- Published on
Oscar Wilde: Not My Cup of Tea
- Author
-
-
- Name
- Posts
- Posts
-
Originally published as "Oscar Wilde: An Ideal Gay Icon?" On the Issues, Winter, 1996, New York.
In a recent gay-and-lesbian theatre newsletter, there were two notices about Oscar Wilde. One was recruiting petitioners for a campaign to obtain an official pardon for Wilde, and the other was recruiting support for an Oscar Wilde celebration.
I strongly object to Oscar Wilde's being marketed as some kind of figurehead for gay and lesbian theatre activists. And I object to gay men's attempts to unilaterally define what is touted to the media as coalition culture. And I object most strongly of all to what I call lesbian "theatre wives," who, for the questionable privilege of a male-funded theatre roof over their heads are willing to table women's issues in favor of those which speak to the interests of their theatre husbands.
Oscar Wilde is a case in point. His "culture" - arrogantly classist, misogynist, pedophilic - shares nothing in common with lesbian-feminist values, and as lesbians we need to be knowledgeable about the facts before we join our gay brothers in celebrating as a martyr someone whom many of us would consider a criminal.
I strongly object to Oscar Wilde's being marketed as some kind of figurehead for gay and lesbian theatre activists. And I object to gay men's attempts to unilaterally define what is touted to the media as coalition culture. And I object most strongly of all to what I call lesbian "theatre wives," who, for the questionable privilege of a male-funded theatre roof over their heads are willing to table women's issues in favor of those which speak to the interests of their theatre husbands.
Oscar Wilde is a case in point. His "culture" - arrogantly classist, misogynist, pedophilic - shares nothing in common with lesbian-feminist values, and as lesbians we need to be knowledgeable about the facts before we join our gay brothers in celebrating as a martyr someone whom many of us would consider a criminal.
According to the record, Wilde was sent to jail because of his sexual exploitation of working-class and poverty-class child prostitutes. It was they who presented the testimony against him, and it was their evidence that sent him to prison.
Furthermore, it was Wilde's homophobia that set the whole legal process in motion in the first place! His lover's father "accused" Wilde of homosexual behavior, and Wilde, in a fit of pique and egged on by his narcissistic lover, sued the man for libel - in other words, for lying. Hardly a stand for gay rights!
And here is Wilde retaining an attorney for his suit:
Sir Edward Clarke advised him, "I can only accept this brief, Mr. Wilde, if you can assure me on your honour... that there is no and never has been any foundation for the charges that are made against you." Wilde stood up and declared the charges "absolutely false and groundless." It is important to remember that Wilde was prosecuting, and that Clarke, like most attorneys, was not interested in taking on an unwinnable case. To his credit, Sir Edward continued to defend Wilde through his subsequent trials, even after he discovered how his client's deliberate duplicity had placed him on the losing side of a sordid and sensational case which became known as the "trial of the century." The suit proved such a professional embarrassment to him, Clarke omitted any mention of it in his memoirs.
And what about his family? Wilde was married with two children at the time that he instigated the frivolous libel suit. It was an action taken without consulting his wife and without the funds to pay the legal fees. Foolishly, Wilde trusted his lover to cover the costs. After his incarceration, his creditors moved in, and his family's possessions - even the children's toys - were ruthlessly auctioned off. His wife, compelled by the scandal to leave England, found that it was necessary to change her name and her sons' names even to obtain lodging in a foreign hotel.
Furthermore, it was Wilde's homophobia that set the whole legal process in motion in the first place! His lover's father "accused" Wilde of homosexual behavior, and Wilde, in a fit of pique and egged on by his narcissistic lover, sued the man for libel - in other words, for lying. Hardly a stand for gay rights!
And here is Wilde retaining an attorney for his suit:
Sir Edward Clarke advised him, "I can only accept this brief, Mr. Wilde, if you can assure me on your honour... that there is no and never has been any foundation for the charges that are made against you." Wilde stood up and declared the charges "absolutely false and groundless." It is important to remember that Wilde was prosecuting, and that Clarke, like most attorneys, was not interested in taking on an unwinnable case. To his credit, Sir Edward continued to defend Wilde through his subsequent trials, even after he discovered how his client's deliberate duplicity had placed him on the losing side of a sordid and sensational case which became known as the "trial of the century." The suit proved such a professional embarrassment to him, Clarke omitted any mention of it in his memoirs.
