"Women" / Trans in Sauna (compiled)

[Guest guesy]

I consider myself a regular patron on Shogun as well, and have witnessed the growth from the 1st telok ayer buidling to the 2nd telok ayer building, and to the current premise at Hong Kong Street.

One thing that never change is that this place continue to surprise me.

Apart from the regulars that I saw today, I was shocked to see a naked "woman" there today!! She was man, but apparently a FULL woman now. She had fun, and so did the several dudes that orgied her.

There is no appropriate description for the place. Some bash it, and others embraces it. As for me, I'm totally addicted to the exicitement!! :twisted:

[Guest guesy]

Such remark will do harm more than good to both Vincent the boss & us the patrons. If it is true, good for you & just keep quiet, no point to blow out loud & get attention from the authority.

Regards,

Not to worry. She is by no means a competition to you, or the sex blog you're compiling in the forum. No hard feelings babe. :smokin:

[Guest maynard]

Such remark will do harm more than good to both Vincent the boss & us the patrons. If it is true, good for you & just keep quiet, no point to blow out loud & get attention from the authority.

Regards,

I'm confused. The "harm" you refer is from and specifically relater to ???

You seem to suggest one of the following:

1. Shogun ban all transversite

2. All sauna ban all transversite

3. No writing on sex on all transversite

4. No writing on sex on all

What if, the transversite is a 6-packed hunk? Any difference to your comments?

[Guest Maynard]

On Guesy message, he said this, I quote:

She was man, but apparently a FULL woman now

We are not talking about tranversite, but about a full woman. That is the core of the problem. Ask Vincent will he allow entry of female to the premise by risking his licensing?

Regards,

Larry

I understand now.

So transversite should not be allowed to enter any sauna because the government will revoke the sauna licence to punish sauna owners for letting in a "freak"? And that all sauna should universally ban transversite henceforth??

I am disturbed. After decades of gay movement, we have not learnt to be tolerant within our own community. Have we not forgetten the discrimination and irrational fear that the public have stirred in the past against "homo" like me and you?

Or maybe just because some feel they are more "normal" than others, and that gives them the earned privillege to discern admittance or advocate non-admittance of "problems" (equate to transversites?).

The core of the problem is not the gender type, but rather the deep-rooted prejudice and judgemental view. And what's next following the selective admittance? Sauna owners should ban anyone above the age of 50? or above the weight of 90kg? or if you have one tooth less?

I think Shogun did the right thingn and I admire whoever let the transversite in.

[Guest chublike]

Above is funny. Lots of argument over a half-woman.

Anything goes for me. The place still rocks!!!

[Guest guest]

Don't thnk there is any problem admitting a full or a half woman, real or not real, transvetites and so on to a gay sauna.

Who will entertain them in the 1st place? Its a gay place, people go for real men.

I would rather go for a dick and screw the ass hole.

They will feel out of place. Let them be.

[Lungker]

Just for discussion sake only. Don't get nasty.

Actually, is there a law against a woman with a vagina going to a gay sauna IF she knows what she is getting herself into?

If not, then why shouldn't she be allowed in?

I think I can speak for most women and say that 99.999% of them would not want to go into one. But if one or two wants to try

knowing that open gay sex goes on there, then why discriminate against her?

I think if the management wants to take the risk in allowing women in, then they have to get them to acknowledge they know exactly what

goes on inside the saunas. The women later cannot claimed they were manhandled inside.

Strictly from the angle of anti-sexual discrimination, I would allow them in. But in reality, I think almost all gay saunas would not allow

them in because they would be afraid that these women will "frighten"" off their customers.

Where trannies are concerned, I suggest if the saunas management are unsure if they are "full" women, then check for evidence of a penis.

All those with penis get in.

Cheers.

[fortysumthing]

If the sauna chooses to allow a person with vagina into their establishment inside as a regular customer, please let the rest of the customers know so that we can choose not to go in if we are not comfortable with it. I go to such places to look for company of men and do not want to be groping something other than a penis in the dark or worse ... to be groped by member of another sex.

[Guest guesy]

Just curious, any way to tell whether a trans is post-ops, like by checking the IC? Does anyone knows whether the IC will reflect "male", "female" or special coded for a post-op trans? Alternatively, the receptionist at the counter could request for a groin inspection? By asking the customer to drop his/ her pants before letting him/ her into the premise. But, that sounds invasive.

