Lets talk about sex (again)

[erastes]

Jessewave has an interesting discussion going (I love Jessewave's Blog because she so often has interesting discussions) about "m/m" and the level of sex and emotional impact within them. E.g. what do people like? When is too much? Etc etc. Pop along and add your two cents.

What interested me was the promiscuity section. I've seen this discussed on many a het romance forum and I am gobsmacked that most people don't want promiscuity in their book, or unfaithfulness at least. They don't want any unfaithfulness at all from their heroes once they've met "the one."  I find this baffling, really.  Unfaithfulness (as I said in the discussion) is a standard romance trope.

I mean - look at Gone with the Wind (to pull one title from the ether) if Scarlett had remained "true" to either Ashley or Rhett it would have been a much smaller, and a much lesser book. She wouldn't have got married twice for a start.

In these discussions of both types (m/f and m/m) people say they won't read on if someone is unfaithful--they'd certainly not have got far with Standish then, with Rafe and his brain in his breeches.

Do you agree?  Do you think it's because people think--deep down--that a Rake can't ever be reformed and that the HEA won't last?

So after you've commented on Wave's discussion, pop back and talk to me about unfaithfulness, will ya?

ETA: R W Day is also discussing this, purely co-incidentally, so go and chat to her too!!

Comments

[kethlenda.livejournal.com]

Well, there are the classic "romantic" stories, of which GWTW is an example, in which you often have infidelity as a plot device, and then there's the current "romance" genre as has developed over the last few decades. There really are rules, when writing for some of the lines of romance novels, that neither of the protags can shag anyone else after they've met. And a lot of people prefer that rule to be upheld. I remember, when I used to read a lot of romance novels, there would be novels where the hero had a mistress and then, once he met The One, he suddenly had absolutely no desire to roger his mistress. Which I thought was kind of unrealistic even when I was a teen.

I wonder if your theory about believing the HEA won't last is why.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Nod nod, and it's these silly (and quite unrealistic) rules which make me baffled.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Wow, talk about timely. I was just ranting about this on my wordpress blog, because I started really thinking about Ashes and how certain characters' actions will not suit the portion of the reading audience that believes once two people in a romance meet, they should be forever faithful no matter what.

Real relationships are complex, real people are complicated. I don't understand readers wanting cardboard cutout characters who aren't allowed to explore their sexuality or make a mistake once in a while.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Couldn't agree more, and have added a link to your post, too.

Mistakes! YES! Growth! All very important things.

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

I think unfaithfulness, temptation, and everything that goes with them can add complexity to characters, even the shiny hero. Promiscuity, infidelity for their own sake don't do much for me, but they can add wonderful dimensions to character and plot. But then, I'm not an HEA fundamentalist, either in reading or writing.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I agree-if it's done convincingly, there shouldn't be any barriers to what a character gets up to.

[crawling-angel.livejournal.com]

I'll have to comment tomorrow as I'm off to the Place of W *sob* in half an hour.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

No problems sweetie!

[stacia-seaman.livejournal.com]

GWTW is not, in the strict sense, a romance--although one can argue that the main pairing is between Scarlett and Tara. A book that contains a romance--even a central romance--is not necessarily a genre romance novel.

Unfaithfulness may be a standard romance trope, but it usually involves someone who is discarded and frees up the H/h to find someone new.

For people who read genre romance, fidelity and HEA are usually necessary requirements, just as mystery readers expect a resolution of the mystery.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer to have the fidelity or the infidelity make sense in terms of personality. Some characters will be chronically faithful, yes. Others will be deeply in love and still be complete horndogs. Still others will fall hard for one person but not want to hurt their lover of multiple years by dumping him or her on his/her arse. And others may be in two different relationships and getting something special--above and beyond the sex--from each one.

People are complicated. And the complications permit different events to happen in the story. It's far better, in terms of plot and character development, to allow the characters in a story to be themselves, rather than shoehorning them into a concept of fidelity that may not make sense in terms of who the character is.

