. Great Britain refers to the main island that holds England, Wales and Scotland.
You were allowed too give very young girls gifts and spend time with them? Or only if you marry them. Because there is difference. First case is more like prostitution and laws could be more strict. But I know nothing about that era.
Guys I love how well researched and respectful these comments are. That is rarely something I find in youtube comment sections, and I have learned quite a bit. I have noted some of your sources and will look into them later because this topic is fascinating
Seconded Ava, this is the most civilized comment section every. And now I'm that much more educated after viewing this video
I had a feeling just from the title that this wouldn't be my favorite video of yours, but really tried to give the benefit of the doubt. I wish the tone here was miles away from what it is. It's dangerous to put out this idea that basically boils down to, homophobia wasn't a huge issue until oscar wilde started crushing on teenagers. Homophobia was definitely harming the lower classes and those who didn't/couldn't keep it so lowkey, and the only reason anyone cared about wilde hitting on teenagers was because they were boys. While it was falling somewhat out of favor in the 1880s, plenty of straight men of the era were taking child brides with parental consent. The way you're putting it, it's almost set up like the homophobic system that persecuted him and everyone afterward wasn't actually that bad and if oscar wilde hadn't been hitting on teens, it would have all been sunshine and roses. That's just not the case, its largely understood that he was prosecuted as an example. He was a symbol of the deviant homosexual that would turn your child gay. The framing here is putting the blame in absolutely the wrong place.
@@BlueNorth313 you are fully either misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. When did I ever say we can't talk about gay pedophiles at all? My issue here is that not only is the video titled the way it is, but during the video she doesn't act like it was any kind of joke. Oscar wilde, like many men of the era, was into teens and that is super gross, but he didn't ruin being gay for everyone else. The homophobic system that persecuted him, and I cannot stress this enough, Did Not Care about protecting kids from pedophiles. They only cared about finding a gay pedophile and putting him on trial, because that system has thought all gay men were secretly pedophiles long before Wilde came along. The negative stigma associated with gay people was not caused by Wilde's trial, it predated him and would have carried on just fine without him, minus a period os hypervisibility in the 1880s. So, again, my issue is with the video implying that Wilde is The Bad Guy here, instead of a system that allowed straight men to prey on young girls all the time but made a huge public spectacle when a gay guy did the same.
Also, I'm an adult that you have never met, don't call me dear.
@@_gremlinboy thanks for your comment i really appreciate it
@@_gremlinboy Just popping in to back you up here! This person is going a rant spree and commenting the same shit all around the comment section.
@@BlueNorth313 come on, try
The average age of marriage for a Victorian woman was between 20 and 22 in the United States and a bit older in England. The lowest the age of first marriage has ever been recently for women was in the mid 1940s through the 1950s.
I mean, Victorians didn't have the notion we have on children/minors. It was a completely different society, they would have arranged a marriage for 15 year old girls with any guy as rich as him, and just as old. So I don't really see how it would characterize him as a predator, specially because he wouldn't exclusively date under age boys (they weren't even considered under age at all back then). His trial WAS INDEED all about his sexual orientation. Not to recognise that is a huge step back , really.
I understand what you're saying but Wilde had a preference for young boys....he didn't care for men his own age
@@2law2be sure but that was totally fine back then. 16/17 wasn't considered a child the way some countries consider it today. Adulthood strictly being 18 is a modern concept that isn't even standardized around the world.
At the time of Oscar's trial, straight men were openly and legally marrying young girls without any issues or social backlash. His trial was purely around being gay, he did nothing out of the norm for the culture besides that.
You can't look at the past through the lens of today, we have a completely different understanding around the behaviour for these kinds of things. There was no concept of child psychology/development the way we understand it now.
@@stonecake313 This may be relevant or not but SDIs like Syphilis were common amongst wealthy men who frequented the poor districts looking for prostitutes . many of these men who became infected with Syphilis believed that by having intercourse with a girl virgin would remove the disease . Mothers would sell their underage daughters ( some as young as 8 known as un-ripe fruit) to the rich. It seems even here the concept of childhood is blurred.
@@stonecake313 I think your getting confused with the timeline and social changes of the Victorian era. The Victorian era lasted from 1837 until 1901. Wilde's trial was towards the end and it was not socially acceptable or endorsed for men of his age to be married to young women of 16 or 17, never mind have sex with them while married or divorced. Whilst 16 and 17 year old's were not thought of as young children they were still treated as youngsters that had to be protected. The 1889 first act of parliament for the prevention of cruelty to children had been passed. The amended Acts were passed in 1894 etc. you see where society was heading and public thought was. The Education Acts were in full swing etc. and while this doesn't mean everything was grand many people today have a completely skewed view of the Victorian era. In the same way that the prevalence of skimpy clothing, sexualization of teens etc. does not mean we as Anglosphere societies condone the use of teen girls as sexual objects for men of Wilde's age.
@@2law2be I would not say that. I mean, he obviously preferred younger men than himself, but he wrote of many "beautiful boys" aged 29, 30, and so on. He was probably in 5/6 a five-year relationship with Miles, and he was older than Oscar. And there were, of course, the all the stories with 35 years older Whitman. But his last boyfriend, Maurice, with whom Oscar was so much in love, was probably 30-35. He was an ex-marine.
While I appreciate you wanting to tackle this subject, as many comments have said, this video really misses the mark and misrepresents the historical record & larger context of Wilde’s trials. You can only fit so much nuance into an 18 minute video & I applaud you for trying to do so.
It was only hinted at but the defamation prosecution appears to have been pushed by Lord Alfred Douglas who wanted to get back at his father. A mention of de Profundis might have illuminated this aspect of Wilde’s fall from grace.
Totally not apologising for Wilde’s behaviour with minors, but it’s very easy to underplay the importance of class in this story. Particularly since the whole British culture of class doesn’t appear to export without getting lost in translation.
Bosie and Queensberry were easily from a higher class than Wilde, and they weaponised his association with the lower classes… as much an ‘indecency’ at the time than the age factor. Especially when marriages, drink and drugs and extremes of working conditions were entirely normal for young people of the time, but mixing with so many different classes was a deviant attack on the moral order of society.
