Hormone replacement therapy for MTF includes suppressing testosterone and makes us impotent even when we still have balls.
It seems to me that the paper rule would apply in this case. Yes I know condoms work for STD's as well as pregnancy hence the paper rule for women - even trans women.
When is a dick not a dick? When it's attached to a trans woman. Don't judge a book by it's cover and don't make assumptions about genitals. Not all trans women opt for bottom surgery or have the resources for the surgery.
@1 Agree whole heartedly, why are test results ok for vagina's but not for dick, because if it's a pregnancy issue the odds are infinitesimally low, lower than contracting an sti from a vag haver regardless of results. I'm sure her cis female partners aren't solely sleeping with her while she's off with her primary.
I know a woman who was unintentionally impregnated by her trans wife. So... odds are never zero. Just for the record.
This sounds like a job for a female condom.
Surprised Dan didn't make a stronger point about the GF's role in the decision-making regarding condoms, protection and general sexual activities. This is hardly just the LW's problem or her partner's. It's equally a problem for all three, but the GF is getting off too easy both in the letter and Dan's response.
The LW needs to say to her GF, "what do you think we should do about this?" And what is "this" exactly? She can get hard and stay hard without a condom but can't with? And how does she know? Is it because she has had recent unprotected sex? She sometimes can't get hard and stay hard? She doesn't know and doesn't want to find out?
And zooming out, maybe the answer is that the LW and her new GF have a great time together that doesn't include fucking due to this issue. That's something else that ought to be discussed openly.
After having this conversation, both the LW and her GF will have a lot more information to work with, and one outcome may be that the GF agrees that it's necessary to give the partner the information he needs so he can provide HIS input on how to proceed.
@3 That was my thought, too; why does the girlfriend have to be the one wearing the protection? The LW could also wear whatever type of condom fits their bits, and problem solved.
Disagree with your assessment that the trans woman's status is none of the LW's long term boyfriend's business. At a bare minimum, notice how one lie about the woman not having a penis leads to temptation to lie again? By lying about her being trans she denied her BF the right to reiterate that attached to a woman or no, all dicks go into condoms. But instead she wondered if the BF doesn't know about the dick does it matter if he doesn't know about condomless sex?
Also, the right of the trans woman to control who she is out to has its limits. The trans woman may not be directly involved with the BF, but absent evidence the BF is trans phobic and in light of the indirect sexual connection to him she should be out rather than pull the LW into the closet with her.
@1: A penis is a still penis when it's attached to a transwoman. It's a woman's penis. Like trans men can have vaginas. And some cis men have breasts. BF may have legit public-health concerns about unprotected penetrative sex by a penis-haver (pregnancy, greater risk of the receptive partner contracting several STIs (and therefore a higher risk to the BF) versus sex with a vagina-haver. Or it could be illogical (like the BFs willy might contact someone else's sperm later that day/week). But agreed-upon rules, even strictly emotional ones, are, you know, agreed upon.
There are parallels to other types of closet-cases. Yeah, it's their story to tell, when they're ready to tell it (except for closeted politicians actively working against civil rights for all). But it's perhaps wise to not date closet cases unless you're willing to be dragged into their closet as the LW has been and all that entails (sneaking about, lying to your family, friends, primary partner, etc).
Thank you to 6 for injecting a bit of sanity here.
I agree with all the other commenters too. Excellent points. But let's not ignore metamour rights. I think she had no obligation to disclose but when he directly asked her and she lied to him - that's a transgression and a violation of the primary relationship
I'm surprised Dan didn't jump on that. Yes trans people face discrimination and deserve protection. But there are limits. And the point when you're lying to your long term primary partner to protect a new love interest has got to be the limit
I have dated trans women myself. But I'd probably break up with my primary partner for lying about this (or any other clear violation of our safety agreement)
Final comment: don't for a second think the primary partner was fooled. If he asked if she's trans then he knows the signs and he was only seeking confirmation and a dialogue about it. So now he knows his partner is lying to him and possibly "cheating" on their agreement.
What a mess the LW has made....
@8 I’ll bet that the LW’s BF was also wondering why there were no used condoms in the trash or whatever.
I have to agree with @6 and @8. As tricky as this situation is, respecting people's, especially your primary partner's, rules about their body and health come before everything else.
