Am I alone in being suspicious of those who cite [and claim rights to] Oscar Wilde by virtue of defending their interest in young male adolescents?

I acknowledge that Spartans encouraged a form of non-abusive pederasty; also that English public schools have a tradition of churning out successful, well-adjusted individuals who may have dabbled in homosexuality in their exploratory youth; but I for one am cynically depressed by every Tom, Dick and Gary resorting to the Wildian defence.

The Wildian defence (copyright me, now, here, on this message board) relies upon the validation of sexual or romantic interest in young adolescent males on the basis that "Oscar did it, so it's OK". After all, the BBC still adapt the wordsmith's plays, so his misdemeanours must be acceptable, mustn't they?

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. My opinion is that Wilde was heterosexual by nature, but homosexual by schooling, as in British private boarding schools. After all, he successfully wooed Bram "Dracula" Stoker's wife away from the Irish author, a lady considered to be the beauty of the era. But when he became rich and famous and something of a socialite, Wilde fell in with a bad sycophantic crowd, including Lord Alfred "Bowsey" Douglas [something of a poet himself, it has to be said; I have original copies of 'The Spirit Lamp' from the 1890s which he contributed to, along with that other other notorious homosexual decadent, 'Count' Eric Stenbock].

Douglas encouraged Wilde to behave less than appropriately; Wilde [famously] paid the ultimate price. Yet despite that, he is still regarded as one of our finest playwrights (and for my money, his one novel 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray' is one of the ten best in the English language).

Little wonder that latter day pederasts cite Wilde in their defence. Well, my opinion is that the decadent, heady days of the 1890s are long gone. If you want to fantasise about relationships with under-age adolescents you must do so in private, and never consumate them: the law and the public are against you. In fact the wisest thing to do would be to claim you had been born in the wrong century (after all, in many Dickens' and Collins' novels, teenage brdies are routinely betrothed to elderly, doddery gentleman); that you have only ever been interested in sexually mature adolescents; and that you apologise for having strayed across any boundaries. To sidestep all of this and just rely upon a vague allusion to Oscar Wilde is not only arrogant (Wilde was a brilliant genius), but also disingenuous and evasive.

Jonathan, in the eyes of the law today, you did wrong. You should acknowledge this and move on to things other than those tenuously connected with Oscar Wilde. Take comfort from the fact that others commit far graver sins, and that the world loves a reformed sinner.

Your interpretation of the "Wilde morality" is wrong - certainly in my case.

It strikes me that Oscar was bisexual. Many of us are.

There's nothing wrong with older people loving younger people - be both parties male or female - as long as both parties are legally above the age of consent and do so (consent).

I find physical love inappropriate when one party is far older than the other but that is just my personal morality. You may not have noticed it but there are still a lot of old men with young women.

I find the match of loving experience with learning youth to be valid and stimulating as long as neither is taking advantage of the other.

But your solution (admit events that never happened and find God) is very wise - most people would indeed advocate this route. It has never appealed to me. I find it dishonest and cowardly.

My only link with Oscar Wilde is the one of a public figure being crucified by the media and the mob. There the similarity starts and ends.

Incidentally, I find Oscar's ability vastly over rated and his De Profundis is awful.
Dorian is not bad; some plays are good, The Little Prince is fabulous.

The original poster seems to suggest that Wilde was essentially heterosexual but that others lured him into dubious encounters with young teenagers. This is ridiculous. While Wilde may have engaged in the odd 'encounter' with teenagers, it is obvious that he was in love with Bosie and that he was basically gay.

whatever brought this on ?

Germaine Greer's "The Boy" is a good book when it comes to dissecting views over the centuries of society's attitude towards teen sexuality.

Today's attitudes are the most restrictive and make illegal, normal behaviour that verges on true perversion by those who implement it.

When you have governments that criminalize teens who may send a naughty snap of themselves to each other, or drag a 10 year old Texan boy in chains into court and at the same time dismiss the killing of thousands of Iraqi children (plus the many who will continue to die because of the weaponry used as the years go on) which happened because of their Parliamentary vote, I'd say today's lawmakers have lost all morality or claims to it.

Both Britain and the USA (the main drivers of this new 'morality') participated in the first Gulf War and the second invasion of Iraq using illegal uranium enriched weaponry that still litters the country.

The UN has estimated that at least 50,000 Iraqi children born after the Gulf War, died before the Iraq invasion from cancers and leukemia caused by this weapons. And they died because of the drreadful sanctions imposed by the US & UK whilst the rest of Europe called these sanctions utterly inhumane.

But as Stalin famously said : "one death is tragedy, a million a statistic".

I think Oscar Wilde, from his behavior, was probably bi-sexual but leaned more towards a gay lifestyle which wasn't at all unusual for the era.

Let's be clear about one thing..the arrest and trial of Oscar Wilde wasn't really about poor Oscar and this has been continually overshadowed by the sensationalism of his trials.

It was about implementing a new era of prudery and coincided with the success of a Manchester tabloid editor's discovery that "sex sells" and his persistent stories of male and female bordellos that prospered in London.

Whilst his newspaper at first appalled those who ruled, they eventually realized it's popularity and the crack-down began.

Wilde was simply the first and the biggest profile "message" to be sent. The simplest of evidence shows that otherwise Bosie should have been equally charged as his appetite was apparently far greater.

Yet he had aristocratic protection, without fame..and he wasn't Irish to boot.

Thus Oscar Wilde can be credited with only one thing..the ushering in of 100 years of perverted and mixed sexual messages via Fleet Street tabloids where a weirdo public can be shocked and horrified by tales of sex but still can't get enough of them. It's an industry devoured by the public and fed to them. They demand it .

As far as I know..JK claims he is innocent of what he was convicted of and considering the dreadful abuses of the law by lawmakers and the large numbers of innocents who likewise have finally found to be innocent, I'm prepared to accept his claim.

As far as today's laws about sex : they seem to me be more about politicians being bullied by tabloid mentality into introducing a ridiculous "Sarah's Law" -a fantasy about child protection that will do no such thing and more likely diverts precious resources and attention away from real child abuse.

The country is full of child abusers and murderers and most of them sit in various Parliaments making decisions that will decimate populations in foreign lands. And then they moan about paying for their duck pond.

PS: I agree that Oscar's writings are over-rated an find reading some of his plays and books rather tedious. But they were of the time but he was never really a Noel Coward. His main talent seemed to be dropping superb and brilliant bon mots that are unrivalled even today. I'm sure he would have made a wonderful dinner companion..and Bosie sounds like a dozens equally hideous gays I've met that brilliant men have fallen for.

"De Profundis" was written when he had been completely and unfairly destroyed by the system..only made possible by a kindly jailer.