Nowadays the class horror has become somewhat more of a left-right political thing, but in a way that is far less grounded in money and politics than in the US… Class in the UK gives access to the mechanisms of power, whereas money and politics only generally give you the ability to work for the mechanisms of power.
Hell - look back as recently as the 70s (and I horrified to think even less far back) for high-profile examples of establishment figures who have been enabled to routinely assault minors, in a time period when the law was far clearer… Just so long as you don’t offend the powers that be by being a social radical.
Contrast with treatment of anyone marrying into the royal family that is considered ‘unsuitable’ and tell me that class is less of a big deal than age in the UK 🤢
Totally not apologising for Wilde’s behaviour with minors, BUT
@@bilis2866 Shocking, I know: two whole thoughts at once.
@@oldvlognewtricks he should be drag more often, why he was so well regarded why defend this rich British white man knowing he diddle kids WHY
@@bilis2866 If I say "R. Kelly was a predator who was able to shoot laser beams with his eyes", do you think that correcting my statement would make you a R. Kelly apologist?
The judge (Alfred Wills)of the Oscar Wilde trial was my great great great grandfather and idk man I live to anger that man as a very outwardly queer person. And based on my knowledge he was sentenced for “acts of gross indecency with other *male* persons” and not children so I get a distinct feeling that my ancestor was as homophobic as expected for the time and that Wilde was trialed for being gay
I wanted to take the time to mention a great queer historical creater Kaz Rowe. While they dont have a video on Oscar Wilde explicitly they do have several videos that go into a more nuanced look at being queer in times passed l such as delightful abd fascinating video on Queer life in the Wild West) as well as a video on Bram Stoker and the fears that made Dracula which does mention Wilde and the trial.
Thanks! I'll definitely check them out.
I love Kaz Rowe, she's always so detailed about everything 💙
@@LunarWind99 Yes! And its small but I always smile when I see her Tutter Mouse. I loved Bear in the Big Blue House even though I was a little too old.
@@gigitastic90 Omg me too!
Indeed their channel has been quite illustrative, it has become one of my favorites
Hey Leeja love you and your content so much. I really appreciate how much effort and research you put into your videos. However, as a queer person, I would ask that you please consider changing the title for this video and perhaps making some corrections in the comments for this video. I am not arguing the point about Wilde being a predator or not because it is not necessarily relevant to my argument. In the video you essentially suggest that this trial popularised the belief that queer people are inherently predatory and that the crime he was charged for was concerning his predatory behaviour and not his homosexuality. However, when you put this trial into its historical context and also look at what was actually said during the trial and the evidence that the prosecution displayed against Wilde, you will see he indeed was mostly prosecuted for being homosexual. Furthermore, I am really uncomfortable with the idea that they were “okay” or “silent” about homosexuality as long as it was done in private. That was just not the case. Sure, the upper class could get away with it, have it be an open secret. They had power and privilege to do so. But to then extrapolate this to all of Britain and Ireland is ahistorical and does not reflect the law nor the social attitudes of the time whatsoever. Thus, with all this in mind, I as a queer person, find it really uncomfortable to suggest that Wilde aided in the henceforth prosecution of homosexuals and not see the trial for what it was making an example out of Wilde. Also it should be noted that they only made an example out of Wilde, an upper class person with immense privilege because he was so open and blasé with his interest in men and boys further proving the point that the trial was about his homosexuality not his predatory behaviour. The predatory behaviour was used as an excuse to prosecute him when in reality the trial was really about his homosexuality. And let’s not even get into the class dimensions of this as well because that’s a whole other can of worms…
Yes, the video is a weird take.
+
@@BlueNorth313 you really hate the word queer don’t you? lmao. there’s nothing wrong with this comment. you’re acting as if he’s trying to cancel her over her video.
Totally agree, glad I find someone pointing out this in the comments
Imagine calling yourself “queer” after LGBT elders have fought to not be called such slurs. Say you believe in the gender ideology cult without saying it lol.🤡
Do you think that if he was having romantic or sexual relationships with female adolescents from "lower" classes (meaning prostitutes/sexual workers) he would be judged the same way? Or at least that it would be as scandalous as it was? Many "upper class" man back then married very young girls from lower classes and I don't think it would be that relevant to put on the first page of important news papers.
It would have caused a massive stir, because people didn't view prostitution and class mixing in Molly Houses like they regarded marriage. Not that it's any better, but there are lots of nuances around the topic. A child (independent of sex) was considered property of their parents. Agreeing to marriage was basically absolving the child of their childhood (a thing to note is that "young girls" weren't married all that often compared to what people might think. In fact, Europe married on average older than the US, and even older in general than the 40's and 50's, the youngest it has been. Nobility (3% of the population) married young. The others led their lives pretty much like today. But history focuses on the people who had influence, rather than every day people, hence the disconnect. Women at the time married on average at 26).
Now back to class, while you could marry up and down, it was fairly limited in scope. You didn't have noblemen marry factory seamstresses like it was nothing. It came with big stygma (just like there are some widows who married younger lads and were caughts on the bad side of "proper society"). Class in Europe (and even more so in Victoria's time in Britain and Ireland) isn't as easy to understand as today's thinking. A widower marrying a famous painter, or a widow a doctor, was accepted. Marriying a farm girl or a stablehand, not so much, the gap was wayyy to large.
Prostitution was "for lower class". Nobles had mistresses and lovers of similar status OR specific circles (gentlemen's clubs, salons...) where such activities were taken care of, rarely by "children". They expected sex workers of a certain "status" and "experience". These women, to appeal to that sphere, had to be educated and proficient in culture, arts, and... sex. A good point of references is the "demi-mondaines" in France, whom Victoria's son was a big fan of. You might know the name of Sarah Bernhardt. She only provided her services to high-status men. It is of note that these women often had longer careers than your average street corner prostitute, because their reputation they had built along the years became a marketing point, and was leagues more important than youthful looks. A good "comparison" to get an idea would be "vile circles of human trafic and road side soliciting are for mere walmart employees, while high-end call-girls are for men of quality". There was a real snobbery to it.
In terms of newspapers... you'd be surprised. It was an era where the press was less serious than one might think. There were A LOT of papers on the same level as today's paparazzi. The scandal would have been unleashed, regardless of truth. People lived and died by their reputation. Hence why defamation was a criminal act.