Also, I don't know how big the circles they run in are but it seems like your partner is going to find out eventually, LW. What a mess indeed.
"However, my partner asked me point-blank one day if she’s trans"
The simplest answer is:: "I think we need to have a discussion about privacy. Do you really want to be asking questions about the genitals of my lovers?"
WAIT A SECOND
I smell a canard.
Your new partner is has a penis that functions well enough to fuck you with but not well enough to use a condom on?
Ladies, stop me if you've heard this one before.
Since the rules have nothing to do with social gender but are stated in terms of embodiment, the girlfriend's gender assignment at birth relative to her current self-identification is irrelevant regarding LW's agreement with zir boyfriend.
I also don't think the girlfriend has a right to ask the LW to lie for her - she has a right to decide whom she wishes to tell about her gender history orr embodiment and to ask for a reasonable degree of discretion from such people (which I think extends to not actively outing her unprompted), but not a right to police other people's right to tell their own stories, some of which are going to involve her embodiment if she's getting sexual with other people, and especially if it's relevant to agreements her partners have made with their other (and especially primary) partners. So LW lying to zir boyfriend was the wrong thing to do, and ze shouldn't have agreed to keep relevant details about Girlfriend's embodiment secret in the first place.
Perhaps LW and zir boyfriend just need to change the specifics of their agreement to be action-specific rather than body-specific - LW needs to use a condom if she's sucking or fucking a penis, with mutual testing fine if she's kissing a mouth, licking a vulva, fingering a vagina (or anus?), being eaten out, or being fingered, but since LW seems to think that a condom would be relevant, it sounds like ze's having intimate contact with zir girlfriend's penis, in which case they need to use a barrier per the rules. Gender transition isn't a free pass to ignore agreements one makes.
Given that "With her being on hormones...condoms won’t always work", seems to me their existing rules would (rather clearly) suggest that the LW recommend to both partners that they /both/ "swap papers"...and [only if feasible(1)] "use condoms"".
(1) Which as soulcrusader@4 says is not really known to us.
"refusing to answer would've been as good as saying "Yes, she is.""
Wouldn't there be some nuanced way (that I know I couldn't think up on the spur of the moment, I'm not great at that) to deflect it? Something along the lines of, as Dan said, it being "none of [the] boyfriend's business"? I can imagine someone saying that whether the answer was "no" or "yes". Probably would only work if that kind of boundary-drawing was in character for the LW, I guess.
"This sounds like a job for a female condom."
Yes, female condom, please report for duty!
"With her being on hormones...condoms won’t always work"
@13 John Horstman
I think you need need to see @4 too. As soulcrusader says, we don't really know, but presumably the hormones affect her ability to get/stay hard, and a condom presumably complicates that.
@1. kellyl. The lw says clearly: 'condoms don't always work'. Their (?) intention, with their new lover, is to have sex in which they are penetrated by her, the gf's, dick. I think in this case a dick is still a dick ie the sentimental things of life apply. The rules the lw's agreed with their primary--the bf--should still hold.
As it happens, I agree with all of Dan's actual advice--though his sensitivity about respecting a transwoman's right to 'come out' as trans seems misplaced to me. Typically very many transwomen don't have that right. Nature has taken it away from them (us), or always rendered it unavailable. Either they look like transwomen, or they look like mannish women, or they look intersex. It is unconscionable that transwomen's status as women is questioned; any political or activist effort should address that issue, so that the pressure on transwomen to pass as ciswomen is removed.
This pressure is largely self-imposed anyway. My view would be that it's unreasonable in most cases for a transwoman to seek to pass as a ciswoman.
@14 if the P isn't going into the V then the condom question doesn't come up to begin with, there's nothing to use a condom on. What other reason would the question ever come up if there's a non-flaccid penis involved?
I'm relieved I'm too much of a normie monogamist to relate to this complicated situation, but I'm glad other people are out there going for it.
@4. soulcrusader. The new gf being able to get hard and stay hard without condoms but not with is plausible.
@6. unknown_entity. I think 'it's none of your business' would have been a better answer to 'is your new gf trans?' than an outright lie.
@13. John Horstman. Yep, I think you're pretty much right on all counts. There are POA issues here for the new gf. The most obvious is using barrier methods in penetrative genital sex, as per the lw's agreement with their partner. The next is being discreetly talked about, not in any spirit of sensationalism or criticism, as she touches and comes to form part of other people's sexual narratives.
