LW, if you're going to law school this fall, I would venture to say that such drama (because it will get worse before it gets better, especially if alcohol abuse is part of the picture) will weigh you down in a way that is most counterproductive to your studies. You would do well to heed Dan's advice.


If he's planning to go to law school, he will either need a supportive partner or dump the guy. The quality of the educational experience is negatively impacted when you have a lot of other drama consuming your attention. There's also nothing to say that these guys won't be on the same page later in life, but right now, the LW's future awaits. I don't think the BF is supporting the LW's forward movement. Time to go!


LW, ever hear the phrase “don’t set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm?” Your boyfriend has serious issues that YOU CANNOT FIX. Addicts can come clean IF they choose to start the process and then follow through. You, a person who is not the addict, can throw your heart and soul into “fixing” him and those efforts are doomed to failure because you’re not him and you can’t force him to change.

It is possible to be gentle and kind in ending a partnership. Do that. Talk to a therapist if you need to.


I actually saw the demands for deleting apps and rule-breaking behavior followed by claims of depression as manipulation and a huge red flag of an impending abusive relationship. But maybe I’m just paranoid. Either way DTMFA.


L-dub, your boyfriend is a controlling manipulative dick who has trashed agreed upon boundaries to an extent almost everyone would find completely unacceptable. Please extricate yourself from this trainwreck of a relationship.


chilifries @4: just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're not also right. DTMFA.

PREP: "he doesn’t remember whether or not he used condoms" = He didn't.

The BF is slamming his hand down on the self-destruct butt(on).


If you're going to law school,. you're looking at three years of not having time for a boyfriend. A completely settled husband maybe, but not a boyfriend who thinks he needs therapy.


As someone who had a BF in law school for a short period, I'm glad there was no drama though I didn't understand how overwhelming the demands on his time were (now I do).

LW needs and deserves a drama-free romantic/sexual life in order to concentrate on his studies. His BF should just go fuck … off!


Personally, in addition to everyone else's excellent commentary, I feel that if you have to go out of your way to articulate a "no revenge sex" rule, then your relationship already has unsolvable problems.


PREP, I think your boyfriend wants out of your relationship, and that his depression may clear up once you are out of the picture.

As for your decision to attend law school, I hope you are going to a Top 20 school, and can minimize the amount of student loans you need to take out. Think long and hard about going to a second (or third tier) law school, especially if you need to take out student loans. If you do poorly and/or attend a lower tier school, you will be carrying law school debt for 30 years, which will limit your ability to start a family, buy a house, and save for retirement. No matter where you attend, you will need to study intensively, especially your first year, but even in years two and three. And the demands on your time and pressure will only increase if you decide to work for a Big Law firm after graduation.

A stable relationship, with good sex, can make the stress of law school easier, and it is clear that you will not have this with your current boyfriend. For your sake, DTMFA, and get ready of law school.

@9/MythicFox: Good point. That should not need to be a rule in a healthy relationship.


Thanks for running another example of a non-woman who doesn't want to dump someone who's lying to them and exposing them to STIs. Can we now accept this as person-in-love, not doormat-woman, behaviour? Thanks!

This guy got into a monogamous relationship at 20, far younger than he had any right to. At 20 he wanted stability. Now that he is stable financially, he wants to slut around. I agree with those who think he's looking to get dumped because he doesn't have the courage to end the relationship. It's funny how PREP himself was in a slut phase at 25, and now that his boyfriend is 25 he's at the same life stage. Anyway, I'm going with a "fool me once" approach here. It's probable that for Mr Prep, the relationship has run its course and he doesn't know how to say that, but there could be some other trigger the letter doesn't mention. Mr Prep has offered to get therapy and stop drinking. Give him one chance to see if he means it -- while condoms -- and if it turns out he wasn't serious, let the young man go. (Did I say "if"? I meant "when.")


Other commenters: very good point about PREP not needing this kind of drama in his life when he is about to start law school. I'm changing my mind about giving the boyfriend a second chance. MythicFox, good point as well. "No fucking other people as revenge"? If that's a thing that's even occurring to you, this is not a good relationship.


Yes to MythicFox's good point.

But worse IMO is that the BF when angry broke those rules. Most significantly not #2, but #3 (protection). If his being angry makes rules disappear, he has no rules. Not a person to have a relationship with.