@@k.v.7681 You have a good point. My questions and my argument were based on my perspective as brazilian woman of our time. I'm not that familiarized with the Ireland classes dynamics, what made me write those questions was thinking about my grandmothers, they got married with much older men when they were 15/16 years old, their mothers got married at a young age too. So I thought, they didn't really saw that as huge problem as we see nowadays. But it is out of context, these were very different realities from Oscar Wilde's. Interpreting his judgments requires context knowledge. So thank you for your comment!
@@luizaaraujo4494 My wife's Argentinian so I get your perspective. This has to be viewed in context of the society it happened. Much like today just saying it happened in 2024 doesn't really mean anything without context. My God they just made same-sex relations in Iraq illegal. The Victorian era lasted from 1837 until 1901. Wilde's trial was towards the end and it was not socially acceptable or endorsed for men of his age to be married to young women of 16 or 17, never mind have sex with them while married or divorced. Whilst 16 and 17 year old's were not thought of as young children they were still treated as youngsters that had to be protected. The 1889 first act of parliament for the prevention of cruelty to children had been passed. The amended Acts were passed in 1894 etc. you see where society was heading and public thought was. The Education Acts were in full swing etc. and while this doesn't mean everything was grand many people today have a completely skewed view of the Victorian era. In the same way that the prevalence of skimpy clothing, sexualization of teens etc. does not mean we as Anglosphere societies condone the use of teen girls as sexual objects for men of Wilde's age.
I really would rethink at least the title of this video. Oscar Wilde is a hugely important figure for many queer people and there's a lot to his story that gets glossed over here.
British society was nowhere near as accepting of homosexuality as you've painted it - the fact that there were laws against the act of sodomy ought to be enough to tell you that. They were accepting but it was illegal to be who you were? No. Queer people had to keep their identities secret and that must have been suffocating to live like that, unable to share the truth of who you love with the world.
With regards to the age of the young men that Wilde was involved with - the age of consent in the UK is sixteen. It wasn't at the time of the Wilde trial because there was no age of consent for male/male interactions - as in, it was all illegal. But it's sixteen today. I don't think it's appropriate for thirty-somethings to have relationships with people that young but even today, it wouldn't be illegal. It's very US-centric to assume that eighteen is the standard everywhere, and across all of history.
I think that in buying in to the narrative of his being a predator you've played into the homophobic narrative put about by a homophobic legal system upholding homophobic laws. The idea of gay men being predators didn't start with Oscar Wilde, they made his story fit that narrative. That's the narrative they would have used for every gay and bisexual man prosecuted under those laws, and it's the narrative people still use today to push back against LGBTQ+ rights. If you look further back in British legal history you'll find it predates the Wilde trial. His trial is just famous because he's a celebrity and he didn't play nice.
Regardless of whether you think Oscar Wilde was a predator or not, for many, many decades he was the only queer person many people would have heard of, and knowing something is out there as a possibility can be a beacon of light when you don't understand what you're going through. I really hope you'll reconsider some of this video's contents in that light. There's a certain point back in history where we aren't going to find gay figures that we'd consider unproblematic if they acted the same way today, because we aren't going to find anyone who did, regardless of sexuality. It was pretty fucking brave of Oscar Wilde to go out there and claim his sexuality as something beautiful rather than abhorrent and that bravery has inspired generations of queer people.
Yeah, it was Oscar Wilde who created all the troubles for gays ... said no one except this terribly misinformed YT'er.
Stop it, please just stop it and go get a history book. Geeez.
Ireland is not part of Great Britain and it's offensive to many to suggest it is (even if we were at one point under their rule we were never part of Britain). Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but Wilde is not from Northern Ireland. I know Wilde spent much of his time in Britain so I understand that may be your meaning but to say 'one of the greatest writers to come out of Ireland maybe all of Great Britain' implies Ireland is part of Britain when it is not. I know it was most likely an error but just fyi for the future.
Edit: Because people are reading a tone in this that wasn't intended, I'm not angry and this isn't a rant. I know a lot of people outside of Ireland aren't taught our history and aren't aware of the connotations of certain terms. I just decided to be informative but I've seen someone call this a rant so thought I should clarify. Also because it came up in the comments just thought I'd add the British Isles is a geographic term but is also disliked by many people from the Republic of Ireland
Yeah, thousands of people died for decades due to the conflict, and it's still a sensitive topic between Northern Ireland and The Republic today. I'm Australian and I didn't realise until I moved there, so I'm sure Leeja just wasn't aware :) I'm not sure about America but it's not taught in schools here.
@@katieggg100 we don't even learn our own history, sadly.
@@katieggg100 honestly in America we’re pretty uneducated about British history beyond how they relate back to American conflicts, I have British cousins and I spent years not even realizing that the UK was not synonymous for England. Also I don’t know if there’s a difference between Britain and England either.
@@cassiopeiathew7406 that's so interesting! Yeah I've heard from my American friends that their education system focuses mainly on their own history rather than world history. Australia is okay but we're still part of the monarchy so we learn everything through a British lense which tends to leave out a lot of the terrible things Britain actually did lol.
@@cassiopeiathew7406 England is a country, and Britain, geographically refers to the island which has the countries England, Wales, and Scotland. Politically it refers to these countries, and islands like the Isle of Wight. The UK refers all of that plus Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is separate. Geographically, all of the places mentioned are referred to The British Isles.
I’ve already seen soooo many comments defending Oscar Wilde (i agree!) and I feel like I have to add something to this rn...you as the creator of this video are wrong since they (= the justice system and the English society at around 1900) were most certainly NOT caring a single shit about “protecting the innocent minor” when Great Britain was literally the leading European (colonial) country to encourage CHILD LABOUR at the time. The government back then was realistically not so empathic when it came to exploiting literal 10 year olds!!! On the other hand, making every gay appearing man seem like a pedophile had the exact effect you described here - people painted a wrong and super damaging stereotype which unfortunately still exists to this day. But that is not Oscar Wilde’s fault. Yes, he was attracted to minors. But they did not charge him as a pedophile (instead it was was dealt with as “sodomy”). Yes, they should’ve been more aware of the very obvious age difference but those were other times (I hate that phrase too don’t worry!!) where even marriages between 12 year old girls and 14 year old boys were a thing (at least until 1929 I believe)...