And what about his family? Wilde was married with two children at the time that he instigated the frivolous libel suit. It was an action taken without consulting his wife and without the funds to pay the legal fees. Foolishly, Wilde trusted his lover to cover the costs. After his incarceration, his creditors moved in, and his family's possessions - even the children's toys - were ruthlessly auctioned off. His wife, compelled by the scandal to leave England, found that it was necessary to change her name and her sons' names even to obtain lodging in a foreign hotel.
Although Constance Wilde was strongly advised to divorce her husband, he importuned her from prison, and she decided against taking such action. In fact, she continued to demonstrate extraordinary consideration towards the man who had shown so little for her and for their children, traveling in poor health from Switzerland to Reading Gaol in order to convey in person the news of Wilde's mother's death. After his release from prison, Wilde proceeded to violate all of the agreements he had made with her to protect the family from any further notoriety.
As a footnote to the marriage, Wilde had not had sexual relations with Constance for several years. The reason he had given was that his syphilis, which he had contracted from a prostitute during his student years and had believed to be cured, was, in fact, still virulent. There is no evidence that Wilde ever shared this information with any of the boys with whom he had sexual relations.
Wilde was brought to bankruptcy while in prison when his lover's father brought suit to recover his damages from the ill-advised libel suit. Not only did Lord Alfred, Wilde's lover, renege on his agreement to cover these costs, but as Wilde reminded him in his famous letter "de Profundis," this parsimony was all the more reprehensible, because Wilde had squandered many times that amount on Lord Alfred.
As a footnote to the marriage, Wilde had not had sexual relations with Constance for several years. The reason he had given was that his syphilis, which he had contracted from a prostitute during his student years and had believed to be cured, was, in fact, still virulent. There is no evidence that Wilde ever shared this information with any of the boys with whom he had sexual relations.
Wilde was brought to bankruptcy while in prison when his lover's father brought suit to recover his damages from the ill-advised libel suit. Not only did Lord Alfred, Wilde's lover, renege on his agreement to cover these costs, but as Wilde reminded him in his famous letter "de Profundis," this parsimony was all the more reprehensible, because Wilde had squandered many times that amount on Lord Alfred.
But, back to the trial... Needless to say, the man that Oscar Wilde was suing did everything he could to prove his innocence - as most people will do when they are being sued. And so, not surprisingly, he produced as witnesses a number of the child prostitutes whose "services" had been procured by Wilde.
And at this point, a number of my gay brothers will insist that I make a distinction between "child prostitute" and "teenaged prostitute." I confess that the distinction is lost on me, and I will leave it to those for whom qualifiers of age, class, geography, period in history, etc. provide a certain rationale, if not outright justification, for a practice which is apparently so intrinsic a part of gay male culture and so violently antithetical to lesbian-feminist values.
Some gay brothers will also jump to Wilde's defense, claiming that the boys were being paid by the defendant to testify, either that, or cooperating with the state in order to avoid prosecution. That some of these boys had histories of blackmailing their "clients" has also been used to discredit their testimony. Leaving for a moment the fact that Wilde admitted to friends on several subsequent occasions that the charges had been true, let us look at these objections.
And at this point, a number of my gay brothers will insist that I make a distinction between "child prostitute" and "teenaged prostitute." I confess that the distinction is lost on me, and I will leave it to those for whom qualifiers of age, class, geography, period in history, etc. provide a certain rationale, if not outright justification, for a practice which is apparently so intrinsic a part of gay male culture and so violently antithetical to lesbian-feminist values.
Some gay brothers will also jump to Wilde's defense, claiming that the boys were being paid by the defendant to testify, either that, or cooperating with the state in order to avoid prosecution. That some of these boys had histories of blackmailing their "clients" has also been used to discredit their testimony. Leaving for a moment the fact that Wilde admitted to friends on several subsequent occasions that the charges had been true, let us look at these objections.
Why shouldn't these boys protect their interests against a class of sexual predators who had chosen to victimize them specifically because of their disenfranchisement both as children and as members of a profoundly oppressed underclass? Why should anyone be surprised that Wilde's affectionately engraved cigarette cases should find their way to the pawnshop? If, as a function of his privilege, Wilde chose to romanticize his sexually exploitive transactions - such sentimentality was hardly a luxury his victims could afford. When wealthy members of an elite class pay bargain prices for the sexual services of children, based on the poverty-class economy of these children, -can they be surprised if the more enterprising of these boys turn around and charge them premium prices for privacy based on their economy of privilege?