Yikes — there's not a single person here yet who defends the boyfriend — so I think I'd better do it, though I share people's concerns that this might be hard to salvage.

Basically, here's what I've got: the boyfriend has made some serious mistakes, but he's apologized, acknowledges he's the problem (or at least his depression is), and is getting into therapy — those are all good signs. More than that, you care about him and it doesn't sound like you really want to give up yet on a 5-year relationship which has a bunch of good qualities.

So give him a few months. People can make good progress in three-four months of therapy, if they want to. You don't start school until the Fall. See how all this feels in May. If it's looking like the drama's not going to stabilize before school starts, I think you need to tell him basically what you told us: "we're not in the same place in our lives now, and I need to focus on school, which I can't do given this constant drama." Then take a really nice summer vacation somewhere alone, and use the Summer months to get yourself in good mental shape for the Fall.

And incidentally: These next four months are kind of a relationship limbo time for you, anyway — you're not gonna start a new relationship now if you're leaving for grad school in the Fall. If you're ever gonna give him time, this is the time to give him. If you DO end up single come Fall, you haven't really wasted time — you're still young and hot, and grad school will be a great place/time to meet other young and hot people you'll have a lot in common with. (They'll be slightly neurotic and intense, it being grad school, but then, so will you.)


@15 bouncing
Yes, the BF might someday be in sufficiently good working order for a relationship. They could try again if that someday comes.

But he hasn't yet been the right person to be in a relationship with to begin with, and betting on other people to change isn't wise.

And while in law school wouldn't be a good time for that bet to play out.


That said...
I mean, I still think you should give the boyfriend a few months. But, the fact that you're about to start a new serious chapter in your life and he's simultaneously self-destructing is a sign that he doesn't feel secure with what YOU'RE about to do (ie enter law school).

So even if things between you and him are great after he's seen a therapist for a couple months, you're gonna need to have some big conversations about what's coming up: Is he ready to move someplace with you (are you moving someplace for school)? If so, is he prepared for three years of you being really really busy, and himself having a lot of house-husband-type time on his hands? Can he hold himself together enough to be there for you, and at minimum not bring the drama home from the sex club? Are you okay with knowing that's the state he's in, and that your ability to be supportive of him will be constrained by your studies?

These are normal relationship questions, not a sign that your relationship is any more drama-prone or crisis-prone than anybody else's. But, if you and he manage to solve the problem you're in right now, remember that the good feelings you'll get from solving the current problem don't absolve you of the need to talk through the inevitable issues of the next few years (which may be driving some of his current behavior).


@16 curious2
Yeah, I totally hear what you're saying. I do tend to give people multiple chances to change, and it sure hasn't always (or often) worked out...

I think the LW describes their relationship as having a lot of mostly positive aspects prior to the last few months, so, the question is: is there something about the last few months that's going unaddressed, and this all could be improved by addressing it? That's something the LW will have to figure out for himself. If he wants to, the LW can allow a few months to try to figure it out with the BF's input (and the BF's therapist's input). Or the LW can end it on his own, now or soon. The LW sounds like a good and mature guy to me, and the way he described the relationship (outside of the BF's current actions) sounded a lot more positive to me than I guess it sounded to Dan or to other commenters. So I just wanted to offer him another option besides "dump dump dump now now now."


Curious @ 16 - "betting on other people to change isn't wise"

Truer words have rarely been spoken/written in a comments thread.


I don't think the lw is in love with his partner. (He says they 'enjoy each other'. The word 'love' is absent).

Others think the bf is out-of-control more readily than I would. There will be two sides to the story. The lw's 'party' days are behind him; and I'd imagine that, implicitly or explicitly, he's granted his bf permission to catch up. (That is, there will be a certain asymmetry built into their arrangements). But it's not clear to me they want the same thing. The lw wants a 'committed, monogamish' relationship--with someone. Does his partner?


The bf's train of thought will be something like: 'when you were fucking around, you didn't need to clear it in advance with a demanding husband / elder brother figure, who at some level was jealous / fearful you'd leave him / insecure about just how good a fuck he was. So why should I? You are enjoying all the privilege of your relatively stable home environment / coming out, which meant you weren't primarily looking for security when a college student'. He's jibbing, in other words, without the courage or self-confidence to articulate how their groundrules aren't working for him. Just a small change in their monogamish understanding could make a big difference to their relationship.