While as a young British Gay Man I appreciate the fact you're highlighting Wilde's impact on homophobia towards Gay and Bi Men, he only perpetuated a long standing aspect of homophobia towards Gay Men: Gay Man = Pederast. It's also profoundly untrue and flippant to say that things were basically pretty dandy for Gay Men in the C19th and I don't know if you meant to but the way you talk about how "what *was* frowned upon was predation, which apparently was enough of a thing at the time for people to be concerned" makes it sound like you're blaming Gay Men for actually being predators at the time and bringing that discourse on themselves. When in reality what was going on was the long standing homophobic perception of Gay and Bi Men as (partially class-related) predators and paedophiles; something as old as the Gannymede myth. The different aspects of homophobia towards Gay Men are deeply rooted in the development of British culture over hundreds and hundreds of years. Sorry that was badly written but I cba editing.
I appreciate that you meant well and I agree passionately with the main jist of what you're trying to say but there are some details that are incorrect and offensive (I only made it halfway through because the misundearding and disrespect for the issue got too triggering tbh).
I don't think it's as simple as blaming Wilde for the stereotype that being gay means being a pederast. People often misunderstand the full context of what happened during his trials. The entire trial was orchestrated in advance, not because of concerns about prostitution, but primarily because Bosie's father wanted to ruin Wilde. At the time, people didn't see homosexuality as an inherent part of one's identity-they genuinely believed it was something one could choose. They thought men like Wilde were corrupting young men into homosexuality. For instance, they believed Bosie wasn't really gay but was seduced by Wilde, despite Bosie's numerous affairs around London.
Detectives actively sought out witnesses, some of whom had no actual connection to Wilde, and there is evidence that some were paid for their testimonies. Unpublished documents reveal that witnesses were coerced into testifying and threatened with imprisonment if they didn't comply. Only one person has reviewed these documents, and they confirmed that witnesses were forced to testify. We are still awaiting the publication of these documents. There was substantial evidence of homosexual activities among the young men involved. For instance, Shelley lied in court. The goal was to get rid of Wilde, and they succeeded.
Even Wilde's cross-examiner, E. Carson, eventually realized that the trial was designed to imprison Wilde and tried to help him, but it was too late. Some witnesses were deliberately kept out of court to avoid libel charges or to prevent shifting attention from Wilde to Bosie. Most of the evidence was actually against Bosie, not Wilde. However, Bosie, an aristocrat, was protected, whereas Wilde, a middle-class Irishman, was not. Similar scandals had occurred before but were often covered up because they involved important men. Regarding the relationship between Bosie and Wilde, it was evident that Bosie abused Wilde.
But, there whole issue of Greek and Hellenistic ideals. According to Dowling's examination, identifying with these concepts was one of the few ways Victorian gay men could have a sexual life, as it was the only positive connotation associated with homosexuality at the time. For example, A. Symonds was a gay man in Victorian times. He initially lusted after older, very masculine, large men, and hated himself so much for that that he developed a wish of castration. And later in life, somehow, he was able to accept himself only by projecting his desires onto the concept of "Greek love," so he started dating younger men. It was the only way for him to have a sexual life at all. It might seem a little strange to us now, but nowadays you can simply google "gay" and find a wealth of information, including thousands of gay men's representatives, p0rn, gay literature and so on, without worrying about being prosecuted. And Oscar himself (although this is not proven, as I was quite closeted for the first 30 years of his life- - he even wrote to a priest for help). He was probably with Miles for +/- 5 years, who was older, more masculine and dominant. And he had perhaps sexual relations with Pater, who was much older. Of course, there's also the whole Whitman story. But it seems like he was more interested in more masculine men than himself. It changed when he was introduced to this whole gay subculture by Robbie.
Therefore, the perception of gay relationships involving older and younger men is not rooted in the Victorian era or in Wilde, but dates back to antiquity.
I feel really conflicted by this. I still feel, as I have felt for years, that, ultimately, Wilde was persecuted by the state because he was gay, and he died due to the harsh treatment and lack of medical care during his time in prison. So I reacted against the title of this video, because it doesn't seem fair to me to characterize that as his ruining things for others. If anything, Great Britain's embarrassment at how they treated one of their most talented writers probably eventually helped to loosen the laws against homosexuality. Meanwhile, he was a sacrifice to the homophobic God of Christianity. I still think that's true, despite the fact that he was not only "problematic" in several ways, but also qualifies as a sexual predator today. My point was that it was the cruel and hateful homophobic abuse that not only destroyed his life but also "ruined it" for generations after.
But learning that the trial did focus on the imbalance of power and age... well, I don't think it relieves them of the charge of hateful homophobia, but it does make it more complex. If I could believe it had really all been about protecting children, maybe it could be clearcut the other way. But that is still a lie, however the trial was framed. I guess it makes me realize that that "Greek ideal" of sexual abuse of younger men by older did need to be rooted out, and Wilde was a casualty of that as well as garden variety homophobia and of course the horrific prison conditions of the time.
I think the blatant homophobia of the "corrupting our youth" argument becomes more obvious if we look at the contrast to how relationships with young girls would have been viewed. Mind, we are not talking about young children, but 16-17 year-old adolescents. And sure, by today's standards this is still considered predatory behavior, as it should be in my opinion. But would anyone have raised an eyebrow, much less put him on trial back then, if he had had relationships with 16-17 year old girls? Considering the legal age for girls to get married (with parental consent) was 12 back then, I am inclined to think not. Considering this, i think the argument about protecting youths from his "immoral" influence is not so much about protecting adolescents from predatory sexual behavior and much more about "not making the kids gay". Also, considering the fact that a big part of the reason he even was prosecuted in the first place was an influential nobleman objecting to his relationship with his adult son and threatening to out the prime minister as gay, i think it is fair to say, that the trial was absolutely about him being gay and focusing on his relationships with adolescents was just the surest way for the prosecutors to get him convicted.
@@felisblue8812 Thanks for that. Good points.
