What dopes pedophilia have to do with E. M. Forster? His interests were entirely with adult males. One senses the heavy hand of “New Criterion” Catholic honcho Roger Scrution—trying his best to draw attention away from the fact that the Church to which he pasy such obsequious fealty is nothing mroe than a pedophile cult.

Nothing has changed as far as the privileged using the poor or disenfranchised for their perversions.  For when I read, “unless they qualified as boys who might be available for sex,” I infer the choice of “boys” is for the obvious purpose, to let the reader know these were not men Forster preferred.  To imply otherwise would be truly a perversion, or a peak to one.  The “Next” big question modernists must decide is what to do about the deep rooted sex slavery that continues and prospers today in conceivably every major city in the world.  Dealings with the Catholic Church pedophile cover-up notwithstanding, and couple to that the double standards applied to how children are arbitrarily exploited for a range of purposes, from money to privilege, serious writers ought to be careful how they describe people who appear in our histories.  Unless the gay community is finally ready to identify, or not, with the pedophile?

Same old homophobic crap from “The New Criterion” from time immemorial. I used to know someone who worked there. DEEPLY closeted. Died of AIDS. Not that the Kramer Hilton (as Gore Vidal calls him) would give a shit.

Foster was a fine writer and a deeply unhappy man. His “attitude towards homosexuality” was that of any Englishman post Oscar Wilde. He was forced to lie and hide. He wrote “Maurice” (today regarded as a classic gay love story by everyone except the ‘phobes) he entrusted the manuscript to Christopher Isherwood—a brave soul than he who left the socio-political prison of the UK to thrive in the U.S.