@18 bouncing
I think that makes sense, given that I didn't get the sense from the letter that PREP would end it.

@19 Ricardo
I have a confusing relevant motivational mantra that I probably like because it has it means a couple different things, so is a bit of wordplay. It comes from that I also strongly believe in constantly doing everything I can personally to grow (aka change; I feel like growth is what it's all about).

'I never expect anyone to change except myself.'

(It's confusing in the sense that I mean "expect" in two completely different ways. As for others, in the sense of 'bet on'. As for myself, in the sense of 'demand'. So it in no way means to me that I'm better at changing that everyone. [Though I certainly am better than some; I know plenty of people who believe in not growing, in being static.])

Sometimes, happily, using the past to predict the future doesn't work. But it's still a really good bet.


@15/bouncing: Law school "will be a great place/time to meet other young and hot people you'll have a lot in common with."

Because nothing is sexier than a frazzled 1L studying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


@20 Harriet
"There will be two sides to the story. The lw's 'party' days are behind him; and I'd imagine that, implicitly or explicitly, he's granted his bf permission to catch up."

I think Harriet might "imagine" correctly here.

But, after re-reading the letter specifically with this in mind, I see nothing in the letter than suggests it's true. So it seems like projection.

But this time Harriet's projection helps me see how Harriet could be an effective lawyer.


Bouncing @15, I agreed with you initially (see @11), but other commenters spoke more sense. This guy isn't getting into therapy; he SAYS he'll get into therapy, which is the same thing as saying what PREP wants to hear. Also, remember that these guys argue so much that they have a "no revenge sex" clause in their relationship, and it was some undisclosed argument that drove Mr Prep into the arms of the bathhouse in the first place. (And that Mr Prep threw a strop over PREP's messaging other men. This is not a single infraction in an otherwise fairytale romance.) Law school will only strain this relationship further. Mr Prep clearly wants to be young and free and sleep around, and PREP should set him free so that he can live this part of his life without it ruining their relationship and sabotaging PREP's education.

Also, there's no evidence PREP is hot. Haha.


@23 SublimeAfterglow
hahaha valid!
Speaking for myself, when I was in grad school the camaraderie with other grad students was powerful and sometimes set off sparks. And people who weren't grad students imagined that me being a grad student meant I was smart. Some folks are into that.


@25 BiDanFan
"Mr Prep threw a strop over PREP's messaging other men."

Yes, I think that detail was as bad a sign as anything in the letter.


Curious @ 22 - In this context, I see growth and change as two different things. (I am aware that growth implies change, but bear with me.)

I consider that I have grown a lot in the last 40-some years, but not changed. By that I mean that I have broadened my horizons on about every level, learned to adapt to other cultures and other ways of seeing things, etc. My tastes have evolved to encompass many, many things I would not have considered interesting as a 14-year-old. Yet, that curiosity and desire to experiment new things were always part of my character; they were merely stiffled by growing up in a small, isolated and very backward town. So in my view, I didn't actually change, I just realized my potential.

I would define change has becoming what you are not, and in my experience, that never actually happens. One is capable of extending the parameters of their personality only so much, and I would automatically distrust anyone who proclaims that they have changed in that sense.


Depends how one looks at the notion of ‘personality’, Ricardo,@28, and the extent to which we can change our minds, authentically.
Root out and eliminate destructive patterns of thought, speech and behaviour.
Hi, always great to see you here.


@28 Ricardo
(Wow that was cool to think about.)

That seems to me a quite reasonable perspective. That today's 'you' was potential previously unrealized because of your previous environment.

There's even popular sayings about journeys of self-realization, to 'find oneself', to 'discover who one is'.

This has never resonated with me, but maybe it should've, maybe I thought of it the way I did just to demand everything of myself. To the point of not just finding me, but being different.

In meditation I discovered that very close to nothing can be said about who one is. Everything most people think they are is (as you imply) a product of their experience and conditioning. But we're not our thoughts, we're that which watches ('The Watcher') our thoughts. Apparently it's just that; and it's also a place of oneness; and nothing more. I feel like there simultaneously is, and is not, something about it that's me.

So we're not I think talking about the true "I", but the conditioned manifestation of self. And why couldn't one change that completely (after all it's wholly artificially constructed of conditioning[1]), instead of just 'find oneself'?

[1] Or, as I see LG wrote @29 as I was writing this, it's "patterns of thought, speech and behaviour".


