Oscar Wilde

It’s interesting to me that Wilde, in his attempt to publicly identify a “love that dare not speak its name,” engages a conversation about pederasty, not queerness. As discussed in our class readings, what could possibly be conceived as contemporary, queer experiences were extensively existent long before Wilde’s birth in 1854. London’s notorious ~ Molly Houses ~ were ubiquitous in the 18^th century; men “deviating” from expected gender performances (read: masculinity) and engaging in sexual relations with other men were typical patrons of these early queer subcultures. It’s rather disappointing, then, that Wilde, who having been born nearly a century after the appearance of Molly Houses would most likely have frequented and/or at least known of their existence, chose to identify queer love as nothing more than pederasty.

Though, considering the violent realities many mollies faced (mob violence and hangings of mollies was a frequent, if not expected, phenomenon) it is easy to sympathize with Wilde’s obvious underscoring of queer realities in London. BUT STILL. Wilde’s need to hide behind pederasty is simply timid. Especially when discussing the process of naming ourselves in class (who gets to name us?), Wilde ignores the opportunity to assert his own authentic queer identity over the heterosexist judicial system (Charles Gill, etc.) that, instead, names him.