Mystery readers, by the way, do not expect, or indeed always get, a resolution to the mystery. Nowadays, murders and other crimes can go unsolved in mystery stories. Criminals can remain uncaught--and do, in novels ranging from Ed McBain to Andrew Vachss. A mystery may be from the point of view of the criminal--see anything from Raffles or the Saint series to Harris's Hannibal and Red Dragon--in which the audience is rooting for the criminal to get away with it. There is no real set pattern for mysteries anymore, save that a crime has been committed and someone wants to solve it. Success is not predetermined any longer. I think it's better that way.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Part of it, I think, is that I dislike too much of the "genre" tag. If GWTW was published today it would be forced to be put into one pigeon hole or another, as people seem obsessed with sticking labels on everything.

I think RW Day's post (added to the main post) sums it up better than I could ever say, it's almost impossible in some cases to force your characters to be faithful as they wander about separated from the "one" that they love. Men simply aren't going to say "oh no! I must be true to my sweetheart" they are going to take what's offered, and yes that's a generalisation, but largely true, specially if they think they can get away with it.

Oh yes, I agree with you about the "discarded" part, I generally make 'em leave or kill them off, but some people say they won't read any unfaithfulness. I can only say it would make Transgressions a very very dull book if my protags kept themselves purely for each other when the Civil War tears them apart!!

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

Okay, as a romance reader, to ME, once the protagonists of the book meet and commit to each other, THEN they must be faithful. If the hero has fucked every person he's met, it's a bit gross (Duke of Slut, anyone?), but even then, I can still believe that once he finds TWU WUV he won't stray as long as I believe in that TWU WUV. I think, for me, this comes down to how I think about marriage -- in real life -- it is a commitment to be with that person given in front of God and everyone, and you don't break that promise. You just don't. So if someone is breaking marriage vows, I get unhappy and think of that as unfaithfulness. (I know men can't get married to each other in historical romances, but I feel that a commitment is just as sacred for them, since that's all they can legally have.) I don't think of having more than one spouse (if one has died, or divorce has happened) or having had previous lovers as being unfaithful, either, as long as the having other lovers ends once a commitment is made.

(Edited to add a bit of clarity to my last statement)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

But that didn't happen in Standish, and I thought you enjoyed it anyway?

[lferion]

I don't see 'having sex with other people' as by definition unfaithful. I think it depends on the characters, the relationship(s) they have, the expectations they have of themselves and others and the circumstances they live in. But then, I believe in polyamory too :-). Even with marriage it is going to depend on what it was the people actually swore to each other.

I, personally, have an embarrasment squick, and I really don't like reading the parts where characters I care about are being Really Stupid (Miles Vorkosigan at the beginning of 'Memory') though I like the recovering from the consequences part. (I really don't like suspense, either -- it makes me feel physically ill -- so 'waiting for the other shoe to drop' is not my favorite part of that scenario either.)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't either. Granted if the couple have gone and got married, that's another matter, but still managable. But just because a couple of whatever gender and orientation have fallen in love that doesn't imply any kind of commitment necessarily and as you say, it depends entirely on the plot, the characters and the circumstances.

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

Yet again my ignorance of what is expected in a romance is my shield. I didn't know about this rule, and I did exactly that in False Colors; separated the heroes and had one of them fall for someone else. I don't think of that as infidelity, though, because they didn't at that point ever think they would see each other again. In those circumstances it would be stupid for them both to determine never to love again.

I do have a problem with infidelity where the couple are together, have agreed to be mutually faithful, and one member is going behind the other's back, knowing the other would be horribly hurt if he found out. But even then I wouldn't stop reading, and depending on the author I might even be brought to have some sympathy with the cheat.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

Yes. All depends on context!

Sorry have randomly decided to assault this post, Alex!

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

I think readers have a tendency to overidentify with characters in a relationship. Just look at the concept of OTP in fandom. It depends on what people are looking for when they read (and this applies to other media as well - TV shows, movies, etc.) Once people become invested in a couple, especially on an emotional level, the notion of infidelity can become almost painful. Whether it's realistic or not (and in many cases, it's not) doesn't matter. For a lot of people, myself included, fiction is escapism, and the levels of escapism are many-faceted.

