Throughout the trial, it is mentioned that Queensbury's son had an inappropriate affair with Wilde. However, he is acquitted, taken to court, or punished for this. This makes me wonder why exactly was Queensbury's son not punished like Wilde? - SW
Oscar Wilde has already been charged correctly with gross indecency. The relationships he has already had with much younger men have also been proven. One of the people he had an inappropriate affair with was Queensbury’s son. Queensbury eventually admits this is true which is part of the reason Wil
In this libel case against Wilde, Queensbury clearly lies throughout the trial to protect his image along with his son's. By denying his son's complete involvement with Wilde, Queensbury not only invalidates the case, but also threatens his own image - SW
"Prior to 1885, sexual assaults on boys over the age of 13 and falling short of rape were not crimes. The impetus for the new law—its main purpose—was to protect boys, not to punish consenting adults." LD
Because "one of those other things he had been lying about was precisely what Queensberry accused him of doing: seeking sexual pleasure from young men. Had Wilde only been forthright about the matter, his downfall might have been avoided."
Oscar Wilde purposefully acted childishly in court putting himself in further jeopardy and also wasn't honest from the start. He also put himself in the position knowing he was in the wrong and therefore is responsible. -SB