I am surprised that, and unless I missed it, neither the LW nor Dan mentioned that the LW should (if she continues the relationship) demand that condoms be mandatory during penetrative sex with her BF and/or consider getting tested and getting on PrEP herself.

While I'd give the guy credit for admitting the first violation, he loses everything when he follows it up with a bunch more unprotected sex. So I'd say you have two options:
1) DTMFA
2) The relationship becomes closed until (or if) he regains your trust

I'd say kudos to the boyfriend for being honest. As such, he is not imposing risks upon his girlfriend without her consent. He is putting her in a position to make an informed decision. This is responsible behavior. He has every right to decide what risks he wants to take with his own life. So does his girlfriend. Now his girlfriend has to decide what risks she wants to take. If she is unwilling to have unprotected sex with other men, then yes, she needs to break up with him. He is unlikely to change his behavior. Asking him to do so is unlikely to be successful since he has already repeatedly broken the "rules". Therefore, I only see two other alternatives: one, he could continue his behavior and continue to be honest about it; two, he could continue his behavior and start lying about it. That magical third option in which he changes his behavior- he already had that chance and repeatedly did not do it.

If we really want honesty in relationships then that means we also have to be willing to face the harsh realities that honesty brings with it, and in this case, if the LW wants to keep an honest relationship, she must decide if she wants to take the risks of unprotected sex (stay with her boyfriend and accept the risks he accepts) or not (break up with him). Anything else is going to lead to you two lying to each other and/or yourselves.

The BF has to understand that he'll also face rejection in straight spaces if he doesn't respect the rules.

Also, what EmmaLiz said @ 4. He's not going to change, both of you must accept that.

@1 Since she's aware of the existence of both PrEP and condoms, I assume she has already rejected that option.

@2 and @3

To me, it seems like a case of incompatibility here and neither seem like assholes to me. An asshole would lie about it or make excuses. To me, it sounds like the BF was willing to honestly reflect on why he's having trouble following their rule without blaming or making excuses: He wants to be promiscuous, he wants to lay certain guys, he has more opportunity to do this if he doesn't wear condoms, with PrEP the other risks seem worth it to him. This can all be true and reasonable enough for an individual. If this is the lifestyle he wants and the level of risk he accepts, why should he prevent himself from having it? There's nothing wrong with living this way or choosing this lifestyle for these reasons. The only problem is that he can't have his cake and eat it too. He can't have THAT and be with THIS girlfriend. So he must be honest about what it is he wants. He has done that. Now it's up to the girlfriend to decide if she's OK with this or if she needs to move on. I say, the second- they are not compatible. It's OK, doesn't make either an asshole nor in need of counseling. Could be that this is part of the bf's transition. But I don't see where he's being reckless- he is being honest, got on PrEP, stated clearly why he wants to act that way. Maybe he'll get it all out of his system. Good- many of us have slutty periods in our live, nothing wrong with that. Alternately, he could just be someone who is always going to have lots and lots of casual sex with men, and yes it is true that a lot of men who do that do not use condoms these days. In which case, he's doing nothing abnormal- he's just not compatible with a gf that wants safer sex than that.

Risk is a personal decision. L-dub's boyfriend has a much higher tolerance for risk than the L-dub, and his risk in this scenario is her risk.... This one's over. Good luck L-dub!

It's hard to take seriously their concept of BF/GF when it's really more or a sex friendship given the promiscuity.

Wow @7. Are you for real? Str8 people don't have sex that "sickens and kills"? HIV started as a straight illness in Africa. Most people with STI's are str8 because, wait for it, most people having sex are str8. We can talk about incidence within a minority group but get your facts right you hateful person.

1) I have rules I want someone to follow.
2) Someone breaks the rules. Repeatedly.
3) What to do, what to do?

Make up your wish-washy mind. Don’t pretend you have “rules” if you’re not going to enforce them. As per “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Well, it’s really more of a SUGGESTION”...

7 you sound like so much fun! Sometimes I just like to top fuck raw after a couple of decades or more of my prime years living in fear of contracting HIV and FUCKING DYING! I'm glad to know that my risks are quite likely much more manageable now. As for the LW, that person will have to be willing to take their chances if they want to continue having unprotected sex with their boyfriend.

@12, not "suggestion" but "guidelines".

Well crap on a stick @7 and 11, who are the same person. You don't have science or facts on your side so shut your ugly hateful (and spitefu)l pie-hole. PrEP actually eliminates transmission of HIV. Your argument that it increases risky sex is the same some Christians use against the HPV vaccine - in encourages risky sex. Birth control? Encourages risky sex. Sex education? Encourages risky sex!!!!! You are living in the dark ages my friend. Read and learn a little before spouting off.

