How Oscar Wilde Ruined It For Gay Victorians Everywhere

RELATED VIDEOS:

_________________
𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗦

𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗠𝗘

𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗖𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗠𝗘
💌 Snail Mail:
40 S 7th Street
Suite 212 # 136
Minneapolis, MN 55403
(don't forget the # 136!)

_________________

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗦

HAIR

FACE

MY FILMING SET UP

___________________

𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗦
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE - Everything contained on this channel is meant solely for entertainment and informational purposes. Nothing herein should be considered legal advice nor does anything on this channel create an attorney-client relationship of any sort. Please seek guidance from a licensed attorney before making any legal decision.

COPYRIGHT - Any use of copyrighted content on this channel constitutes fair use pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 107 as it is utilized for the purpose of criticism, comment, or news reporting allowed under that statute. See, e.g., Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F.Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y., 1996); SOFA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dodger Productions, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-02616 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2013); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).

AFFILIATE LINKS - This description may include affiliate links that allow me to make a small profit (at no extra cost to you!) on purchases made through them. I only include links to products I genuinely recommend.

[_gremlinboy]

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.

[alibunny]

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.

[Liliquan]

This video is a great example on why historical context is needed.
Without it you might end up saying some truly absurd things.

[avaviola]

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<3

[nateranger]

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.

[FumerieHilaire]

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.

[craisins]

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.

[jaz]

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…

[gigitastic]

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.

[oldvlognewtricks]

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 🤢

[thaynagoncalves]

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.

[m.beatrixx]

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.

[luizaaraujo]

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.

[lauren]

Gosh you need to do ur research properly 🙄

[marysophieanderson]

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)...

[please_go_away]

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…

[Ryan-mmoj]

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

[bethanl]

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.

[Harri_James]

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

[griffcook]

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).