Abuse of young men by (some) older men still happens, sadly. Bryan Singer and Joe Exotic come immediately to mind.
while obviously it needs not be said that a thirty something sleeping with a young boy of around 16 or 17 is HORRIBLY wrong from any perspective, he would not be a predator - even in the modern day - because the age of consent in the UK is 16 currently and 17 i believe in ireland, and in the early victorian age was as young as 12. I think? It was raised to 16 by the time wilde was doing his thing, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, age wise it is and was legal - just morally reprehensible
@@elizabethratcliffe3859the age of consent was 13 at the time and was raised to 16 partly because of the trial, you’re correct.
Why they couldn’t have gone up to 18 is beyond me.
This is why only historians shoul tell the history, this is a shitshow
This was an attempt to tell the history.. but it’s not a great one. I mean the whole topic of the class system in Britain is completely disregarded in this, tbh context in general is disregarded. Do more than a quick Wikipedia read if you’re planning on making a video on a part of history next time…
I really dislike how she tries to make the point that the victorians were quite accepting of homosexuality when it’s very much the opposite and you could probably gather that from the fact that there was a law against homosexuality.
@@please_go_away2086 ehh? Like yes and no. That's the issue. I think it wasn't really villainized. But it wasn't "accepted" per say-perhaps more begrudgingly tolerated as a thing some ppl did, but still "unnatural"
@@FIRING_BLIND …I cannot tell if you’re being serious. So it was illegal and in your own words people thought it was unnatural but they tolerated it?? that makes no sense what are you trying to say
Millennials have no notion of context, never mind American millennials.
Maybe because I'm poor, queer and biracial, but the issue of class absolutely makes it much more predatory than I think a lot of middle class white queers want to admit.
I had trouble with the mispronounciation of words. The rent boys Wilde associated with were not under age, they were all around twenty.
The sheer amount of not only historical misinformation, but inaccuracies in pronunciation, makes you guilty of incalculable idiocy. For God's sake, pick up a book.
To the point of still associating gays with predators I was forbidden to come to my best friend's vacation house owned with others of his family because they found out I was gay and because they had young children.
Young children I had even played with!
@@BlueNorth313 Drag is the overperformance of gender. Shows can be sexually explicit, but they do not have to be at all. Other people not understanding what drag is in its most basic form is not us being perverse, it’s them being ignorant.
@@BlueNorth313 drag is not inherently sexual, and neither are the people who are introducing drag to kids.
@@Milena-ek6gm gets sexual pretty quick tho huh.
A contextual thing to remember about that time is that UK's age of consent was (and still is) 16. People also started working and got married MUCH earlier than in our times.
The age of consent in many states today is 16.
That consent is meant for other 16 year olds. Not 30 year olds. What that means is that two high school kids can't be prosecuted for having sex with each other.
It does NOT mean that adults can have sex with minor children. And thats how it absolutely should be, for a multitude of reasons.
@@anonymoose116 There’s no such thing in the UK (except for teachers). All I’m saying is that Wilde should be judged based on the context of his time and place - and not the present day morality of another country.
In the nineteenth century, the age of consent was even lower. It was 12. Of course, that only applies to heterosexual relationships.
@@anonymoose116 in the UK, when a person is 16 there is no limit on who they can have sex with, so long as it’s not a similar professional authority figure with safeguarding responsibilities.
It was raised to 13 (from 12 as hobbleit points out) in 1875 and 16 in 1885, so you are correct. Age of consent for gay sex was 21 up until 2000 though. I'm thinking of England and Wales, not sure about Scotland which has its own legal system. Not sure about Northern Ireland either.
I wonder whether Wilde would have been prosecuted for predatory behaviour on 16 years old girls of a lower class.
Its crazy how the predatory antics of Oscar Wilde are ignored and he’s viewed as a crusader. Arthur Rimbaud basically pimped out and abused by a married poet ten years older than him!
the room Wilde died in is now a very gorgeous hotel room in Paris at L'Hôtel . Ironically I found the wallpaper to be quite beautiful from the photos but I couldn't tell you if it was the original wallpaper Wilde detested so much. Edit: I actually googled it and it turns out the wallpaper was redone in 2000 on his 100th anniversary of his death. There are now frescos based on ones done by a contemporary of Wilde Aubrey Beardsley
Neat detail!
A little part of me dies every time she confidently mispronounces "Marquess."
So is anyone gonna tell her that 16 is the age of consent in the UK as well as most of the US and that putting Oscar Wild in the same classification as R Kelly is hardly an appropriate comparison
How much should we try to step back from our current laws and norms?
All this talk of "very young boys" had me assuming 9-12 years old, until you said 16. Yes the age of consent when you magically become a functioning mature adult who can make your own decisions in this country is 18, but it is 14 in Germany currently. Boy were expected to be men by 16 in the UK in the 1800s and would have been working and supporting themselves and others for years. I dont find it helpful to say that we "would have found him to be a predator today." There is no indication that we would have committed these acts growing up in a society that expressed that these acts corrupt children not by teaching them that homosexuality exists but by having sex with them before they can adequately understand the gravity of what they are doing...
@@BlueNorth313 It is predatory regardless of his intentions. It's still worth pointing out that at the time men were also having relationship with young girls of a different class. In fact, they could even marry a 16 year old. So the power imbalance is real, but had it been directed towards girls, it's unlikely that Wilde would have suffered any consequence.
@@BlueNorth313 I do agree that this case is a lot more complex than homophobia. The judgement was definitly helped by Wilde completely mishandling the trials and the prime minister being threatened. However, it's still safe to say that, public perception-wise, the archetype of the pederast played against him. It's not impossible to imagine that a straight Oscar Wilde could've gotten away with it, as he certainly wasn't the only rich guy frequenting young sex workers.
The photographs of gay lovers are definitly interesting. I can't speak too much for the English, but in France class definitely explains that discrepancy. For the working class, homosexuality was very much seen as a vice of the extravagant rich. No political side approved of gay people, but syndicalists may have been worse as there are records of them forcing employers to fire a coworker who had been outed as gay.
Gay people could be arrested for public indecency or prostitution even when there wasn't any. So these photographed gay couples were wealthy enough to not have to worry about any of that, but even then most of them never outright declared that they were a homosexual couple.