What this person did to your boo? WTF your boo consented, plain and simple. You should definitely break up though, this is no way to have a positive health open relationship

Why am I not surprised that LW and so many in the assembled company simply let BF play the Blame the Gays card? BF often receives rejection in gay spaces. How many cis gays does he think wouldn't say the same thing? (Mr Savage gets a +2 Grade of Execution here for pointing this out as well.) Why should BF's more oppressed status entitle him to pampered treatment? It's like the time (trans) Mr Urquhart got all upset about not being welcomed in with open arms by groups for gay fathers.

If BF is dissatisfied with the reception he receives in gay spaces, then he should try bi spaces or trans spaces or pan spaces. One might guess that LW wouldn't want him venturing into those spaces because they are more likely to be mixed and he might go off with a woman, but I couldn't possibly comment. But it's much easier to Blame the Gays. That gives BF an excuse that almost totally exonerates his boundary-crossing behavior, and gives LW an excuse to continue the relationship without having to think worse of him. CMY is so tempting here.

My spidey sense is saying that this person doesn't want to actually be in a relationship with you, LW. Rawdogging quasi-random dudes with unknown statuses is, for this Ryan-White's-Quilt addled Gen-Xer, at best playing Russian Roulette with their life - and tangentially, your life. I wouldn't want any of the people I care about in my life dating someone who took such crazy - AND NEEDLESS - risks. This isn't a race car driver who can't get their fix any other way, if he cared more about safer sex, he would be engaging in it.

I would agree with the choice for a break up. He deserves some credit for being honest after the fact and at least not lying to her. However, his behaviour isn't dependable. If it was just a case of them wanting different things, I'd consider encouraging letter writer to consider the idea of using barriers with him to protect herself. But he didn't approach her up front and say that he wants to change the rules of their relationship. He got caught up in the moment, acted out of fear of rejection, and then told her afterwards. If he changes his boundaries in the face of potential rejection, it's not going to be just condoms that are an issue. Where else will be break her boundary just because it's easy?

It's really difficult to stand up to social pressure sometimes. I understand that as much as anybody else. I used to suck at saying no. But it's an important skill if you're going take on the responsibilities of an adult relationship. If you can't say no, you can't prioritize the best interests of your partner/family/loved ones.

" He says he finds it difficult to be hard-line about condoms because, being trans, he often receives rejection in gay male spaces. To be as promiscuous as he wants, he feels he has to lower his standards."

I don't know if I see this as blame the gays. I think he was saying there are two issues (interconnected). The first, that he has a smaller pool of potential partners than most gay males. We could interpret this as presumptuous because it assumes these guys would all be into him otherwise. The obnoxious part is that any old thing could make a person have a smaller pool of potential partners- being overweight, being too short, not being white, etc all supposedly reduce one's pool of potential partners. This dude's "any old thing" is being trans, and I doubt anyone would claim this is untrue. It is true that there are fewer trans people than cis people and that some cis people do not want to have sex with trans people (hopefully usually not out of some bigotry but just because they have a sexual preference for the genitalia of the gender they are attracted to). But the second issue here- that he wants to be extremely promiscuous and to do so he must have fewer standards- I believe takes away the presumptuousness of the statement. He's acknowledging that he wants to fuck way more than he can by following the relationship rules. This part has nothing to do with him being trans. He's saying:

"I want to fuck a lot. I'm aware that I'm not every man's cup of tea. If I add an additional boundary (demanding condom use), I lose even more potential partners. Therefore, I won't follow your rules since it would limit my pool of potential casual sex partners."

I think the LW should hear it for what it is and stop trying to wonder what to do. Pretty clear to me. But I don't see how he's blaming the gays or whatever.

@2: in addition to crazy effects of hormones if the risk-taking BF recently transitioned, there's also the classic kid-in-a-candy-store behavior among straight teenagers when they become sexually active and gays and lesbians whenever they come out of going off the deep end a bit (or a lot) when they finally realize what all the excitement was about.

That (or hormonal effects) aren't an excuse, but perhaps puts it into context much as some people who wish to lose weight don't have a problem cutting their intake while that is very very hard for other people. Again, not an excuse and even if it were, the BF doesn't sound 1) he's "in reasonably good shape" for a relationship and 2) his risk-taking makes him sexually incompatible with the LW's very minimal and very reasonable rules.