One of the biggest tropes in fictional relationships, whether your story is a romance or action-adventure - is the reformation of the "bad boy" (or "bad girl") Here's this character who sleeps around, or flits around the world doing whatever, and is usually emotionally unfulfilled in some capacity, until he/she meets "the one". There's a reason this is a popular fictional trope. Because it's not realistic, and in real life, how many women (and men) enter into relationships thinking they can change the partner? It happens all the time, and it rarely works. The whole "power of love" thing (or really good sex, or whatever). It's a fantasy, and I think people crave it in fiction because it's not very realistic.

Even Indiana Jones - action to the core - used romance in that fashion, but boy were those Indy/Marion shippers from Raiders disappointed when Kate Capshaw was cast in Temple of Doom.

I was never really a hardcore shipper before I came to online fandom and saw how shipping was practically everything. Shipping makes even the most rational of people go a little bonkers at times, which you are obviously fully aware of. :-P You'd been part of fandom for a long time and watched the epic ship wars unfold.

People become attached - sometimes scarily so - and they take what happens to the characters they love almost personally. Okay, more than almost - a number of them DO take it personally, and the notion of infidelity is like an affront - heartbreakingly so. That's just how it is when people become invested.

It also depends on how the infidelity is written. In the Outlander books (I know you read Lord John, but I'm not sure if you ventured into those or not) Claire is married to Frank, goes back in time and is obviously unfaithful - she marries Jamie. But that was overwhelmingly accepted because Frank was deemed boring and Jamie was larger than life and everyone fell in love with him along with Claire. That much I'm sure you know. Following are spoilers.

Later in the story, Claire eventually goes back to Frank in the future and is unfaithful to Jamie because of circumstances. Frank also cheats on her, because while Claire is physically unfaithful, she's still in love with Jamie. (of course people forgive Claire and Jamie much more readily than they forgive Frank because Frank is "other" and Jamie/Claire is OTP) In his time, Jamie is still in love with Claire, and his moments of temporary infidelity are whitewashed because the readers know he's not really 'cheating' emotionally. As far as he knows, Claire is gone and never coming back. He's mostly forgiven, even by Claire later when she's confronted with two of his, ah, transgressions.

But the reader is told and shown that Jamie/Claire is epic and transcends time, so while there is indignation here and there by fans, eventually all is forgiven. But not all stories have circumstances like this one. With Outlander, the whole premise begins with infidelity writ large. But because Jamie is the dashing hero who everyone wants Claire to end up with anyway, her infidelity to Frank is welcomed and strongly encouraged by the reader. (In many corners of Outlander fandom, the Frank hate (and/or indifference) is very strong.)

So, (in conclusion :-P) I think it's about the notion of OTPs and the level of emotional investment people have in the fictional relationship at hand. Once they get their teeth (and hearts) into a ship, anything the author does that goes against it is going to strike a nerve. Particularly if the author interferes with the happily ever after.

Outlander discussion/spoilers ho!

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

I never did get why Frank was such a bad guy in those, you know? Before Claire went back in time, I thought they had a reasonable marriage, and I hear that he accepted her child by Jamie fully as her father. So he couldn't have been THAT bad of a man.

Disclaimer: I have only read the first two fully, and the third one in bits and pieces, because I never really got all the Jamie-love, and I also thought the characters were kind of ridiculous in their over-the-top-ness.

[eternalism.livejournal.com]

Personally, I like it when characters are faithful to each other in relationships. However, that doesn't mean that I won't read anything else. As much as I like it when the characters stick together (especially when I really get into what I'm reading and find myself as tangled up in the characters as they are in each other, so to speak), I also enjoy reading realistic portrayals, and that includes infidelity. People cheat. People cheat a lot smetimes. Sometimes they think they're completely invested in one person and then along comes this other guy who trips all of their triggers and things start to get interesting. I like the tension created by that, seeing how all of the characters react to things. Infidelity as a plot device and a way of establishing character development can be a page-turner if done right! Is character A going to end up with character B, or C? Or both? Or neither? It makes me want even more to find out how the story will progress.

And to be honest, as much as I like the feeling I get from committed characters, there's something kinda wonderful about reading about someone who whips it out at every opportunity. Again, so long as it's done well, of course. I've read things from people who write characters like that rather badly. If I'm bored during the sex scenes, something's being done wrong. :p

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I like it, but I don't think it should become a romance rule--it does disturb me when I see submission calls stating that no infidelity will be accepted or when readers say they will stop reading the book at that point.