I echo the sentiments of others about the wisdom of remaining in a drama filled relationship while in law school. Don’t do it. Law school is so demanding that having any relationship at all is barely possible (especially first year) and if you are dealing with this kind of bullshit it will put you at a SERIOUS disadvantage vis a vis your peers. In law school class rank MATTERS and grades MATTER A LOT in terms of future employment. Unless you are literally going to an Ivy League school, you will need to “beat out” the vast majority of your classmates in order to get a coveted summer associate job for the summer after your first year (interview start at the beginning of second semester first year!) so please don’t delude yourself about the importance of devoting many many hours to study and classes right from the jump. You will sorely regret wasting any time on relationship drama if it causes your grades to suffer, and when you see your classmates getting all of the good jobs while you are stuck “volunteering” for a public interest nonprofit job, totally behind the 8 ball. It isn’t easy to recover from that, and having no initial job experience can change the trajectory of your entire career and limit your future opportunities as a result. I’m a lawyer- and a successful one- but it’s not an easy road. Luckily I did very well my first year and landed a competitive job that first summer. As for the commenters who disparage the hotness of law students, I married one (though we did divorce after 9 years) and i know of at least 15 other couples who are/were married just from my class alone. There’s plenty of coupling going on, and with occasional parties, study groups and friends-of-friends, you will be exposed to plenty of potential romantic partners. DTMFA or you risk being held back in your career. I really mean this! Once you have your first post-graduate job your grades don’t matter much anymore (no one ever asked me for a transcript again!) but experience does, and you need great grades to get that experience (I’m taking almost straight A’s).


Mr Ricardo - very Christiean, reminding me both of Poirot's insistence that one doesn't do anything not "dans son caractere" and the set-in-ancient-Egypt Death Comes as the End and the discussions of whether people actually changed or whether the presence of a concubine in the household of a mortuary priest serves as a catalyst to bring out what most of his family truly were.


It sounds as if LW wants to be kind. Perhaps the kindest thing could be not to oblige BF if it becomes clear that BF wants LW to pull the plug - or at least not to do so for the reasons BF presents.


Lava, Curious: I'm in a bit of a hurry, but I just want to say that my "patterns of thought, speech and behaviour" have changed over the years, but I'm quite convinced they did so as I was learning to align the external me more closely on the internal me. In other words: I grew; some of the behaviours changed.

Venn: I'm glad to see I share something with dear old Hercule, but having read only two Christie books 40 years ago, I'm not sure it's anything more than a coincidence.


Ricardo; all are constructs of mind. Your notion of personality being one of them.


The Buddhist approach to mind is fluid. We don’t inherently exist. Even though we cling to patterns of mind and behaviour, and think that makes us us.
Whereas if we don’t hold to set self views, and keep striving, we are changing all the time. We age we die.
This letter is sad. Another person being messed about. Move on LW, close it down Now, because this boy is too reckless, and needs a good wake up call.
Or. Give him a month to prove he can shift gears. Is he shameful about himself? Is that why he needs to behave so. Might need to go talk with someone about his feelings about his own homosexuality.


@24. curious. How about the lw's initially being the one wanting a more open relationship? So one could suppose his partner saying, to the effect, 'well, if we're going to do it your way, without the psychological benefit for me of monogamy, it's only right you let me sow my wild oats'. And we know that the bf is fucking around and that the lw hasn't recently had sex with anyone else at all.

The reason to break up is that the bf won't be a steady partner to the lw through law school.


@31. DanFan. My grades were all over the place, but middling on average and compared badly to my undergrad record. I ended up with a big law firm job (which I hated). The cliché was how little sex--or at least sex in relationships--everyone was having. The straights were hooking up occasionally with exes. It was hookups for the gays. During the periods when I did put my head down and work, it was nothing for me--abstinence--punctuated by the occasional nightclub and bathhouse blowout.


Venn @33, yes. PREP should break up with the boyfriend for HIS sake, so he won't spend his prime wild-oat-sowing years with an older boyfriend who's studying all the time and laying down rules about whom he can and can't shag.


@37 Harriet
First, I know you know that you're making this up since you present it with "one could suppose".

Second, your supposition @37 doesn't really address your previous supposition (in your @20 that I was addressing @24):

"imagine that, implicitly or explicitly, he's granted his bf permission to catch up.""