I'm probably missing out on something here but...
If the girlfriend can't stay hard, then she's not likely to be penetrating the LW anyway right? So what exactly is she asking?
Does it help to reframe the conversation this way:
No penetration without a condom.
So there are other things they can do with her unwrapped dick that does not involve penetration, handjobs and rubbing and whatnot, but if there's going to be penetration, then she's got to wrap it. If not, then it doesn't matter.
My guess is this might have more to do with oral? Like, is the arrangement that they can eat pussy unprotected but they can't suck dick unprotected? In that case, it shouldn't matter the gender or hard-staying-ability of the person who has the dick, right?
I disagree that the fact that this woman has a dick means the LW should disclose. If the LW's arrangement were that she could only date women and the explicit or implicit understanding was that this meant "only vaginas" (regardless of how inaccurate that is) then I'd agree the LW would be under some requirement to clarify with her primary partner that some women have dicks to see if the "rules" change specifically because of the higher risk of dick to vagina transmission of infection + the obvious issue of potential pregnancy. HOWEVER that is not the case here- the LW's arrangement ALREADY accepts both dicks and vaginas, both men and women, so there's no practical reason why it changes any damn thing or why it's the boyfriend's business at all. What matter is that she honors their arrangement which is yes, of course you have to use a condom on her dick just like you'd have to on a man's dick. If you can't (for whatever reason that I'm not grasping here) then you will have to either a) discuss it with both parties involved which will require the girlfriend to consent to the revelation, or b) do things that do not include penetration.
@Curious, I hear you, but condoms making it harder to stay hard (ha!) is irrelevant to the arrangement that they must use condoms. Like, it might be unfortunate or a legitimate concern, but that doesn't make it a deal breaker. And sure, there might be alternatives (like female condom and dental dams instead) but that's not the current arrangement and she must first ask her boyfriend about that to clarify, not just assume. None of which is contradicted by John's post btw.
There are cis women who find it very difficult to get horny or have an orgasm if they are on hormonal birth control. If someone has an agreement with a primary partner that they can only have penetrative sex with third cis women on birth control, the fact that birth control makes sex hard for a particular partner would not be an excuse to not follow this agreement. Likewise, there are cis men who find it very difficult to have an orgasm or keep an erection with a condom and that doesn't mean someone with an arrangement like the LW's can skip the condom. There might be work arounds (different barriers, revisit the rules, etc) but it might also just be a case of "oh well then you can't have this person as your third" which is a thing that happens in open relationships- it doesn't mean you get everything you want.
Also rereading the thread, I see that people keep making the point that she might be able to stay hard w/o a condom but not with, but I think what's confusing for people is how this is relevant to her gender or to their arrangement.
Like yeah, taking hormones affects your sex life- especially negatively for women, be it birth control for cis or erection dysfunction for trans. I don't see how this changes their rules.
Seems to me that a trans person who can truly pass for their adopted sex is extremely rare, probably limited to people who with persistent gender dysphoria who had hormone treatments before puberty.
Perhaps the LW's girlfriend is in this category. Because otherwise? I'm prone to thinking she's fooling herself if she doesn't think people at least sense something is a bit "off" about her, if not understanding she's transgender and respecting her privacy by not reacting to it.
This has been my experience at least. (Of course, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I've crossed many a transgender person without being aware of it at all, but, given how rare this condition is -- no matter how trendy it's become these days -- I'm skeptical of this.) I do have family members who are transgender. Neither are able to pass as biologically female.
LW doesn't mention if her partner and her girlfriend have met. I imagine if they had, the question would most likely be moot. In any event, LW should be respecting her agreement with her partner.
First, "don't tell anyone I'm trans" doesn't translate to "lie point blank when asked." First thing NGPP needs to do is come clean with her partner and tell him why she lied. Second, I agree that it sounds like a cop-out for your girlfriend to whine that she can't get hard enough to fuck you unless she's fucking you condomless. You wouldn't put up with this BS from a dude, don't put up with it from her. Speaking as someone who's dated a trans woman on hormones, I sympathise, but if she can't get hard enough for PIV, do other things with her. It's a red flag on NGPP's part that she "recently started seeing someone" and is breaking or considering breaking some of the agreed rules of their existing relationship. (Point blank lies, I assume, are against their rules.) And asking to not use condoms with a new and otherwise partnered lover is a red flag on the GF's part. New GF needs to respect your primary relationship's rules, even if that means sometimes she doesn't get her dick wet. If condoms are a dealbreaker for her, then she needs to do what any penis owner does and seek out monogamous relationships only. (Absent these red flags, I'd be advising she give the new GF six months and then approach the idea of fluid bonding with more than one partner, but I don't trust GF to use condoms with all other partners, given her haste to do away with them with this one.)