I think you put it very well, that it can - done correctly - be a valid character trait and how the book deals with that is often the reason I enjoy to read them.

[sleveen.livejournal.com]

I find this baffling, really. Unfaithfulness (as I said in the discussion) is a standard romance trope.

Yes! That's why in But Not For Me Stanley is temporarily seduced into an amorous fling with Richard Kelly - it IS a standard romance trope, you're absolutely right, and it keeps the reader reading. What the hell is Stanley doing? Is this a reaction to Nino's lifestyle? (Or the fact that Nino is hell-bent on starting a gang war with Big Frank's mob...) Will Stanley come back, or is he lost to Nino forever???

I agree - unfaithfulness is a time-honoured romance trope and, when the lovers reunite, I think the making up can be pretty damn hot. :)

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

See, I'm terrible (btw loved your post but don't have time to read -must swim - so will comment later!), I have two characters where one does not actually care that the other is unfaithful, because it is not in his nature to really give a shit as long as he comes home to him. And I see nothing wrong with this *waits to be attacked by the romance police* because I don't think what I'm writing is romance, more a social commentary on church versus secularism in 15th C florence and how "plus ca change, plus la meme chose"

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

After thinking that I only wrote dyadic relationships, and very monogamous ones at that, recently I found myself writing a triad instead. This poly stuff happened just by following what the characters insisted on. There's a serious trust issue involved in whether you the writer believe them, and then whether the reader believes it once you're done, too. Polyamorous relationships have additional demands for honesty, of course.
That's entirely aside from whether you believe a basically non-monogamous person will ever change--which is what you expect when you insist a rakehell slut will change his ways.
However, let's not get the rake confused with the sad little seeker of a guy who's never found the right person, and drifts from one SO to the next, unhappily in search of *something* when he himself is the one who is broken and needs fixing--and during the course of the book, he really does grow and develop enough to change.
That's a tough one to sell. You have to show the state he starts in, how he changes, and why a new SO is either unique enough to be the perfect fit, or else is pretty much just like the others but maybe a slightly better fit, when zillions of past one didn't work before.
It is more satisfying, plotlinewise, if the new SO themselves that does this growth spurt on th seeker. Then you have to show how they manage to force changes which previous SOs couldn't get him to go through before.
That's a tall order!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Excellently put--it is a tough thing to justify but it can be done.

And right now, I'm going to be a hypocrite.

[ctrl-issue.livejournal.com]

Why do I say this? Because I do believe in open relationships, and I do believe in poly-relationships, and I do believe that the standard One True Love (OTL) trope is a joke. But I don’t read ménage stories. And I don’t read stories with infidelity. I don’t write either of them, either (which isn’t to say that I couldn’t, I just don’t).

Why? I don’t read ménage stories because they are typically written only for the purpose of writing the sex, and it makes me physically ill to see that. Not to mention that they’re written worse that most of the other trash that I read (and I read some serious trash). And if people think that a ménage’s “love” will carry them through, wow, are those some really, really stupid people. Because if they think making a ‘couple’ work is hard, they have no idea how hard it is to make a poly-relationship work. And love is certainly not enough to make it function if that’s all there is that is keeping them together.

And because the kind of open relationships I believe in are founded in trust, and if a person cheats once, the only thing you can trust with them is that they’re going to do it again. Disloyalty is as much of a character trait as anything else, and if a person proves that they are disloyal, I for one NEVER trust them again, no matter what they do. I don’t care if they freakin’ DIE for the other person. They are still labeled as “bad” in my book. And I don’t root for those people.

When I read a “romance”, that’s what I want. I want the romance. I don’t even want the sex 9 times out of 10 (especially with how bad some of these sex scenes are written), I want the kissing, I want the growing to know each other, the winning and impressing and the seduction. And disloyalty is the death of all of that for me. If I read a character cheating, it throws me completely out of the story, and if that was the main point OF the story, well, then, there’s no point in me picking the book back up.

