This story really encapsulates Wilde’s narcissistic worldview. He was an irresponsible manipulator who racked up enormous debts and sodomized teenagers (his poor wife). And in the story he justifies his pederasty / decadence by claiming to be unfairly persecuted by society, which he says is hypocritical. Maybe it is unfair and hypocritical, but we’re on Team Civilization and Wilde is an antisocial.
Typical provocateur narcissist.
I also notice that dandies dress ironically like modern hipsters do. Hipsters are almost always pathological narcissists.
Note: a “hipster” in my view is a psychological type, not the infamous subculture from the 2010’s.
I feel like I relate to Oscar Wilde quite a bit. I’m not sure if that devoted friend story really says anything about him. I think the story is an antique version of a workplace telling you you’re family but then easily replacing you and underpaying you. It’s a cautionary tale about softspeak labeling you as kinship when you really aren’t. Actions prove love more than words do. If this really revealed anything about his psyche it would probably that he likes reciprocal relationships and may possibly act transactional because of it. He warns about performative charm probably because understands it most from doing it himself but he’s not the originator of glibness only its pupil.
He is an impulsive unfaithful playboy which I don’t relate to at all. I do think sex is the ultimate goal though. I think Wilde was really thoughtful and observant. Mainly his takes on masking and performance were really relatable to me. Like “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" is true. The internet replaced masquerades. The pseudonymity makes sharing what you actually believe and feel easier. Like most people probably wouldn’t share their kinks with their real face but they would with a mask. He always basically said his true self was too contrarian for the world and hid that contrarianism under performance and irony. He wears his heart on his cheek like most people do. Though most mask to hide their emotional vulnerability; I think he felt his real self was taboo. He did say himself that he had questionable ethics and I have that as well. All utilitarians do. Even being a consequentialist is too much for a world that demands deontology. I also relate to his “emophilia” if you can call it that. Being charmed by everyone is only horrible if you have no impulse control.
There’s no real proof he was bipolar but I could believe it.
I see. I do find his work very relatable (and very good actually).
But he would basically groom little homeless boys with gifts / dinners and then put them in sexual situations. He would go up to a 12 year-old and say “Hey, would you like a silver cigarette case?” And then he would get drunk with them and then do stuff like put a cherry in his mouth and then transfer it to the boy’s.
Yeah but in 1800s twelve is the bridal age/legal age of consent and huge age gaps were common. He’s not that different from his peers of that time in that regard. If he existed today he’d like 18 year old femboys. The drunk homeless stuff is modern morals that account for power dynamics. Which is fine. It basically says don’t have sex with the weak. I just wonder how that’s going to look in the future. Is having sex with bpds going to come illegal because they can’t properly consent, the same way a drunk person can’t properly consent? People already gasp if you say you want to find mentally ill people to have sex with. Is casual sex going to be outlawed because any sexual intentions without commitment can be read as bad faith? It’s just funny to me. At what point are people “strong" enough to morally bang lol?
I’m fine with strict rules. I just find it amusing. Also is the older one always the stronger one? Isn’t a 30 year old homeless masochist man weaker than a 20 year old sadist nepobaby woman haha?