Also, she needs to tell GF she'll respect her "don't tell anyone I'm trans" request but not absolutely; that she's being unrealistic if she thinks no one can tell, and that her partner asked and she told him the truth. If she's this self-conscious about it, she's not in good working order to date. Also she needs to accept that if she's dating poly people, those people will have certain disclosure agreements in place with their primary partners. Again, if she can't accept that then she should limit herself to monogamous people.
This forum needs a "like" button for posts @6, @7 and @8.
TheMisanthrope @9, why would he be rooting through their trash looking for condoms? If you do that, your relationship is already doomed.
ThatOtherGuy @11, yes, there are ways she could have answered that weren't a lie and weren't a "yes, she is." She could have said, "It doesn't matter to me, but rest assured that I'll be honouring our rules."
Curious @14: "With her being on hormones...condoms won’t always work" was some more mealy-mouthery. What she means is that her dick won't always work. The condoms will work just fine, given that their job is to prevent pregnancy and STIs. If hormones + condoms equal limp dick, female condoms do appear to be the solution.
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any comments on the LW's throw-away line:
"At the same time, if a guy were having trouble getting hard, the go to wouldn’t be 'let’s skip condoms then'.”
That tells me that W isn't always following their rules with guys, either. The trans part is just a smoke screen.
Used @27, she says that WOULDN'T be the go-to. Why would that suggest that she isn't using condoms with men?
The way I read that sentence was that she wouldn't let a man get away with whining that he can't get it up with a condom, so let's just have sex without condoms, so why should she be considering this when it's a trans woman? A perfectly valid point that many in the comments have echoed.
Apologies for the use of the word "whining." Some men do, in fact, have trouble keeping an erection while wearing a condom; not all are fabricating it just to get away with not having to use one. But the point is that if this were the case with a cis man, they would look for workarounds that did not involve breaking rules around condom use. Female condoms, experimenting with different brands, Viagra, blowjobs and handjobs all come to mind.
BDF@25: I don't think she needs to comment on how well her gf "passes," but I agree that she needs to make clear that she can't be in a relationship with her if it means she has to lie to her primary partner.
What does raise a minor red flag is that NGPP does not state that it's her girlfriend who's asked to not use condoms because the hormones are interfering with her ability to get an erection. If NGPP has come up with this idea on her own, Mr NGPP, watch out. NGPP flat out lied when asked a direct question and refers to "my partner's rule" about safer sex. If she's the one who's thinking of ditching the condoms because they "won't always work" (not "don't always work" -- it's not even clear that they've encountered this problem so far), then maybe she's the one who can't be trusted.
Traffic @31, yes, that's better phrased. Thanks.
"that doesn't mean someone with an arrangement like the LW's can skip the condom. There might be work arounds (different barriers, revisit the rules"
That's why my first thought @14 was revisit the rules (and propose /both/ rules). And my second thought was to agree with the recommendation of catherine_si@3 about "a female condom".
Now, as soulcrusader@4 says we don't really know the mechanics of what's up (or not up pun intended), but I've been trying to relate a little by projecting from times I've totally exhausted my refractory period. (By totally I mean not just one but many ejaculations within a too-short time.) I might then for a while only be able to get hard enough to put a condom on long enough that the hardness time equals the one second it takes to put the condom on, and only be sensitive enough to have pleasure without a condom.
If they were in this kind of functional situation, maybe the LW's GF would want to rub her (mostly) flaccid penis on the outside of the LW's genital area. It's this kind of situation which I think could call for a rule enhancement to be addressed by /both/ a female condom and swapping papers.
 But pleasurably sensitive.
Why did the bf ask in the first place? Does he ask this about everyone all the time? Or is the new GF's appearance rather obvious? Lying about something obvious doesn't always work.