That being said, if a character uses sex as a way to get the upper hand over an opponent, and their partner knows about it before hand, I’m totally cool with it, and cheer them on. Because at that point, it’s not cheating. The other person has given the seducer/seductress permission. However, if the seducer/seductress ‘falls’ for their prey, I not only roll my eyes, but I give up on them being a cool character. Because that isn’t cool.

I want the characters I care about to have happily-ever-afters, which means that I want the story to end with them being able to live much simpler lives than they lived during the actual story. Complications = plot, true, but just because a story is really complicated doesn’t mean I’d want to read it. I still haven’t even TOUCHED (or watched) Gone With The Wind (mainly because I never liked Scarlet, and now that I know she was disloyal I like her even less).

So, yeah. There’s me being a hypocrite.

Re: And right now, I'm going to be a hypocrite.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I still haven’t even TOUCHED (or watched) Gone With The Wind (mainly because I never liked Scarlet, and now that I know she was disloyal I like her even less).

Depends on how you define disloyal.

Scarlett fell for Ashley Wilkes when she was about sixteen. She accepted the proposal of her first husband right after she told Ashley she loved him and he rejected her. (And I mean RIGHT after--about fifteen minutes to a half hour after. Talk about rebound relationships.) She married her second husband because he had a lot of money, she and the remnants of her household were starving and she couldn't pay the taxes on Tara, so they were all about to lose their home. She married Rhett, basically, because he was rich (and at this point, money to Scarlett meant security and safety in a Reconstructionist world) and because he promised her that this marriage would be fun.

She loved Ashley through three marriages. She only lost interest in him when she realized that the man she thought she loved wasn't real. She described it in the book as making a suit of clothes that she thought was beautiful, and then forcing Ashley to wear the suit. She thought she loved the man, but what she loved was the image she'd created for him.

But was she physically unfaithful any of her husbands? Never.

[kittymay.livejournal.com]

Personal views aside, as a writer I have to give two seperate views on this having written a story where infidelity was key to the plot (and in my opinion, the reasons for it were valid if undesirable) and where the other partner 'put up' with all the (dire) consequences thereof because he understood why it happened, no matter how much he hated it and ultimately how much it cost them both.
On the other side, in the main one I am doing at the moment, fidelity (between the [male] couple) is absolutely key. Without it, the point would be missed entirely.

I'd say it depends on the story. I mean, Rafe in Standish was annoying because he couldn't keep his trousers on, but it was part of the story. You wanted to reach into the book and slap him, but at the same time, you wanted him to git nekkid with teh Italian...*coughs* : )
Personality of the characters is significant. If everyone was always faithful it would soon seem like you were reading the same story again..and again...and again.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Absolutely - it's an excellent point. I think that all situations are possible, and all SHOULD be explored. To allow romance to paint itself into some prissy comfortable corner would be to allow itself to damage itself hugely.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

See, now, I do perceive a benefit in the use of genres--not as rigid definitions, but as general categories and time-savers. I can't and won't read horror. I'm either spooked or amused by stories about squishy monsters in New England cellers (HP Lovecraft did expand my vocabulary of unconventional adjectives, but I won't be asking for a crocheted Cthulu for Chthrithmath).

Sci-fi? Sure, if it's about people solving problems and learning things. but the apocalyptic variety where everybody either blows up at the end or wishes they had? No thanks. If I want to read a good mystery I do not want to wind up with a book where some young woman whose biggest conundrum is trying to decide which of her three unsatisfactory swains is the least obnoxious is, as a subplot, obsessed with uncomfortable designer shoes. ("Chick-lit" is an unflattering category title, but I've tried to read books in the genre half a dozen times and they bore me witless.) If I want to read something historical, I don't want vampires popping out of the clothes-press. I expect advance warning so I can avoid an 'inspirational' where it's three to a bed and one of the triad is Jesus.

Since I've started writing seriously, I read so much non-fiction (and some fiction) for historical information that I've become much more selective about my recreational reading, and genres are useful. This probably does mean I miss a few really good books.