The relationship between the john and the prostituted boy is not a mutual one. It is the standard method of operation for colonialists, enslavers, and pimps, to brutalize the members of an underclass created by economic and sometimes social violence, and then to point to their brutalization as a rationale for the conditions to which they are subjected. This circular and self-serving logic is in play when Wilde's defenders attempt to discredit his victims as "blackmailers and thieves."
Wilde gave a speech during the trial, which is often cited as a testimonial to his gay pride. In fact, he gave the speech as an attempt to prove that his relations with Lord Alfred were not gay, but rather a platonic bonding between an older man and a younger man. The context in which he framed his famous "love that dares not speak its name" speech was profoundly homophobic.
The relationship between the john and the prostituted boy is not a mutual one. It is the standard method of operation for colonialists, enslavers, and pimps, to brutalize the members of an underclass created by economic and sometimes social violence, and then to point to their brutalization as a rationale for the conditions to which they are subjected. This circular and self-serving logic is in play when Wilde's defenders attempt to discredit his victims as "blackmailers and thieves."
Wilde gave a speech during the trial, which is often cited as a testimonial to his gay pride. In fact, he gave the speech as an attempt to prove that his relations with Lord Alfred were not gay, but rather a platonic bonding between an older man and a younger man. The context in which he framed his famous "love that dares not speak its name" speech was profoundly homophobic.
A photograph of the male prostitutes, many of them children at Paresis Hall, a brothel and gay bar in NYC. They are posing as tradesmen
During the trial, Wilde persisted in denying any participation in homosexual activity. Repeatedly questioned about his frequenting of a notorious male brothel, where his "companions" were children who worked as valets, grooms, and coachmen, Wilde stated that he sought the boys out, because they were "bright and entertaining," insisting that he was oblivious to class differences: "I never inquired, nor did I care, what station they occupied." And again, "I recognize no social distinctions of any kind... "
This is difficult to believe when, on one occasion, Wilde picked up a boy who sold newspapers, and took him to a hotel in Brighton for a weekend. In order to disguise the obvious nature of the relationship, Wilde bought the boy a suit of clothing with insignia that would associate him with a prestigious private boys' school. In court, he insisted that the choice of the school's colors had been the boy's.
In fact, Wilde was very class-conscious. In "de Profundis," he told a very different story - and one in which class difference features prominently:
This is difficult to believe when, on one occasion, Wilde picked up a boy who sold newspapers, and took him to a hotel in Brighton for a weekend. In order to disguise the obvious nature of the relationship, Wilde bought the boy a suit of clothing with insignia that would associate him with a prestigious private boys' school. In court, he insisted that the choice of the school's colors had been the boy's.
In fact, Wilde was very class-conscious. In "de Profundis," he told a very different story - and one in which class difference features prominently:
"People thought it was dreadful of me to have entertained at dinner the evil things of life... It was like feasting with panthers; the danger was half the excitement. I used to feel as a snake-charmer must feel when he lures the cobra to stir from the painted cloth or reed basket that holds it and make it spread its hood at his bidding and sway to and fro in the air... Their poison was part of their perfection."
To what does "poison" refer if not their class antagonism towards Wilde and his kind? And what a patriarchal reversal of the power relations! It is remniscent of the rhetoric used against incest victims, characterizing them as promiscuous and vampiric.
One of the boys who testified had not been procured for Wilde. He had been employed as an office boy at Wilde's publishing firm, and Wilde had cultivated the friendship by exploiting the boy's interest in his writing. The boy testified that he had been ignorant of Wilde's intentions, that he was traumatized by the sexual contact, and that he was subsequently fired from his job for his association with Wilde. His emotional confusion about his victimization by a "benign" perpetrator was used against him in court as proof that he was crazy.
After his conviction, and halfway through his two-year prison sentence, Wilde wrote the following words in a petition to the Home Secretary. No doubt the homophobia is exacerbated by his desire to win a pardon, but Wilde's attempt to characterize his homosexuality as a disease or the result of bad company is cowardly to say the least:
To what does "poison" refer if not their class antagonism towards Wilde and his kind? And what a patriarchal reversal of the power relations! It is remniscent of the rhetoric used against incest victims, characterizing them as promiscuous and vampiric.
