Watch Me Entertain Myself!

Sacha Guitry once said, "You can pretend to be serious, but you can't pretend to be witty." Oh yes, I'm the great pretender.
(pilot episode: 20 January 2004)

Friday, April 25, 2008

Then There’s Another Angle

Thinking again to what I wrote about the can-in-the-ass incident in a Cebu hospital, I realized that I automatically sided with the poor guy who had to endure the shame of having to have a can pried out of his ass and the world knowing about it. But then several questions came to mind right after I posted the previous episode, most of them questioning the victim’s story of the events prior to the hospital.

I will ask those questions in a while. But first, why dare ask? I’m curious to know what really happened. When one’s drunk, your sense of reason—even your memory—goes all blurry. Maybe he said yes to something he shouldn’t have. Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Maybe his recall got jumbled up. Or maybe he’s really telling the truth.

Yes folks, I am aware of the issue with the hospital. It’s just right that the victim slapped the hospital with a lawsuit—what was done inside the operating room was deplorable. But let’s leave the hospital for now and travel back in time.

In a way the priest was right in pointing out that there still is that incident which landed the victim in the hospital in the first place; it’s just unfortunate that the priest used the incident to condemn homosexual acts. But let’s toss aside the priest for a moment (wouldn’t we love to literally do that?) and think: What really happened that night?

So my questions: [1] How did the can end up in his ass in the first place? [2] Is his story of “I was drunk and they shoved it in me” all true, or is it just a cover story? If the latter, then which parts were tweaked? How much tweaking was done? [3] Was the inserting of the can really an act of cruelty? Or was it a case of a drunken dare gone horribly wrong? [4] If the victim claims he was raped, and he knows the person/s who raped him, then why isn’t he also pressing charges against his assailant/s?

Maybe some of my questions were answered already; perhaps I just missed seeing the news reports on TV and newspapers. If so, I’d appreciate if someone could point them out to me. Then at least I’m assured that what the victim said was true.

Because truth be told, as a sexually active man (my sexual orientation has nothing to do with this) I have seen and heard of weirder things being inserted, eaten, splashed on, inhaled, etc. Aminin na natin, mga kapatid. And that’s why I’m wondering.

If the victim really wants justice served in full, then charging only the hospital seems, pardon the pun, half-assed.

* * * * *

Oh, and one more thing. Is it cruel for me to ask such questions when the victim is already a victim twice, maybe even thrice, over? Maybe it is, especially when the wounds are still fresh. But I’ve never really shied away from asking such questions anyway.

11 comments:

Chris said...

I think the issue is not being gay of the patient, the issue is the violating the patient's right which is the right of confidentiality, instead of protecting the health of their patient, they took the video and even post it in youtube, the doctors and nurses will be liable for this, they're licences should be revoked....

joelmcvie said...

@CHRIS: I think you missed my point in this episode. Unless this comment of yours is actually referring to my previous episode (the one about the priest). =)

Chris said...

my overall view mcvie :D

chase said...

i still don't get it.

ima read this again. and the previous one.

lobster-tony said...

I ask much of the same things when I was talking to a lagablab rep last week while we were out drinking.

He couldn't fully discuss the details of the victim's statement with me as it was still pretty much hot last week and they were still trying to fix their stand.

Here is what he was able to tell me... (I may have paraphrased or mis-recalled the exact details).

He hired a male prostitute. He insulted the male prostitute of how small his dong was. After some drinking (and getting drunk) they were going for round 2....the callboy says something like "Maliit pala ha, eto subukan mo." He wakes up the next day and knew there was something wrong. After three days he goes to the hospital to get check...the rest is history. Take from that what you will. :P

Nelson said...

Maybe the guy didn't use more lube? Or nasobrahan? :-)

The guy is probably too ashamed to admit that he participated in a kinky sex act that went too far (all pun intended), and he couldn't think of anything else to say except "rape." The other thing that is probably keeping his story straight is 1) he's got a reputation to protect (well, that won't matter know, would it?), 2) family reputation or 3) the reputation(s) of those involved with the kinky act.

You're right, I'm actually a lot more curious at the circumstances surrounding the can-inserting incident. There's a lot more to the story that the victim is not telling. Of course, now that the media is focusing on what the hospital did, as well as the bigoted clergymen, we may not even know what exactly happened to him (pre-op).

palma tayona said...

hmmm... i have been pondering about this brouhaha for quite sometime. i wanted to write my views about it myself in my blog but i figured i couldn't. i would end up joining the lynch mob.

i TOTALLY AGREE that the "victim" should sue the pants off the doctors, nurses and all those who had a direct hand in treating his rights as a patient and as a human being like a piece of peanut shell thrown on the streets. i also DEFINITELY don't agree IF the priest's comment was done to add insult to injury BUT it made me wonder, where does the culpability really lie?

at the back of my head, something is amiss here.