But it also means that I sometimes come across books tucked into one category or another (Standish is a good example) that really transcend the genre--which is why I think it's good if genres have flexible boundaries, and if books are classified in more than one genre. It's a pain to have a genre that's too rigidly defined, but I think that varies from one publisher to another, and I suspect that some of the 'romance' definitions are getting so rigid that the system is ripe for some publisher to break out of the mold and go back to doing the sort of books that were written a couple of decades back, before the self-appointed morality police decided they had the right to define romance.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I suppose I didn't make myself clear, yes, genre is OK as a general label, you don't want to pick up a book without a label if you are particularly looking for Romance and find Horror, but it's the over-labelling that I dislike, I just wonder where it will end, will romance books end up with huge warnings on them in the same way that some fanfics did? e.g. M/M, infidelity, character death, vanilla, some BDSM, powerplay, blah blah blah - you don't need to read the book.

[aphephobia.livejournal.com]

I don't think sexual infidelity discounts love, nor do I think only having sex with one person means "love." (And I mean in real life as much as in fiction. If sex and monogamy automatically meant True Love, I think people would be a lot more awar of where everyone stands with one another and things might be a bit easier.)

People are more complicated than that, they can make mistakes or fall victim to bad judgement or hormones or the thrill or the forbidden or a desire to feel something they mightn't be getting at home. And sex is just sex-- it doesn't neccessarily mean anything more than that. Or it might mean something in one context with someone, but with someone else, it might mean something entirely different.

Then of course, there's polyamory-- I'm not poly, myself, though I've heard of situations where other people do it and that works for them and as long as everyone's honest with one another and no one's getting used or stuffed around, I don't see what the issue is. Sometimes being with other people makes people realise how much more they want one particular person, too.


And anyway, to me, a love story involves something which requires some effort: wheer characters re fighting the odds or their own demons or otherwise efforts to keep them apart, where it might be less risky and a lot easier to not be together, but where the fact that they love one another gets in the way of that.

In that context... infidelity can offer another obstacle and make it that bit harder to work for.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

infidelity can offer another obstacle and make it that bit harder to work for.

EXACTLY. It can add a huge layer to the novel which can be fascinating to work out.

[jessewave.livejournal.com]

Hey Erastes
If I had known there was another discussion going here I would have joined in earlier. *g* Here's one of my comments in response to a poster on the question of "cock whores."

Can heroes be promiscuous? When do readers stop forgiving them for being "cock whores?"

In response to this comment - "But once the h/h hook up, I prefer them to be exclusive if the book is billed as an erotic romance."

This is part of my response:
This is really an issue if authors are not going to portray gay men somewhat realistically but through rose coloured glasses. Even women cheat in real life and in books and I don't understand why readers get so upset if one of the heroes cheats (but eventually at the end of the book there is an HEA.) Almost 6 years after it was written, Chris Owen's bestseller Bareback is still garnering admiration and criticism. If the writers don't give us flawed protags (cheating could be a real character flaw, creating major conflict in the relationship - check out Josh Lanyon's The Hell You Say, his most controversial book in the Adrien English Mysteries) wouldn't we, as readers, question their characterizations as being totally unrealistic?

I know that books are supposed to create fantasies to light up our dull lives, but don't we need a few dashes of reality in these books mixed in with the fantasy? Most gay men (they do read M/M romances) who criticize these books point out that the characterizations in most cases are unrealistic (hot looking men bedding equally hot looking men who have no body flaws). What I'm say is that gay relationships like het relationships have the same issues, which include cheating.

Wave

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'm loving the discussion at your blog, am reading them all avidly! Thanks for weighing in here - I didn't like to bellow about it over there!

infidelity

[lilian-cho.livejournal.com]

Re: infidelity, I'm v. hypocritical. In a pairing, I almost always have a character I favor. So Draco being unfaithful to Harry = a-okay, while Harry being unfaithful to Harry = not okay.

It wouldn't stop me from reading though. I just skim/skip the Harry infidelity scenes.

In romances, I'm fine with physical infidelity but not emotional infidelity.
In the Administration series, I'm not bothered at all by Toreth fucking people left, right and center. Because it's (almost pathetically) obvious that Warrick is the one he's emotionally invested in.

Warrick deliberately cheated on Toreth once to hurt him--and I 'forgive' him because I understand his motivations in hurting Toreth.

Re: infidelity

[lilian-cho.livejournal.com]

Harry being unfaithful to Draco*

d-oh.