One of the boys who testified had not been procured for Wilde. He had been employed as an office boy at Wilde's publishing firm, and Wilde had cultivated the friendship by exploiting the boy's interest in his writing. The boy testified that he had been ignorant of Wilde's intentions, that he was traumatized by the sexual contact, and that he was subsequently fired from his job for his association with Wilde. His emotional confusion about his victimization by a "benign" perpetrator was used against him in court as proof that he was crazy.
After his conviction, and halfway through his two-year prison sentence, Wilde wrote the following words in a petition to the Home Secretary. No doubt the homophobia is exacerbated by his desire to win a pardon, but Wilde's attempt to characterize his homosexuality as a disease or the result of bad company is cowardly to say the least:
"The Petitioner... was suffering from the most horrible form of erotomania, which made him forget his wife and children, his high social position..., the honour of his name and family, his very humanity itself, and left him the helpless prey of the most revolting passions, and a gang of people who for their own profit ministered to them, and drove him to his hideous ruin."
Hardly a gay rights manifesto.
And after prison? Wilde went to Paris, where he rendez-voused with Lord Alfred, who was being serviced sexually at the time by a fourteen-year-old boy who sold flowers on the street. This boy claimed to be "keeping" a twelve-year-old at home, and Lord Alfred was attempting to gain sexual access to the boy. Wilde himself, in the words of his lover, was "hand in glove with all the little boys on the Boulevard."
I cannot imagine a lesbian couple deliberately choosing a vacation spot where economic violence and/or colonization has created an underclass of girls who are coerced into selling their bodies to wealthy women tourists. I cannot imagine this loving lesbian couple buying these little girls and exploiting their poverty for the purposes of sexual self-gratification. And I cannot imagine two lesbians experiencing this exploitation as a pleasurable and harmless recreational activity around which they could bond.
Hardly a gay rights manifesto.
And after prison? Wilde went to Paris, where he rendez-voused with Lord Alfred, who was being serviced sexually at the time by a fourteen-year-old boy who sold flowers on the street. This boy claimed to be "keeping" a twelve-year-old at home, and Lord Alfred was attempting to gain sexual access to the boy. Wilde himself, in the words of his lover, was "hand in glove with all the little boys on the Boulevard."
I cannot imagine a lesbian couple deliberately choosing a vacation spot where economic violence and/or colonization has created an underclass of girls who are coerced into selling their bodies to wealthy women tourists. I cannot imagine this loving lesbian couple buying these little girls and exploiting their poverty for the purposes of sexual self-gratification. And I cannot imagine two lesbians experiencing this exploitation as a pleasurable and harmless recreational activity around which they could bond.
Wilde with Alfred Douglas in Naples, 1897, after his release from prison.
And yet this is the kind of vacation activity in which such gay male luminaries as Andre Gide, Tennessee Williams, and Oscar Wilde would habitually indulge.
Oscar Wilde was a pedophile, a woman-hater, a colonialist, a classist, a coward, and a colossal liar. The record speaks for itself. I call upon my gay brothers to drop the euphemisms surrounding the culture of prostitution and child sexual abuse, and to come out of denial about the nature of the men who participate in that culture.
[If you found this blog interesting, I have another about Wilde... "Oscar Wilde:His Father's Son."]
Oscar Wilde was a pedophile, a woman-hater, a colonialist, a classist, a coward, and a colossal liar. The record speaks for itself. I call upon my gay brothers to drop the euphemisms surrounding the culture of prostitution and child sexual abuse, and to come out of denial about the nature of the men who participate in that culture.
[If you found this blog interesting, I have another about Wilde... "Oscar Wilde:His Father's Son."]
Great expose on Wilde.
Love your work and appreciate your voice.
Looking forward to more...
Blessings to you....
I must tell you that I am amazed by your exposure to Wilde as the Pedophile he was. After I recently read the Selfish Giant as an adult and as a teacher, I could not ignore the fact that “he loved the boy the most because he kissed him” is a normalized Pedophilia event, and I was so shocked that my generation of children read this, and went to their subconscious “you’re most loved if you kiss the big and powerful man”. Horrible!!
Thanks for leaving this blog as a place where I could find refuge about what I thought and the internet surprisingly was not prepared for that. I hope every person could read this blog. Kind regards, from Chile.