P.S. a woman who writes her partner that broad of a hall pass?!? She isn't going to have any trouble finding a more respectful, less out-of-control new BF.

i have a question for anyone who is more knowledgeable about this than i. we know that overuse of antibiotics has resulted in drug resistant bacteria. is there any probability that the routine use of PreP could result in a similar loss of effectiveness;i.e. a drug resistant immune deficiency virus?

@17 What happened with Mr Urqhart? I think I missed this.

I think the LW should work on her own boundaries, but that doesn't necessarily mean breaking up with her boyfriend. As others have said, BF is being honest about the risks he's taking.

She could ask him to get tested more often; she could start using condoms with him (if that's not already happening); she could avoid activities which transmit STIs; or, yes, they could break up. But there are plenty of ways to play sexually which are very low risk of spreading STIs.

Erica, since the boyfriend is trans, we can't assume that he even has a penis to put a condom on or that he is using it in penetrative sex, though certainly they would be having some sort of genital contact so I suppose some sort of condom would help as well as other barriers, etc. I agree with you that there are ways to play sexually which are low risk, but I'm sure this has already occurred to her. These two are having sex with the junk and practices they have, so surely she's considered various risks and practices and those led to her rule in the first place. She has to examine her own boundaries and practices to see if she wants to change them to be with him, sure. If I were her though, I would be hard pressed to limit my sexual activities with my partner just so that he could increase sexual activities his with other people. But I'm not her, I know.

Yes @22. There's concern about that, but (as with antibiotics) the greatest concern is that people won't use it correctly (take it irregularly, get HIV, don't know it yet so keep irregularly taking PrEP or people get the pills from a friend and take it without a test and so they don't know they are pos already) and they teach the virus to develop resistance. Just like if you don't finish your round of antibiotics for example. It's rare, but there are documented cases of this happening. The problem is that then the HIV is drug resistant. Worth mentioning that drug resistant HIV also exists and if you are on PrEP you might not be protected against it, but this is even more rare than the first situation.

I hope somebody currently working in public health or working in pharmaceuticals chimes in, but as far as I know (as someone who only now has a toe in that world), the gist answer to your question is: yes it's a concern, something to study and monitor, but right now the risk of drug resistance is BY FAR overshadowed by the benefits of PrEP in preventing the spread of the virus so the front line response seems to be focus on education on taking it properly: get tested before you start, take it every single day at the same time every day, avoid taking it just for the occasional sex binge and then going off it again (stay on it), and don't use it as an excuse to not wear condoms. That last one it seems is going to be ignored, but it dove tails with issues over drug resistance in general- antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is on the rise for example. And since most of us are not going to suck dick with a condom regardless, I'll just throw this in here too: all cocksuckers should have listerine on hand and gargle afterwards for at least a minute and also when you brush your teeth. It doesn't kill all gonorrhea every time, but it is more effective than you might think, including with the resistant kinds, and it's absolutely harmless so why not.

@22 Here is a link to an NCBI literature review on the subject of drug resistance in response to prep:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4970748/

The gist of it is that the risk of the virus developing resistance is almost negligible for people who start prep without having HIV, but that the risk is slightly higher for people who have an undiagnosed infection. Their conclusion is that the benefit of almost certainly preventing infection outweighs the risk of resistance for the small number of people who have an undiagnosed infection.

My takeaway would be to get tested before you go on prep to make sure you don't have an undiagnosed infection of HIV. If not, you're good to go!

@22 Yes and no

The critical thing to remember is that mutations are RANDOM. Bacteria never choose to be resistant to a drug, it only appears like that because the bacteria that are not resistant are dead - the survivors (if any) are likely to have resistance and transmit that to future generations. That's selection, not evolution. So yes, a version of HIV could become prep-resistant regardless of the existence of PreP. However, whatever mutation conferms the prep-resistance is more likely to be competed out of existence when surviving species members don't have that adaptation.

@25 Our comments crossed. I am not in/interested in medicine professionally, but I can get the gist of an article, especially a review article, pretty quick. If you're interested in the subject, check out the NCBI review (if you're not already aware of it). It's pretty interesting.

I'm sorry -- NCBI is the database. The article was originally published in the journal Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS.

It's an infectious disease journal.

If the reason he is having unprotected sex is so he can have more sexual partners, that sounds like an addiction. I know a lot of people here don't believe in sex addiction, but making your life worse to indulge in your compulsions is what an addiction is.