for the life of me, i cannot figure out how a can of body deodorant with a 2" diameter be shoved up the guy's ass with him being asleep all throughout the process of insertion. as he claimed, he woke up the next day saying "masakit ang tyan ko", enough for him to ask a relative to accompany him to the hospital. unless he was drugged or anaesthesized to the high heavens, i can't seem to buy the idea that he slept through it. i also noticed that not once was there any assertion or mention of rape or violent attack upon his person during the time when he claimed that he was drunk and that the callboy was having a feast day with his ass.

i figured, there's a gaping hole in his assertions. (pun definitely intended)

the ass is lined with muscle tissues that require sufficient relaxation to accommodate a big foreign object like a spray canister to be inserted into it. (i think the average pinoy penis can only measure up to 1/3 of the can's diameter, but i digress.) i wonder, did the alcohol he asserted he was drunk with sufficiently relaxed his ass enough for him to sleep through it? was he beaten to a pulp reducing him to utter helplessness which allowed the call boy to violently shove the object into his anal cavity. there was not even any mention of any other bruises, wounds or anything that would indicate a struggle in any of the reports. basing on what i have read of the news and claims, i really, really doubt it; UNLESS he is actually used to having jumbo sizes up his mangina.

i figure it was simply a case of a gay guy wanting to have more but totally forgot to practice precaution. kumbaga, naghangad ng dagdag na salop eh isang kaban ang nakuha.

it actually made me think that Msgr. Dakay's comment was said correctly, “People are not talking about what happened before the operation — the homosexual act that WAS DONE VERY BADLY.”

i do not mean to lessen the sins of the medical staff. i believe in the guilt of their ignorance, the lack of professional ethics and disregard for the basic rights af another human being. however, it seems to be that really, part of the blame can also be placed on the victim's lapse of precautionary judgement.

the victim is basically a bottom who loves it big. he didn't have a dildo at hand. he should have not simply let anything foreign up his ass without the proper assurance that it can be safely plucked out when his desire has been satiated. ganun lamang kasimple.

after all the legal cases against those who invaded the victim's privacy and basic right as a human being has been settled, methinks what really needs to be done is educate our gay brothers and sisters, like him and a lot of us, about the pros and cons of sex.

physical pleasure is a right of any human being - gay or straight. if one wants to step beyond the boundaries of safe sex, then they (us) should also know its underlying consequences.

yun lamang po.

Mugen said...

If he hadn't insulted the callboy's dong, he wouldn't have to end in the hospital. I guess that's where all lies.

Moral lesson: Kapag maliit ang etits ng ka-sex. Tahimik na lang tayo. After sex na natin ikalat ang sikreto.

---

Seriously. I've been thinking about the other sides of the story too.

palma tayona said...

oh goodness... i just realized something and i deeply apologize for my rather long remark above.

MSGR. DAKAY'S STATEMENT IS INDEED CORRECT and i quote the printed words again, "From day one, we are asking (the public) not to forget or to bypass the main issue, the homosexual act was done very badly and now they are talking about what the doctors did wrong. They should be reminded of the wrong act that the guy did to the homosexual.”

Removing any context of malice AGAINST gay people from what the priest said in this statement, I now FULLY AGREE with him AS FAR AS THIS STATEMENT is concerned.

something DID GO WRONG. it was the WRONG ACT that the callboy did to the gay man. he basically RAPED HIM.

whether the guy was hired or not, the victim here was violated with a foreign object in his orifice. period. his delay in seeking medical attention was brought on by shame - characteristic of any rape victim.

i realized there are not just one violation committed but rather two - the ones committed by the medical practitioners and the one by the hired male prostitute.

Anonymous said...

what is more important?

the victim admitting what really happened pre-op to quench the curiosity of some people OR the victim actually focusing on the legal steps he should do to punish those who did him wrong?

aside from "feeding our curiosity" what's the reason why we want to know how that canister ended up somewhere inside him? WILL THAT BE RELEVANT TO THE CASE?

di ba natin naisip na pag ang mga umanoy "tutoong" NANGYARING iyan ay lumabas sa media para masatisfy curiosity natin eh magsisilbi lang itong weapon ng mga holier than thou para muli at paulit ulit na sabihing makasalanan tayo?

imbes na makatulong tayo, malamang ma-muddle lang ang isyu at mawala ang focus sa mga nilabag na karapatan.

pag minsan tanungin naman natin ang sarili natin kung akma ba ang mga katanungan natin bago tayo magsulat, dahil baka hindi na nga tayo nakakatulong, nakakapag ambag pa tayo sa patuloy na pagdurusa ng ating minority sector dahil sa di pa nawawalang kakitiran ng pag isip ng mas nakararami.

-- from: biktima ng sariling mga kafatid

joelmcvie said...

@LOBSTER-TONY: Thanks for the info. It does look like the victim was raped. So will there be a case against his attacker too?