My point being that if we take the LW at her word it might not be a simple binary WRT whether her GF's penis works or not. I think it's understandable that she might not have wanted to lay out details that would to most people be embarrassing.
@27 I don't agree that it follows she's not using condoms with men - I got the sense that she felt because this person was trans that the dangers presented by a throbbing, pulsating, cis-male member were somehow lessened or erased by the taking of hormones. A lot of people have no kind of wariness unless they're dealing with cis men. LW should be wary of anyone tryna stick even a tongue or finger in her pussy, IMO.
@35 either through interaction, or by copious anti-hints dropped by the GF. I slightly lean to the latter, because LW strikes me as the type who is a bit too conspicuous with their use of "they" and other dodging-the-issue formulations.
The girlfriend of course has the right to come out when and to whom she chooses.
However, I'm a little surprised that Dan didn't reference his "not coming out, dragging me in with you" line in regard to this one.
The GF has placed this woman in the position of having to lie to her partner. How was that a loving thing to do?
This one is super easy.
"New GF, I get it that it sucks not being able to get hard without a condom because of the hormones. But my agreement with my boyfriend is no penis penetration without a condom, and any change in that, regardless of the circumstances, would require a conversation with my boyfriend. Anything else would be a betrayal and cheating. And I understand about not wanting to come out, and if you don't want me to tell anyone I won't. But that means I can't have that conversation with my boyfriend, which means no penis penetration. So it's up to you: I bring this up with my boyfriend and we MIGHT be able to renegotiate some rules, or your penis doesn't penetrate. What would you prefer?"
Alysounn @35, it seemed logical that the girlfriend's appearance is a giveaway, and that therefore NGPP's lie was just as obvious. That's why I think she needs to own up to it straightaway and explain why she lied. Because now the boyfriend knows she's a liar and is wondering what else she isn't telling him.
Curious @36, if we presume it's the girlfriend who's asked to stop using condoms, my thought it that sometimes the girlfriend's dick works and sometimes it doesn't work as well, but the odds are better if condoms are not involved. If this is NGPP's idea, she is probably making an assumption from experience that if turgidity is an issue, going bareback may help. NGPP, if this is your thought process, please drop the idea. If testosterone blockers are interfering with her erections, condoms are not going to make a difference.
RE: “...my partner’s rule is "swap papers" (STI test results) with people who have vaginas and "use condoms" with people who have penises. ”
This quote from the LW implies a misunderstanding (or ignorance) of how protective from infection condoms actually are. As we all know, “safer” sex does not equal full protection. Why in the world would this (primary) couple just agree to require “papers” only from cis-female partners and not require “papers” from ALL those involved, regardless of whether the new sex partner has a penis or not?
@41 probably because there are alot of people who don't use barriers for oral sex, but do use barriers for vaginal and anal sex.
@2/Janell8me2 and @41/SNJ-RN: I believe you are misunderstanding what NGPP wrote. What she is expressing are what is required of the third parties with whom she has sex, these are not the rules for NGPP, but I suspect that it is a given than his female partners need to provide STI test results and he must use a condom.
SNJ @41, good point. Why not require STI results from the penis havers (and condoms as a backup/to prevent pregnancy)? Under their system, a man can go down on NGPP without an STI test but a woman cannot.
And I realise I should have been using the pronoun "they," mea culpa.
Sublime @43, yeah, that seems to get stranger the more I think about it. The way I read it is that Mr SGPP is a straight man, and therefore his rule is that he uses condoms with all partners, but SGPP is bisexual, therefore not all their partners will have a penis to put a condom on. So when both SGPP and their partner have vaginas, he requires them to ask the partner for (and presumably also get) an STI test. But since he isn't requiring STI tests from his vagina-having partners, because he's wearing condoms, this attempt at equitability has failed. Either they all get STI tests or oral with untested partners is a risk they're both willing to take.
realistically, Swap Papers should probably just be universal, right?
Well, at least LW is forearmed for the next relationship. And GF, for that matter. Default agreements on how to keep to the spirit of partnership agreements when confronted by a situation not previously specified are apparently not just for bridge players.
This one might have been a good letter on which to get the perspective of Mr Urquhart as Guest Expert.
@23. Marty. Yes. I think you're bringing up the big issue, the big anxiety on the new gf's part, in a way some other commenters are swerving.
