If sodomy amongst the Chinese was indeed a major dilemma as chronicled by the friars — inciting some archbishops of Manila to lodge formal complaints in the king’s court in Spain — how come Jose Rizal, always cognizant of every peculiar habit or frailty among the inhabitants of the colonial archipelago, never assigned any of his characters or created a group of characters inclined to practice sodomy? Neither was homosexuality ever mentioned in any of his writings despite what would have been common knowledge at that time about the unusual inseparable relationship between Legazpi and Urdaneta (dating back to the days of their youth).

It’s highly unlikely that our national hero was prudish and grew up oblivious to sexual matters. According to the memoirs of his grandniece, Asuncion Lopez-Rizal Bantug (Indio Bravo), Rizal possessed an intellect far advanced for his age; and that his first love was for a 14-year-old Segunda Katigbak when he was fifteen. At seventeen, Rizal was deeply enamored for a young girl who was merely twelve years old — Leonor Rivera, whom he later immortalized as Maria Clara. Rizal also lived in a dormitory in Intramuros full of older boys while attending Ateneo as a very young boy. And with boys being boys, surely lots of talks about sex went on before and after lights out — enough for the young Rizal to pick up a thing or two about carnal matters.

Anyone keen on sociology and anthropology may point out that homosexuality and pedophilia are not exclusively of modern phenomenon. Why then would Rizal choose to exclude from his writings the socio-psychological impact of which in nineteenth-century Philippines? Yet, on the other hand, he wrote extensively about the friars’ sexual proclivities with the native women; a gobernadorcillo who was later to become an opium addict; and an Indio woman, simply because she married a Spaniard (and a hapless wretch at that), had become disdainful of anything Indio, and hid not her contempt for her own kind and roots.

Other than just ascribe his death to the intense physical torture he endured, Crispin, the altar boy, could’ve been written a victim of sexual abuse as well. The character of Filosopo Tasio could have been created as a flamboyant homosexual whose sarcastic wit made his philosophical insight even more intriguing; and the loss of his inherited wealth to be blamed to his having fallen madly in love with a strikingly handsome mestizo hustler.

Is it possible then that the reason Rizal chose to omit these certain undesirable social elements from his writings was because it might call undue attention to his own vulnerability as an unmarried, highly-creative individual? And in so doing, run the risk of being rumored a closet case himself?

Notwithstanding, to borrow from Jerry Springer: Just because it’s unpleasant and embarrassing, it doesn’t mean we ought to look the other away and ignore it altogether.

Read complete entry…

Related posts:

1. Bata and Django: Brokeback of Pool Efren "Bata" Reyes and Francisco "Django" Bustamante are more...
2. Platonic Love Platonic love is viewed today as a love between two...
3. Whoo! Alright. Yeah…Uh Huh School's out - forever! A bit surreal, yet true! And...
4. PETA presents ‘Batang Rizal’ The Philippine Educational Theater Association's 'Batang Rizal' takes the audience...
5. School Uniforms I’ve Worn The people who have designed uniforms of girls in private...
6. Facts most Filipinos hardly know The day the Catholic Church almost died - continuation: The...
7. Homosexuality and the Right of Expression Gay groups had been, and still is, complaining about gay...
8. Love of Siam Through the ages of mankind, the topic of LOVE is...