its number 51483131 and 09/09/2009 at 1:21pm by Anonymous - love - I agree, your life sucks : 34192 - you totally deserved it : 2362  (YLS and YTDI) will change

it reads "Today, I found out why my husband had wanted to wait until marriage to get it on. Last night was the first night of our honeymoon, and he informed me that he wasn't always Ben, but used to be Brenda. His 'penis' doesn't work and he had wanted to know I "truly loved him" before he had let me know. FML"

discuss

I confess to being very skeptical about the authenticity of FML entries.  If true, then this Ben needs a vigorous slapping.  That's a crappy thing to do to someone.

I agree with finewine on this one.

i think it was a VERY BAD idea to do this to his fiance/wife.  thats just nutters.  on the comments, a lot of people are like "if you love him, you'll stay married", but theyre assuming that the OP has a problem with trans people, but in reality, its about the HUUUGE lie and trapping her in a legal contract without disclosing details relevant to such contract.

a lot of other people on there are "defending" trans people but theyre completely ignorant about it, which bothers me even more than the people who are just hating to be hating.

i think her problem is less than she married a transman, but more that she married some dude who couldn't even be honest with her before they got married. what a jerk 

I saw this, he's a jackass xD

Quote from: Josh on September 10, 2009, 11:27:38 AM
i think it was a VERY BAD idea to do this to his fiance/wife.  thats just nutters.  on the comments, a lot of people are like "if you love him, you'll stay married", but theyre assuming that the OP has a problem with trans people, but in reality, its about the HUUUGE lie and trapping her in a legal contract without disclosing details relevant to such contract.

Not disclosing your status is not the same as lying.  He is male, period.

Quote from: Mister on September 10, 2009, 02:43:10 PM
Not disclosing your status is not the same as lying.  He is male, period.

I have to respectfully disagree in this particular scenario because (a) I find it unlikely that the topic of sex before marriage didn't crop up and hence he would have lied about the reason for waiting and (b) a "lie of omission"* is still a lie.

* (deliberately concealing important and relevant information so as to leave someone with a false impression)

Quote from: finewine on September 10, 2009, 03:10:31 PM
I have to respectfully disagree in this particular scenario because (a) I find it unlikely that the topic of sex before marriage didn't crop up and hence he would have lied about the reason for waiting and (b) a "lie of omission"* is still a lie.

* (deliberately concealing important and relevant information so as to leave someone with a false impression)

As for the sex, maybe they're born again and saving themselves.  Who knows.

As for the rest, I'm quite surprised that you, as a partner of a transperson, are taking this stance.  Your definition of omission seems to be used to make the argument that while the guy-in-question lives as male, is male bodied, more than likely is male on his legal documentation and is known to his wife as nothing but male, is somehow not truly a man.  Perhaps you're having a moment of 'manlier-than-thou' or something, but your opinion is pretty transphobic.

My son and I were discussing this yesterday. We both agreed that this was beyond an unacceptable thing to do to somebody. While I personally believe that having to disclose our trans past is just totally unfair (a discussion for another thread), I realize that it is expected, else you get the "lie of omission" thrown at you. I agree that this person is a man, but he hid the fact he was unable to perform sexually, which was something expected of him. This fact must be disclosed before marriage, and certainly should have been early on in the relationship (along with his trans history.)

Personally, I would have immediately filed for an annulment, and likely have received one easily. Marriage under false pretenses. Not the trans issue - but the sex one.

Quote from: Rebecca Liz on September 10, 2009, 03:42:50 PMI agree that this person is a man, but he hid the fact he was unable to perform sexually, which was something expected of him

So if my wife fails to orgasm, I should be able to get an annulment?

Personally, I don't consider it to be as big a deal as it is made out to be.

I would disclose to a potential partner, but nobody else unless they're medical personnel, esp. if I've had lower surgery.  IMO a life partner needs to know.  I would hate for her to find out after the fact from someone else, and it would allow her to bow out gracefully from the relationship.

That said, I'm highly doubtful I'll ever get that far with a lady, so it's likely a moot point anyhow.

Jay

Let me rephrase, and then I'm going to back out of this thread. I tire of the nitpicking, sorry.

If I was being denied sex for the duration of a relationship, because it was being saved for marriage, and I was not told that the genitals being withheld were the expected ones for the presented gender, only to find out after marriage that they were not a) the expected ones, b) the ones I prefer and c) incapable of being used the way I wanted... Well, yes, I would most likely be extremely pissed, and would likely want out. Mostly because of the lie, not because of the genitals. This should have definitely been discussed before entering into a marriage contract.

And yes, I'm postop MTF, so I have a very personal interest in these situations. I hate that I have to disclose, but that's life. But with me, the only issue will be that of acceptance, as I'm very capable of performing as expected.

Lots of men can't "sexually perform" as is expected of them.  Lots of men don't necessarily look the way a partner would want them to look.  It's made to be an issue because people perceive transitioned or transitioning men as "female" rather than "male", not because of the condition of their genitals.  The lie is taken as much more dramatic than it would be if the man were born simply infertile, or not capable of sexual function.  If that were the case, it would be seen as cold-hearted to divorce the person.  It's an issue they can't control.  To withhold information is almost predictable.  I can imagine any "biological man" would be quick to cover up any issue that related to his sexual performance or lack thereof.

Its part of the legal definition of marriage, if you can't, or will not sexually perform at the time of the marriage - then you have legal and valid grounds to have it annulled.  In this case, she might well have a good shot at a lawsuit against him for misrepresentation and making false promises, and breech of promise.

Seems like a pretty rotten thing to do to someone you love.

Ok, so by not telling her outright, he's acknowledging his underpants status could be a potential dealbreaker for her.

So he deliberately hid that fact until they were bound in a legal contract.

I wouldn't say he lied to her directly, but moves like that are more commonly associated with used car salesmen.


Truth be told, I do agree somewhat with both points of view.

He's a man just like any other man, and he shouldn't have to keep bringing up the past if he chooses not to.

But on the other hand, hiding a potential dealbreaker from the person you're about to share your life with in order to trap them into a legal contract is a pretty gutless move (does he think she'll be less likely to leave after the marriage papers are signed or something?).


Would we expect a cisman with a non-working / absent / mangled penis to disclose it to his girlfriend before she became his wife?

If it were a cisman with a problem instead of an FTM in this situation, would we be having the same reaction?

Quote from: Teknoir on September 10, 2009, 10:01:19 PM
I wouldn't say he lied to her directly, but moves like that are more commonly associated with used car salesmen.

I love how you phrased that. 

I also agree somewhat with both points. On the one hand, his medical history is his business and both men and women often leave out less flattering aspects of their history, such as number of partners, abortions, etc. But on the other hand, if he's not post-op, it's pretty messed up not to disclose he's got a hole. If he's post-op though, the issue muddies. His trans condition is a thing of the past.

Yeah I think he should've told her. What's in his pants does matter, especially when sex is involved. Used car salesman indeed. I'm sure his wife expected a functional penis and he knew it.

SilverFang