Agreed that the unconsensual boundary crossing is worth a dumpage but as (as I understand it) two people here, both with vaginas, how much risk is the cis sis here actually taking?

You can't assume the trans man has a vagina. Look up metoidioplasty.

Doot, I hinted at that myself. First off, we don't know that the transman has a vagina- he might have a dick- but even if he does, it's not going to transmit HIV right? Since he can't produce semen? Vaginal fluid can transmit HIV, but it's rarer, especially considering it would have to be through oral (I'd guess) which is extremely unlikely, right? Like, are there even any cases? I don't care enough to google.

In any case, she is at risk of all the other STIs of course (she specifically mentions syphilis which is on the rise especially with MSM and also is on the rise through oral)- and his promiscuous behavior combined with less safe sex increases that risk. And as I keep saying, really the only thing we can assume is that the LW here has thought about all of this, knows their sexual habits and which junk they are using for what, and she is concerned about it. So I'll assume she has considered all of this and knows what she's talking about here. In any case, her concern is unlikely to be much over HIV since he's on PrEP.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if two people in a relationship (open or closed) have specific, agreed-upon rules (purely monogamous, only outside people if both of us are there and previously agreed to it, one-dick policies, or open only with protection for outside partners), and one person breaks those rules, that's called cheating. Too many of these comments are patting the cheater on the back for informing LW of their cheating, or commenting on the cheater's bullshit reasoning, but here's how I see it:
LW, you got cheated on.you discussed it, came to an understanding, clarified and underscored your rules, and then you got cheated on again, and your partner was even less forthcoming with their disclosure of said cheating. Do you really need to be told to end it? You got cheated on. Repeatedly. DTMFA.

I'm with @EricaP @24. LW can choose to use barriers (if this isn't already standard practice for them) or otherwise modify sex practices with boyfriend if she feels risk is too high for her comfort level. Or LW can end the relationship (at least the sexual aspect) if she feels strongly about safer sex being the standard in open relationships, whether that means all partners using barriers or just partners outside of her primary relationship using barriers.

A question of spelling: is it transman/transwoman, or is it trans man/trans woman?

@1 As it's in your profile picture, I feel I should bring this up.

Everyone here will be saddened to know that B&N classifies John Oliver's gay Marlon Bundo book as satire and places it in the humor section, not the children's section. Sure, you can find it in the store if you ask, but still, it's not where kids and parents might stumble across it. The Pence's book about the bunny, though, is in the children's section.

Mizz Liz - That is plausible. I'll allow that LW might have paraphrased, or BF might have used inexact language, but specifying "gay spaces" at least indirectly goes into Blame The Gays. He could have said he can't get enough MM sex if he insists on condoms in a neutral way. As the complaint is phrased, he invites several inferences - that it's exclusively gays who dislike having trans pickups; that men who don't boink trans men would boink him if he were cis; that men who boink him without a condom would wear one if he were cis, etc. On half the points I can think of, my instinctive response is to ask, How Does He Know? It seems as if he's resorting to the most convenient excuse, and LW certainly is by focusing on the Evil Gays who mistreat her [I cannot make myself use that term; it's so LMB] rather than his clearly manifested difficulties in respecting boundaries.

M? Dartmouth - It was the subject of one of his Slate articles a while back, when he and his SS wife were about to or had just begun to foster a teenager (I think before he reported their adding a third to their household). The intent of the article was to say that men's groups that would accept trans members should be specifically welcoming, as more women's groups do, a reasonable enough point to an extent. His comments gave the impression that he wanted to be welcomed and valued in gay father groups; BF in this letter seems to be thinking similarly.

UE @ 3 How long do think it will be before her promiscuous bf violates your second option, He has proven himself untrustworthy on at least occasions. Long distance relationships are harder to maintain and easier to end.

Ignore #7, that's clearly a troll.

I agree with EmmaLiz @20 that this isn't a "Blame the Gays" issue - even though the boyfriend is trying to phrase it like one. "Oh poor me, too many mean prejudiced people won't fuck me because I'm too trans/fat/thin/old/poor/ugly/into diapers/far away/married/bitchy/flaky/privacy-obsessed/stinky, so I have to lower my standards in order to get the full smorgasboard of sex I want!"

Yeah, yeah, bitch - you and literally every other person out there has something about them that makes some portion of the population not wanna fuck them. Cry a river. LW, if your boyfriend wants to have tons of unprotected sex because it's easier to get mountains of strange that way, that's his choice. But you don't need to feel guilty for not putting your own health at risk just because making Poor Baby use condoms would make him suffer the cruel prejudice of sexual rejection from half the men he propositions at gas stops.