By which I mean that your supposition @37 doesn't demonstrate any implicit or explicit permission /from/the/ LW .

Your @37 does plausibly present a possible rationalization by the BF for breaking mutually agreed upon rules. But were the BF to have that rationalization, it would not lessen his ethical guilt for breaking the rules he agreed to. (Or for harassing the LW for behavior /within/ the rules.)

(Now I'll stop responding and make a point.)
It requires no speculation to say that the BF's original agreement to the rules was not even genuine, because (as I wrote @13):

"If his being angry makes rules disappear, he has no rules."

While I happened to feel like it (and I felt like I owed it to you since I was hard on you in other threads) the task of reconciling various pure speculations with each other and with the letter isn't really my thing. At best I have low tolerance for indulging pure speculation, and certainly relative to the time involved with the 3 dimensional chess of juggling it all and the actual letter too.


DTMFA. Law School -- unless he's going to one of the big name ones -- is largely a ticket to huge student loans and marginal career opportunities. He wants an open relationship but someone back home to take out the garbage and walk the dog. Break up and see where he is in a few years.


I think you answered your own question, LW, by the end of the letter. This boy’s reckless attitudes to your/ his health and rules he’s agreed to, coupled with a few good years of solid study ahead of you, it is time to say bye bye to the bf and good luck with your studies.


@40. curious. Well, there are always facts, reasonable inferences we could draw (from the whole situation as it's presented), and then flights of fancy. And people--like commenters--disagree on what's a reasonable inference and what a pure flight of fancy.

My view would be that advice is more likely to be rounded and sympathetic, and less likely to be drily rule-based, if we take account of our most persuasive inferences (as individual readers).

Here I would say we have:

FACT: the bf went off in a strop and had sex outside the relationship without negotiation;

STRONG INFERENCE: this sex was unprotected.

I would also have:


the asymmetry in how their relationship is open (the bf can fuck other people more readily or more often than the lw) has been a matter of negotiation, rather than just happening spontaneously.

We also have to remember 'there are always two sides to every story'--in other words, there are FACTS, equally intractable facts, that put the situation in a different light and that aren't stated in correspondents' letters. I habitually try to think what these are in reading anyone's letter.


@43 Harriet
"the asymmetry in how their relationship is open (the bf can fuck other people more readily or more often than the lw"

"can"? There's no "can" about it, the letter says zero about any asymmetry in their negotiated rules. I would think a lawyer would craft such wording more carefully. (I often wonder whether you have ever actually practiced law? And if so in court? And if so in what % of cases do judges scream at you at the top of their lungs?)

This claimed asymmetry appears to merely flow from your wholly fabricated fantasy that the LW gave the BF some form of Harriet-imagined permission.


@44 p.s.
"Harriet-imagined permission"

I was referencing Harriet's @20 (as I explained @24).

@43 Harriet
"I habitually try to think what these are in reading anyone's letter."

Across all threads, Harriet, you present as imaginative to a delusional degree.


Harriet @43: "I habitually try to think what these are in reading anyone's letter." Yeah, I too would rephrase this as "I habitually make stuff up that has no basis in the letter." (Example is that they've negotiated an unequally open relationship. No basis for that in the letter, and based on how open relationships generally work, most of us would infer the opposite.) I think you are seeing as inferences what the rest of us see as flights of fancy. Now, when facts are missing, it's fine to speculate. However, when doing so it makes sense to note that what one is doing is speculating, that there's no reason whatsoever to believe one's speculation is any more or less accurate than anyone else's, and to decline to draw a firm conclusion based on "facts" one has simply made up. But you rarely do any of that, which is what drives so many of us nuts.


@46 BiDanFan
Thank you for saying all that so well, including this which is both funny and true of Harriet:

"I habitually make stuff up that has no basis in the letter."

That belongs in Harriet's .sig file.

(.sig files, which are appended to messages, aren't available here but would be another potential donor upgrade.)


@45. curious. Of course I practise law. I'm a lawyer for a big international organisation. I litigate before judges; but cases usually settle before that. Something has always inarguably happened in my sort of law e.g. the Exxon Valdez spill; and it's the legal process's job to assign responsibilities. I don't do the kind of law that seeks to determine whether something happened e.g. rape cases, nor typically advocate for individuals.