Still, I agree that we often overestimate how secretive some gay people were. There was even a monthly gay magazine that tried to make the case for homosexuality being accepted. It didn't last long, but the fact that it could even exist proves that there was a (albeit minuscule) place for early gay activism.
@@BlueNorth313 I agree, it's an interesting subject that needs more investigation. It's possible that being a working-class gay man in England wasn't as socially dangerous. Maybe it also depended on where they lived, I suppose law enforcement mostly acted against gay people in important cities where gay communities were starting to form, which means that gay lovers in small towns could have been left alone. In France, the attitudes towards homosexuality were shifting with every regime change (and at that time France was facing a lot of political instability) so that may explain why people were kept on their toes.
If the rumours at the time had any truth in them, the kingdoms of Italy were more tolerant of homosexuality, particularly in the South. Germans were also sometimes depicted as gay, as a joke. I wouldn't give much credit to that, as even nowadays it's a common political strategy to accuse a country (or their head of state, or their army) of homosexuality to imply that they are weak. Some things never change.
I’m nuerodivergent in a way where I develop slower mentally, I just think it’s creepy either way. 16 is so young, that’s still baby-fat age
Sixteen is legal in the UK to this day, and certainly would be acceptable in his lifetime. Saying that the trial had nothing to do with him being queer is silly. Canceling any queer person who isn't perfect and blaming them for homophobia is just modern queerphobia from inside the left.
Gosh you need to do ur research properly 🙄
At the same time as Leeja seems to think that peer group homosexuality was "acceptable" in the UK, around the world, in British colony after British colony, Britain was imposing anti-LGBTQ legislation on societies that had never had any anti-LGBTQ traditions.
And, today, thanks to those laws, imposed by the "Accepting" Victorians, in most former British colonies, LGBTQ lives are endangered.
Definitely more research needed here...
The US-centric presentism is disappointingly strong in this video, ignoring (straight) standards at the time as well as currently outside the US.
In my opinion, the line between art and an artist is the artist being able to personally profit from the consumption of their media. If they're dead, they can't, so it's all good. If their alive, they can, so it's a no for me, bro.
We all are "still fighting" about it because it involves years of oppression and imperialism. You wouldn't refer to a person from any other former colony of the British Empire as being from Great Britain.
I think that those who defend "man-boy love" or sexual relationships between adults and pubescent children in general may miss the point of child protection because they become hyperfocused on the morality and/or normality of their own behavior, seeking to legitimize their experiences and justify their actions/desires. Like, in the effort to prove (to themselves if nothing else,) that they are not bad people or not causing harm, they view reality through a compromised lense, then convince themselves that their insight and experience is proof that the world just doesn't understand and simply over reacts on the basis of demonizing assumptions and wrathful possessiveness. They miss the fact that the differences in development stages, rather than numerical age, means their sexual targets cannot properly protect themselves from potential abuse (including unintended or unwitting abuse,) being taken advantage of, etc as is reasonable to expect of adults in sexual relationships and as commonly occurs in sexual relationships, again, even when everyone involved is well meaning and genuine about their emotional investments.
As for artists' behavior, I have only this to say: Rowling is still stupid rich and still getting paid every year from Harry Potter.
People like to act all righteous and get loud when it's about punishing someone, but they suddenly get real forgiving and understanding as soon as the moral outrage starts requiring sacrifice on their parts. It'd be nice if we could just go the understanding and forgiving route as a default and save the outrage for large-scale, serious problems only. Like, anger is an important social tool, not a drug, yknow?
Basically, he was Irish and stepped on too many rich English mens' toes.
Oscar Wilde 1960 with Peter finch on yt …..much better 😂😂😂😂😂
Oscar Wilde: get arrested for dating teenage boys
meanwhile Lewis Carroll has a crush on a little girl was fine. what a time
"sorry I don't think Ireland is part of Great Britain but I honestly have no clue y'all keep fighting about it".
Becuase the irish fought for centuries not to be ruled by Great Britain? Surely an American of all people would understand the sentiment?
Keeping track of the scandals of the Douglas family is a bit of an issue given the number of them and the lack of imagination in naming. The 9th Earl was also the Queensbury in the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules which is the basis for the modern rules for boxing. He was twice divorced by his wives for adultery which was fairly difficult for a woman to do in the Victorian era and eventually died of syphilis at age 55. His father (the 8th Earl) also died in a hunting “accident” which was probably suicide. Francis was named for his father’s brother who was part of the party that completed the first ascent of the Matterhorn but was one of the 4 who didn’t get back to Zermatt and his body was never recovered. There are also a number of Sholto Douglas’s but these shouldn’t be confused with the first Baron Kinross who commanded 12 group during the Battle of Britain who it seems was not a close relative.
Honestly, where I draw the line at horrible people's art is this: Is that person still alive? No? Then enjoy their work. They can't profit from it. There are so many great works that happen to be written by awful terrible people.
F. Scott Fitzgerald (Racist, ...Google Zelda Fitzgerald)
The works of H.P. Lovecraft (SUPER Racist, antisemitic, technophobe, low key N*zi supporter, etc)
Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old first cousin when he was 27, but he's dead so he can't profit.
L. Frank Baum (Advocated genocide of Native Americans)
Virginia Woolf (Very classist)
Shall I continue?
Love "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and his short stories "The Selfish Giant" and "The Nightingale and The Rose".
LOLing at the dorky American flexing because you went to Ireland and won't shut up about it, because I RESEMBLE that remark...Fun fact about Oscar Wilde: he came to St. Paul once and said of the experience: the furniture was dreadful....Bosie's sass to his dad is pretty ballsy given the rules for boxing are literally named after the Marquis of Queensbury.
A lot of you have never been gay in a place where you literally can't be and it really shows
Was 16 considered a child like we do today or is that just u looking at past norms from a modern lense? Cos I know through global history, there was no concrete definition of “childhood” like we understand it today through studies in child development. Especially stretching out to 16-17.
It seems a unfair to paint this gay man as particularly predatory when age gaps were just as normal for the straights and a part of societal norms
Whatever you're doing to get impressions is working. I've seen this video in my list almost every day since it came out.