That being said, considering the anatomy at play here, you might decide that the reward outweighs the risk. But if you keep this fuckbuddy, keep him because you like the sex - not because you feel like you're oppressing him by making unprotected sex a dealbreaker.

If you're out enjoying the bounty that Nature has given us you can't ever be sure that your partner's condom won't break, or that he won't sneak it off without your knowledge. Her boyfriend will be exposed to other men's semen at some point, it's inevitable. And for many of us, condomless sex is just more fun. So as long as the LW and her boyfriend are not monogamous, they should be using condoms and Prep themselves if she doesn't want to accept those risks.

If she's not ok with the fact that condoms don't always work, or with using them herself, she should definitely leave him and find a man who's naturally monogamous (they do exist, I know a couple of them) and who will never look at anyone else. Or perhaps a side, or an asexual man. Or a prim and smug asshole like @7 @11, I'm sure sex with him is quite sanitary and safe and careful.

In any case, her sexual assumptions definitely don't match up with his, so their relationship is doomed anyway.

@Venn, Yeah that's true- I assumed he said "gay male spaces" because he's bi and he's specifying that to differentiate. I'm sure there are straight women that won't fuck him because he's bi too, but a) he's not seeking casual sex in straight places, and b) he wouldn't be asking women to wear a condom in the first place.

I'm sure what he says is true- it seems reasonable that he really does face rejection more often than a cis man (everything else being the same) and that he really does have partners who would decline if he insisted on condom use. Whether or not you can combine those things and leap to- those partners would use a condom if he were cis, yes that seems a stretch. I didn't read it that way, but yes that's a possible interpretation, and if he believes that, it's a lot of feeling sorry for himself for a person who appears to be getting laid a lot.

@44 should have read:

straight women that won't fuck him because he's trans too

@44 there are some men who won't want to fuck him because he's Trans, there are others who definitely will want to fuck him because he's Trans. Especially if he's a hairy man. So no, it may not be at all the case he is rejected more because he's Trans. All men are rejected sometimes, even the ones who have the most popular looks. Most men are rejected fairly often, but there are so many men out there that it really doesn't matter, a fan will come along soon - as long as your personality doesn't get in your way, Out and proud Trump supporters are having a fairly hard time getting laid in the gay world at the moment.

@46 Glad to hear that about Trump supporters. Agreed entirely with your post. There are always things that will expand or reduce your pool of potential partners. Being trans is one of those things for him. If it weren't that, it'd be something else. Demanding condom use would be another- it's going to expand the strange he gets (as Traffic Spiral says) but also reduce his ability to stay in this relationship. That's why I"m saying it's a general lifestyle incompatibility and not really anyone's fault or something he's blaming on her or the gay scene.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know where the medical science is at on surgically constructed penises? Can a person with one penetrate another person? I honestly have no idea and google results seem muddled. How does one orgasm with a surgically constructed penis? And what about Calli's question on spelling? (transman or trans man, etc- I've seen both). It's a new world, so much to learn.

Rules are rules LW, and these are ones you made yourself. No if’s or buts. This is not a discussion topic and yet here you are making it one. Show some backbone woman, show you care about your health as a no one priority.

On the subject of Trump voters -- a couple days ago I was being tailed really badly in my town on the road to the highway, despite going a reasonable speed with the flow of traffic. This asshole tailing me in an obnoxiously large SUV then proceeded to change lanes (without signaling), get ahead, and cut me off right before the turn onto the exit ramp. Once he's in front of me, I see a Trump bumper sticker on his stupid ass. I should have known.

(Trump voters or not, every car who tails me really badly seems to either be a BMW or a big obnoxious pickup truck/SUV type thing. Anyone else experience this?)

I know the spelling-challenged scammer @51 will be removed soon, but I just want the record to state that on the list of impossible things this herbal medicine will cure, in addition to measles, ALS, HIV, stroke, autism, herpes... This list includes "Virginal dryness." I just didn't want that gem to be lost forever.

He is "A GOD SENT."

More spam gems: "my wife is always crying during sex"

DTMFSA*

Dump the motherfucking scammer already

Also is 10 minutes really PE? Especially at 40? Maybe not long but not shameful.

Alex Maicolm sounds Kuwaiti.

His dick few 3 sizes that day...

@43 "don't have unprotected sex with strangers" is not an unreasonable ask of anyone in any type of relationship. There's a world of difference between condoms breaking (an accident) and consciously making the choice to violate your partner's boundaries. You seem to have an astonishingly low opinion of men if you think looking at someone other than your partner and rawdogging them belong in the same conversation.