It's not possible to me that the bf asked, 'is she trans?' out of aversion or any sort of vindictiveness. He's dating a NB person. He will be more au fait with the complexity and fluidity of gender than many guys. He was maybe just curious. The right answer would have been, 'it's none of your business; but of course I'm respecting our rules'.
In due course, she could have softened somewhat and said something like, '[Guinevere] has a maybe conflicted relationship to her embodied gender and wants to be private about it. Don't worry, I'm respecting our rules. Maybe you'll find out more of her story when she's comfortable telling you'.
I like Bi's idea of 'like' buttons. I'd go for a 'Gold Star' comment button--'advice is correct, judiciously expressed and sensitive'--and also an [quiz show error sound] 'advice is wrong' button.
Harriet @48, since we can't have a button that's a sound, a simple thumbs down would suffice for "disagree." And how about a picture of some hairy testicles to denote "you're talking bollocks"? :)
Nice. With the brackets you present whimsy to your reader.
(Without the brackets you would have presented to the reader a frustrating waste of time as they scoured the letter, the comments upthread, and their memory of the collective consciousnesses to try to figure out who the named person was. And good communication is not a treasure hunt, let alone a futile one.)
I'm really surprised Dan's answer wasn't a simple "don't date closet cases", for the many, many reasons he's given similar advice in the past. Adding trans and non-binary and whatever caveats to this scenario doesn't seem to change that principle. If the new person wasn't asking them to hide a secret, there wouldn't be a problem.
Could the LW have a penis? Guess it doesn't matter but I was reading the letter as being from a cis woman and now I see they are NB which made me realize there is no indication of the LW's genitalia either. I just default hetnormed it the first time around.
Regardess, circling back to the papers question, I assume the rules are that way because if all penises are wrapped then all penetrative sex is safer already, and eating pussy is a lot harder to do with a barrier (though for all we know these guys use gloves and dental dams and a hazmat suit) so they ask for papers from vagina havers. Why not from penis-havers either? Because the level of risk they are willing to accept from using condoms is OK with them. My own guess is that they are probably only concerned about certain STIs.
As for the lying, I think it is better for them to have a conversation about what privacy. If it's a "you must tell me everything when asked" situation, then they need to tell their lovers that up front. If it's not, then they need to be clearer about what they share with each other.
In this particular situaiton, if the boyfriend thinks the woman is trans, then it's either because he knows something about her socially/personally or it's because she doesn't pass. I think the LW is under no obligation to tell him but it does mean the boyfriend likely know he's been lied to - it's a situation that can be a problem for them regardless that no one is "at fault". So they need to work out their rules so that it doesnt happen again. Just set up a ground rule of "we don't share personal live details of our lovers, and we don't ask about it so long as it's not breaking our rules" which in this case, it shouldn't.
Which really brings me back to the bizarre nature of this letter's core question- why in the world would this woman being trans have anything at all to do with their rules? She has a penis. Your rules are you wrap penises. It seems weird that the LW is already thinking of it differently. Could be that the LW (or the lover) does not refer to her penis that way and so they've started to think of it differently? If it's just a question of the mechanics (erection probs with condom) then that is an unfortunate situation but that doesn't mean they get to break the rules and lie to the LW's partner. It could just mean they are not sexually compatible under these current circumstances or that they have to limit to other things. Weird that they'd jump from any of that to "well maybe I can break the rules". Not a good sign for the primary relationship.
@11 "pfft yes, of course"
@49. Bi. Yes--it's the picture of hairy bollocks curious should have sent me as my avatar. (The only reason I haven't that, or some other, avatar up and running is that I'm a technophobe).
@1 @2 It took some thinking but I presumably the test for vaginas and condoms for penis is because of the pregnancy issue. Her male partner also wears a condom because he has a penis. A paper test for a penis haver, as one would say, does not work as well because its easier to catch STD like HIV when a penis is involved then it is with two vaginas. And everyone could be on birth control and including the low probability hormone replacement and a pregnancy could still happen. Its not worth it to risk it, considering one can acquire a STI/STD immediately afterwards, where as there is so such thing as female condom, while there is but its more cumbersome and again, pregnancy still possible.
I agree with the people here that she does not have permission to lie to her primary partner because.....well her lover asked her too? if she had asked him if he was sleeping with men, would he be allowed to lie to her about it because he wanted to protect his closed lovers privacy? of course not.
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.