As far as I know, that law only criminalized "gross indecency" between men, not all same-sex sexual activity. Also, prior to the Labouchere amendment to the "sodomy" law in the UK, it seems thar it was pretty hard to prove that "sodomy" (i.e. penetrarion) occured, so the grounds Wilde was convicted on were actually broader (and included masturbation and oral sex) in the new version of the law...
Are you glorifying homophobic laws that oppressed queer men?
@@whinfpproductions94 eeeh, no...?! I am just saying that because she said same-sex sexual activity, but it was only directed towards men
@@vovan7349 you’re still acting like it was a good thing. You don’t care about MLM like me. You only care about WLW, admit it.
@@whinfpproductions94 what??? I am gay
@@vovan7349 Sorry as a Bi guy I’ve encountered FAR too many anti-mlm wlw
To me, adoring someone's art while very strongly disapproving of their behaviour (predators who wrote great songs, bands who sue their penniless fans...) is a moral justification for copyright infringement.
Brilliant video but if you even spent a day here In Dublin or Ireland you would understand how offensive it is to call an Irish person from “Great Britain” like genuinely it’s the worst insult you could say to someone after years of oppression and ignorance
why are you talking like you're doing gotcha-journalism?? Weird energy in this video
I thought it was Bosie Douglas who pressured Oscar Wilde to sue his farther for slander? Been awhile since I read Oscar Wilde's letter to Bosie that Wilde wrote while in jail (Bosie then sold it for money to the press) but this point always got to me. He would have been let alone if he hadn't sued for defamation and no, he wasn't through in jail for being a homosexual.
I always thought his works were over the top satires of the elites until I read a biography about the man and found out that that was actually how he acted.
Because he did. Whether people want to accept it or not, Oscar Wilde was severely abused by Bosie. Even George Bernard Shaw remarked that Bosie was utterly dominant over Oscar, who had no say in their relationship. When Bosie was around, Oscar immediately became submissive, doing whatever Bosie wanted. There are many stories about them, most of which are terrifying and include instances involving guns, threats, knives, and verbal abuse. Everyone who knew Oscar at that time noticed how much he changed since being with Bosie. He became unhappy, exhausted, terrified, and melancholic. His drinking increased significantly. Despite this, he still tried to maintain a facade of being fine and entertaining everyone, but it was clear that it was becoming increasingly difficult for him. Oscar attempted to break up with Bosie several times a year, but Bosie wouldn't let him go. We might call Oscar naive, but he was likely unable to say no to Bosie then. Oscar felt pressured to sleep with other men. There was, for instance, an incident where Bosie brought a rent boy to Oscar's hotel room without asking (but did he ever ask him what he wanted?..), and when Oscar tried to refuse, Bosie had one of his usual angry outbursts. But eventually, Bosie left Oscar alone.
While in prison, Oscar was not allowed to send the letter, so he had to wait until he was released. Robbie Ross made a copy of the letter for Oscar but sent the copy to Bosie and kept the original. Oscar bequeathed everything to Robbie later on, including "De Profundis." Robbie eventually published it later in life.
Fun fact we used to have a website rent boy that I used to make so much money on but it got shut down like 2 years ago
Thank you for this, very good account of Wilde 's trial and I liked the quirky unpretentious presentation 👍🏻👍🏻
Your sign-off sounds a lot like Mindy from Animaniacs- “Okay, I love you, buh-bye!” Ah, nostalgia.
Legal Age for Adult Acts in the UK is 16 . In Victorian Times Poor Children worked and were injured and unalived in factories .
Another great video. ('Gilt' @8:55 has a hard 'g' by the way, as it derives from the verb 'gild', meaning “to cover in gold”.)
AFAIK, sodomy is an archaic term and concept, basically meaning anal sex. In those days, it would have been a punishable offence in (heterosexual) marriages, as well. And so, what his lawyers made Wilde swear that he didn't commit, wasn't being a homosexual person (to put it in our terms, not theirs), but the act of anal sex itself. The terms homosexual and heterosexual had just been invented by the Austro-Hungarian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny a couple of decades previously, and, I guess, had yet to reach contemporary British society. Meaning that Wilde's actions were likely to be seen through the lens of a specific form of homoerotic relationships or friendships as practised in ancient Athens (not necessarily including anal sex). Remember, he and his acquaintances studied Classics in university, as an entry level requirement to contemporary elite society.
My opinion is if the person has passed, it’s ok to consume their art as long as you recognize they were problematic. They aren’t financially benefiting from their work anymore so you’re not supporting them to do more harm
I'd highly recommend reading Linda Dowling's book, 'Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford'. She looks at why Victorian gay men were so fixated on the 'Greek love' - love between younger and older men. It seems like this was the only way to accept oneself by identifying with this concept. Because it was the only positive connotation and justification for homosexuality. I know it's different for us, but these people had no representation at all. There was only taboo and hatred. There was only Greek mythology and Greek philosophy, and many genuinely believed that's how they should live out their sexuality because anything else would be sinful, unacceptable, and there would be nothing they could justify it with, like Wilde in his speech at the court. For example, A. Symonds was a gay man in Victorian times. He initially lusted after older, very masculine, large men, and hated himself so much for that that he developed a wish of castration. And later in life, somehow, he was able to accept himself only by projecting his desires onto the concept of "Greek love," so he started dating younger men. It was the only way for him to have a sexual life at all. It might seem a little strange to us now, but nowadays you can simply google "gay" and find a wealth of information, including thousands of gay men's representatives, p0rn, gay literature and so on, without worrying about being prosecuted. And Oscar himself (although this is not proven, as I was quite closeted for the first 30 years of his life- - he even wrote to a priest for help). He was probably with Miles for +/- 5 years, who was older, more masculine and dominant. And he had perhaps sexual relations with Pater, who was much older. Of course, there's also the whole Whitman story. But it seems like he was more interested in more masculine men than himself. It changed when he was introduced to this whole gay subculture by Robbie.
I don't really agree with this... queer people were never very accepted throughout history (not in ancient Greece either, educate yourselves please) and the extent to which they were able to slip under the radar was mostly just expanded by their lack of publicity... of course people like Wilde changed that by attracting so much attention, but it doesn't change how the nation concerned saw and treated gays and lesbians generally. I see this more as a stage queerness had to go through; it had to get worse before it got better. It might have been comfortable to not be noticed at all, but it certainly didn't help the case for their general acceptance among civil society.