Back to @48... I'm confused by the type of sex the LW is having with her Trans BF. He clearly wasn't born with a penis... so....

I'm a gay man of a certain age. I'm on PreP and primarily bb cause I like to and can. I see bottoms like your BF online and at sex parties fairly regularly. Now that he's on PreP he won't come down with HIV, but he'll turn up with Chlamydia, Syphilis or the Gonorrhea. The guys who are getting banged all over town are banging the other guys who get banged all over town and between the whole bunch of them they get A LOT of STDs. So you decide if you're good with that factoid.

Oh, and... I don't see why you're dating this "guy". He's getting dicked down all over town and periodically drops in on you. DTMF and find a local man. Either one who is straight or primarily straight seems more reasonable.

@48 EmmaLiz, there is a Youtuber named Jammidodger who has talked a lot about his metoidioplasty. Since it's a procedure that builds on the natural erectile tissue of the clitoris penetrative sex is possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWAN8t-lSqA

@46 “do whatever you like but wear a condom” is a common rule in open relationships. Acting like she’s a monogamous prude because she doesn’t want to catch something is ridiculous, and acting like condomless sex is an inevitability and a right makes me worry for your physical and mental health.

@58 there are plenty of ways to have sex without a cock. And to catch stds without one - which is why I agree with DTMFA.

Lord Zakuza? The bots stumbled upon a pack of filled-in MadLibs apparently.

Thanks Last Comment. I'll check him out.

I may be naive here. But if she's a woman and he's a trans man, what are the odds of him transmitting an STD like HIV through penetrative sex to her, if he doesn't have a "traditional penis." I'm still not quite sure of all the anatomy involved, forgive me.

@67. If he trolls all over town getting raw dogged, he's a walking infestation of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.... regardless of HIV.

And it appears no one has any real idea what kinda sex a woman gets from a transman, but it sure isn't PIV.

The main focus here seems to be on HIV. OK, there are work arounds for that, but why should the woman "have" to use them to accommodate her bf's promiscuous and risky behavior. It is one thing knowing going in to the relationship that the bf has HIV or at risk of being infected. In which case she should've not gotten involved with him, accepted the risk, or have taken steps to protect herself as much as possible. She says nothing about her boyfriend being tested regularly for STIs or refraining from promiscuous sex long enough for any STI to manifest itself in advance of any visit to or sex with her. The bf is reprehensible if he is unwilling to take even these common sense precautions to safeguard the LW's health and safety. Since he is incapable/unwilling to use condoms with his playmates, LW should demand that they be used whenever LW and bf have sex.
.

@67 all kinds of stds can be passed on through exchange of bodily fluids or even just skin contact. I also had a quick google and the guidelines seem to be that whether the cock has always been there, is constructed or was bought, use a condom.

I'm very femme and haven't always been everyone's cup of tea in gay spaces. (Nevertheless, as a GQ gay, I have fitted in and been immediately recognisable and welcome in those spaces). Would I have had more sex, with more of the men I desired, if I had lowered my standards and let them bareback me? Maybe--but in a pre-PrEP era, the possibility didn't really come up. I can't see her bf as thinking clearly. He will be rejected; he will get casual fucks--the question is whether he manages his casual sex life so as to respect the primacy of his relationship.

It's a norm, it's a reasonable assumption, that someone is fluid-bonded in their main relationship and condom-enforcing in their extramurals and flings. This was explicit, it seems; but anyway the LW could justifiably have presumed it. I don't quite see, like Emma @4, that the bf should be commended for his honesty. He's in effect saying the hot unsheathed sex, with (he supposes) a wider range of partners, is worth his partner running the gauntlet of gonorrhea and chlamydia. No. Dump him.

@46. ECarpenter. All true and well spoken. I like the 'hair' aside. Also agree with @48 Emma and @49 Lava's responses.

@58. tim browne. Yes--an unusually helpful contribution.

M?? Harriet - "Unusually"?

Mizz Liz/Ms Muse - Now that I think of it, weirdly, I saw a good deal more of "transman" being spelled as one word than I ever did of "transwoman". It originated mostly from the edgier sorts of people who would embrace the Q label or some variant. The thinking behind it was perhaps that there was something positive/worth pushing as the lead about their difference ( a bit like Mr Angel perhaps).

@72 -- Was that a backhanded compliment? I'll take it.

I wonder why this thread in particular became a magnet for bots/scammers?