I feel as if there's no middle ground between fact and fabulation for you--that there aren't inferences to which we would assign probabilities along a sliding scale. Apropos this case, would you agree that:

1) usually when one partner wants a closed monogamous relationship, and the other is loth to accept any relationship at all (because he wants to sleep around), in any negotiated relationship these two come to form, the more monogamously-inclined partner tends to get a wider latitude for playing away?

The operative word here is 'usually'. Obviously there are relationships where the reverse is true.


2) when two gay men of different ages and amounts of gay experience agree a negotiated open relationship, it's usual for the less experienced (typically younger) guy to get, in principle, greater lattitude to fuck around?

Without saying that it's a matter of 'fact' that the lw's relationship is asymmetrically open, I would think these considerations, together with the tone of the letter, support the conjecture as an 'inference'.

@46. Bi. As a (wild) generalisation, I would think lw s can never include the most material facts. If they could--or if they could face them--their problem wouldn't seem so intractable to them.


Harriet @48, in my experience of open relationships, it is not usual for either partner to get more or less latitude. It may be typical that one partner makes more use of equally available latitude, but that is not the same thing as negotiating rules that apply to one person but not the other. So, I would accept neither of your propositions as either logical or supported by experience, and your conjecture therefore makes no sense. In other words, yes, there is a middle ground between fact and fabulation (for instance, interpreting "I've never had a serious relationship" as "all my relationships have been casual and/or short lived"), but you seem to prefer to err on the side of fabulation ("he hasn't had sex in three years" -- what!?) whenever such opportunity exists.


@49. Bi. The 'three years' thing was offered as a measure of what being sexually inexperienced, or rather sexually inapt, clueless, all at sea, would look like (in a guy hoping, in some ways, for a relationship). I wasn't saying that we can know, or justifiably infer, he hasn't been laid for that time. Of course we can't.

I think my preposition 2) holds fairly well for gay men. Your 'experience' wouldn't come into it, if so.

You (and maybe not just you; maybe almost everyone) aren't good at reading witty or ironic embellishment, to my sense. That is, when I characterise a case filling in details (that are illustrative--obviously, that I don't actually believe are true, but which are in keeping with the sutuation's emotional tenor, or which shine a light on it, in some amusing way), then you don't always distinguish between the cardinal facts of the case in my presentation--which we usually agree on--and my illustrative embellishments (which you often seem to believe I hold as facts). So, in a crude example, a lw might have expressed a desire to leave his small town for somewhere with a gay community; and I might parse this 'move to SF'. You would be, 'who said anything about SF?'. (I've in fact tried to cut out or minimise my 'funny' embellishments after realising you and others don't take them as such).

But this kind of contextual establishing-of-the-scene or illustrative embellishment is all-but-unavoidable, I'd say; you find it universally in comments and certainly in Dan's responses.


@50 Harriet
First, I just want to suggest everyone who skipped it read the biggest paragraph @50. And I hope no one missed that Harriet wrote a few days ago that Harriet makes up components of Harriet's own story when Harriet tells us about their own self (Harriet said the purpose of this was anonymity). Now

"maybe almost everyone) aren't good at reading witty or ironic embellishment, to my sense."

Oh yes, EVERYONE ISN'T GOOD at getting the humor in your "embellishment". Or could it be, Harriet, that or there's no comedy in your writing (whatever your intent), so it's that you aren't good at communication.

"I've in fact tried to cut out or minimise my 'funny' embellishments"

For the love of pete, "try" is not good enough. Making shit up creates a parallel Harriet-universe and is the enemy of effective communication to help LWs here. You aren't presenting as a humorist, you're presenting as a lunatic. (Who also doesn't write clearly, and often demonstrates so little effort to do so it's appalling.) You say you want people to read your comments enough to not want to warn them off with an avatar; I have immense sympathy for those you don't read you: if you want them to, communicate acceptably.


@51. curious. It seems to matter to you a lot--and I'm at a loss to understand why it matters.

I will very rightly be taken to task, and am prepared to have my feet held to the fire, when the advice I give lw s is wrong--or if you, or anyone else, suspect I am giving advice mischievously. Before that stage, though, I'd think characterisations of what any of the regular commenters 'are like' are beside the point. As for (a lot of) what I'm doing on here--in my mind, I'm representing (very broadly) non-gender-normative people as able to say something about cis people's problems. Humorously, too. That's not made-up.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.