The love that dare not speak its name

CEBU, Philippines — During the trial of the playwright Oscar Wilde, the phrase “the love that dare not speak its name” was the center of public discussions. It was abuzz in social circles, especially. The phrase was generally interpreted as a euphemism for homosexuality.

Wilde, in the year 1895, was charged in court for his supposed homosexual relations with the son of an aristocrat. In his late 30s, Wilde met a promising 22-year old poet named Lord Alfred Douglas, “Bosie,” at a tea party. The two became extremely close. Douglas took great pleasure in the interest shown in him by Wilde, already a major literary figure.

Douglas called his elder companion “the most chivalrous friend in the world.” Wilde saw in Douglas not only a lively intellect, but a young man with an Adonis-like appearance. Wilde made no secret of his interest in Douglas.

Douglas later said, “He was continually asking me to lunch and dine with him and sending me letters, notes, and telegrams.” Wilde also showered Douglas with presents and wrote a sonnet for him. They stayed together in each other’s houses and in hotels, and went on trips together.

The first serious problem for Wilde, growing out of his relationship with Douglas, came when Douglas, still a student in Oxford, gave an old suit to a down-and-out friend named Wood. Wood discovered in a pocket of the suit letters written by Wilde to his youthful friend. Wood extorted money from Wilde for the return of most of the compromising letters.

Wilde agreed, and later described the money as a gift to enable Wood to start a new life in America. Another two would-be blackmailers were given smaller amounts of money after returning the remaining letters.

But Wilde’s downfall came not from blackmailers, but rather from the father of Alfred Douglas, John Sholto Douglas, the Marquees of Queensberry. The man was an arrogant, ill-tempered eccentric. He became concerned about his son’s relationship with “this man Wilde.”

The marquees’ concern was temporarily alleviated at the Cafe Royal in late 1892, when his son introduced him to the noted literary figure. Wilde charmed his friend’s father over a long lunch with many cigars and liquors. By early 1894, however, the marquees concluded that Wilde was most likely a homosexual, and began demanding that his son stop seeing Wilde.

His son resisted, and the marquees began taking increasingly desperate measures to end the relationship. He threatened restaurant and hotel managers with beatings if he ever discovered Wilde and his son together on their premises. The young Douglas defended his friend and warned his father in a letter: “If [Wilde] was to prosecute you in the criminal courts for libel, you would get seven years’ penal servitude for your outrageous [remarks].”

Instead, it was the marquees that charged Wilde in court. In his defense, Wilde offered another interpretation of his relationship with Bosie informed by a classical conception of love that enumerates several different varieties – eros, romantic or erotic love, being only one of many. Wilde’s defense also indicated that people’s understanding of love is culturally constructed.

Even to the present generation, people seem to equate love more – if not exclusively – with eros, making the romantic and the erotic inextricable. It’s easy to get the idea, by just watching the queue at the doorways of motels today, Valentine’s Day. It’s sad, because the very act itself of Saint Valentine in secretly officiating Christian rites for uniting lovers was purely for its higher significance rather than mere physical or sexual.  

Now, the question: Is gender even an issue? On the romantic side, perhaps no. But on the erotic side, yes!

Moralists argue that eroticism finds ultimate gratification in the sexual act. And the sexual act is exclusively for the very purpose of procreation. Thus, no same-gender relationship is right – man and man or woman and woman together cannot procreate.

It’s been both a lengthy and long-running argument. Everyone would assert their basic right to be with their beloved. They also claim their right to exchange commitments with each other – and for such commitments to be recognized by others. But that is okay only so long as the parties involved are man and woman.

Not much has changed from Wilde’s time. All affectionate same-gender relationships are considered sexual even if sex may be only a very slight part of it. And so, most homosexual lovers try their best to hide their relationship or even suppress it.

Even if it’s truly love, if it’s directed towards someone of the same gender, it dare not speak its name. Because in the world’s eyes, it’s wrong just the same.