Fascinating stuff. (Side note: I really enjoyed Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde when I saw it some ten years ago in Boston.) What initially strikes me about what you pull out, here, is the need for all concerned to define m/m relationships along the lines that make sense to them/make their opinions seem acceptable.
I'm not sure I can articulate this correctly right now, but what I mean is, there is a need to define one's own position or actions in a narrow way in order to set it against that which may be deemed unacceptable. WT Stead needs those relationships to be absent of sex, while Wilde needs them to be "defined" in a particularly "Greek," intellectual, inter-generational fashion. He recognizes that it is misunderstood, but nevertheless wants to foreground the nonsexual elements, understandable at the very least given the time.
This is likely very obvious and/or incoherent, as I should not post after taking migraine drugs which make me fuzzy, but I think it's interesting that every view needs to set itself apart as a unique and valid one, not like those actual perverts (so to speak).
no subject
I'm not sure I can articulate this correctly right now, but what I mean is, there is a need to define one's own position or actions in a narrow way in order to set it against that which may be deemed unacceptable. WT Stead needs those relationships to be absent of sex, while Wilde needs them to be "defined" in a particularly "Greek," intellectual, inter-generational fashion. He recognizes that it is misunderstood, but nevertheless wants to foreground the nonsexual elements, understandable at the very least given the time.
This is likely very obvious and/or incoherent, as I should not post after taking migraine drugs which make me fuzzy, but I think it's interesting that every view needs to set itself apart as a unique and valid one, not like those actual perverts (so to speak).