Oh, greetings from Dublin. How did I miss that.
Yeah dont denigrate Wylde !
Bless your kind heart.
I have an answer and it’s called “Listen to the Accuser”.
And then proceed as such the laws allow.
If you read the letter of Oscar Wilde from prison to Bosie titled 'De profundis', Oscar tried to break up with him many times because of Bosie's financial demands and bad temper but Bosie would always come back apologising for his behaviour and nasty letters or notes he would leave.
Appreciate how you put "hunting accident" in quotes
Not people in the comments trying to defend Woody Allen,no matter how you put it whether Soon-Yi was his step-daughter or not he still groomed her he was still predatory to her there's nothing you can say that can justify him all your doing is outing that you support predatory behavior and are likely predators yourselves
girl...this is sensationalist drivel. leave OW alone. without him we wouldn't have so much great theatrics and drama mama. he's a literati Goddess. 💋
I knew this video would be a miss and it really is. You do not know what you are talking about.
I find the class distinction interesting when it comes to their perspective on the proprietary of a relationship. It's honestly not a thing I've really thought about before. When there's a massive class discrepancy people can be talked into a lot of things they might not otherwise do. We (well, most decent people) seem to understand this when it comes to age discrepancies, and power imbalances like someone's boss pressuring them for sex, but only acknowledge the power of class discrepancies when we want to shame a woman for her consensual upward mobility (by calling her a golddigger). It's unlikely the Victorians were thinking about this from the perspective of consent, but I guess I can't discount it completely.
Leeja this video is just incorrect on so many levels. Look at more contemporary examples, Alan Turing was chemically castrated when it was discovered he was gay. Certainly Oscar Wilde was a predator and should be condemned for that, but Lord Byron never saw a courtroom for having relations with his half sister. I really think this missed the mark.
Can’t believe Oscar Wilde is canceled, where will you stop, Leeja?
lollllllllllll
Reply to this easy comment but not the criticism....what a let down
Oops. "Gilt" ... probably should have been pronounced "guilt" ...thanks you are lovely
I have known many gay men who do not ever exploit youth or abuse people. I have known of a few who have. I have known many straight men who do not ever exploit youth or abuse people. I have known of a few who have.
The dividing line must always be between good behavior and bad, predatory behavior - not between gay and straight.
Gayness between women was accepted in the Victorian era because Queen Victoria, couldn't believe gay was a thing between women. THAT went under the radar.
Nice piece. Thanks.
Age of in the UK 🇬🇧 is 16 for straight or queer
Age of consent does not mean that a thirty something can have sex with a sixteen year old. It means that a sixteen year old could consent to sexual acts with someone who's within a certain age range close to their own, and that no one below the age of sixteen can consent to sex under any circumstance. I've also never seen a range to be greater than four years.
@@stephenmymomtoldmenottoput1459 no it means a 16 year old can consent to having with said 32 year old man
@@stephenmymomtoldmenottoput1459 really ?
James Charros would love it
The fact he continuously targeted 16 year olds..don't you find that questionable?
Im not sure Socrates was killed for sexual acts . After all , Greece was the gayest nation of its time .
The case got me to wondering if it was the seed for Uris's QB VII
I read Oscar Wilde’s Wikipedia page an hour ago so I was looking for more info, but this is just that page but with some weirdly opinionated commentary and misinformation tacked on. I’d expect more effort from a lawyer!
To anyone who sees this, just go read Wikipedia instead. You won’t be missing anything and you’ll get to form your own opinions. I expect that page was the primary source for this video.
Not a single reply to the comments offering criticism....classless
The chief attourney for the defense at the first trial of Oscar Wilde was a man called Edward Carson, who would go onto play a key role in Irish history over the next couple of decades before independence.
Woody Allen didn't marry his 13 year old step daughter, Soon Yi was the adoptive daughter of his partner and her ex Andre Previn and was about 17 or 18 (her exact birthdate is unknown, and still not cool btw) when they started the affair that led to the break up of his marraige. He was accused but never proven to have molested his daughter when she was a child. That whole thing is interesting and complex enough that it might be worth doing a video on.
On the point at the end, when it comes to queer figures from other periods in history when everything was criminalised and the closet was the compulsory default, or even today for people who have to remain closeted for other reasons, personally I think we have to give men who used male sex workers a bit of grace. People will naturally look to explore their sexuality and when there're no good options how much can we really hold against those who opt for the bad ones, especially those like Wilde, Casement or Pascolini where their sexuality played a part in their untimely deaths either directly or by allowing their killers to escape justice themselves.
Wanted to comment on one part of this: The issue is not using sex workers overall (from a modern perspective), rather it's that because of their age and class, it's likely that the sex workers don't have enough power to give consent
Ya'll spittin
@@morganwentworth2041 Ya'll spittin
recently found your channel! love your videos🌈🤗🎀❤️🎀
I know Americans don't travel, but going to Ireland is not *that* much of a brag...😉
Fun fact the song take a walk on the wild side is base on Oscar Wilde night scapades
The biggest gay move on the book.
Telling people you're like 17 when you're FULLY 53. Hahahahaahha
Great video!
It''s a werid thing, for his own time Wilde wasn't dating people too legally young for him to date, but no Ireland is not in Great Britain, anymore than Poland is in Germany, wtf. :) Also don't forget if Wilde wasn't Irish his trail wouldn't have been so harsh on him.
Hi Leeja. I do appreciate your content so much. I was wondering if you could do a future video about Megan Thee Stallion and her battle with her record label. Its been hot gossip recently and it will be good to understand both sides.
MJ credibly accused? No.
Thank you creating this video! This means a lot! 🙂🙏🏼🏆
Primrose was the PM of the UK, not just England. You frequently referred to UK law as English law.
I didn't read up on this man before this video, just that he wrote a lot. But good lord. If he was here, in the 2020s? He would've absolutely joined NAMBLA.
"It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals and is so crassly indifferent to the various gradations and variations of gender and their great significance in life." ~ Emma Goldman
I had no idea about all of this
I would LOVE to see a video of Michael Jackson.
Dad also codified the rules of boxing