My guess will be that Management won't have full information to know whether a trans is pre or post-op, before accepting the customer.

[Guest Guesy]

Woah. Quite a loadful of comments spinning off from a casual encounter in a sauna. Surely we all know that BJs are illegal, and anal sex are considered unnatural sex punishable by imprisonment as well. To the fullest of my knowledge, I'm not aware that any of the gay saunas in Singapore are indeed registered as "gay sauna" with principal business activities stated as that of providance of premise for men to men having or contemplating sex. Could you spare us the legal consequence as its begining to sound like you're scaring customers away from Shogun?. If one is truly a die-hard fanatic of Shogun, (but I'm starting to doubt :hat: ) he wouldn't have more than once mentioned about how "illegal" a sauna could be, as that is usually what worries a patron.

Of course we know that admitting a naturally-born woman is uncomfortable to gays, who by definition are those who attracted to man and not to woman. But there is an obvious distinction from a natural-born woman to our "lady in question", that is --- SHE IS A NATURAL-BORN MAN!!!. If you cannot see that, then these are really not intellectual discussions.

I sympathise with the thai that was thrown out in such a humiliating manner. But "she" is not without fault!!!??? Well, she's physicaly different from a man, she should not have concealed it by lurking at some dark corners, her better chance is to stride in pride in the whirlpool of discrimination. In simple words, she derserves it????!!! Sign! My sister, my heart goes out to you.

Are we "faithful supporter of shogun"?? Don't be silly. Of courese we're NOT. We frequent 10men, 17, Diamond, BH etc as well as occassional visits to saunas in the neighboring countries.

How many patrons stick to one sauna these days? But as I stated at the start, I'm a regular. And the reason that keeps me going back is that Shogun is full of contraversies and wild surprises, and that makes it one of the most exciting gay venues in SG. :smokin:

PS Larry: when's the last time you're at Shogun?

After reading through inputs from fellow BWers, here are some of my inputs based on my many years in close association with the pre & post-ops people:

1. It is an offence to admit a legalise female into a gay spa. Nothing to do with sexual discrimination but pure law. Just like having sex with a female minor under 16 years old is punishable under law, regardless permission given by the minor. Law is Law!

2. After sex changed, IC will reflect new sex identity for all Singaporeans seeking status update. IC will be updated but not birth cert.

3. With that updating, He(she) can register marriage with a man, applying HDB flat & etc, anything & every thing she do will come under the female chapter.

4. A guy went through sex change with the purpose to look resemblance a female, no one will still want to look like a guy, then the whole SC has no meaning. So for obvious surface appearance, if the spa operator still allow entry of the post-ops, then the operator must be a fool or highly short sighted.

5. Of course, sometimes the spa operator / counter staff may fail to scout them out upfront & let them in, for such cases, patrons who know this & feel okay at that moment shall just keep quiet & not blow out loud. Guesy, you had a good time at that moment, but blowing the incident out & loud in this forum will do harm more than good, as it will unknowingly alert the law enforcement authority. I doubt your sincerity as a faithful supporter of Shogun? To use a simple word: You curi-makan, clean your oily mouth.

Guesy talked about Bangkok, now let me tell him what had happened years ago when I went there with another istersay: she is almost 95% female, long hairs with c-cup boobs. We went to a gay spa, she hided her hairs under the base-ball cap with loose clothing with outlook as a tomboy & we managed to get entry. After wrapping with only a towel, happyly touching various cocks along the dark corridor, she was throw out almost immediately by the spa opearator as patrons complaint on touching two big papayas.

Isn't Thai people are openly receptive to transvestite & transexual, then why such thing happened?

[Lungker]

1. It is an offence to admit a legalise female into a gay spa. Nothing to do with sexual discrimination but pure law. Just like having sex with a female minor under 16 years old is punishable under law, regardless permission given by the minor. Law is Law!

I am surprised there is even such a legislated offence. Since you seemed to be posting quite authoritatively, can you please tell us which legislation, under which statute and act, are

you referring to. Thank you very much. A direct link to a website will suffice.

If indeed such a law exist, I think gay saunas owners are within their right to refuse admittance to people who are legally women. Legally women meaning their i/c says their

sex is female.

Cheers.

[Guest guest]

Let the women in! Maybe restrict them to a certain area. Not all sauna goers are gays, I'm bi and I sure welcome the women too!

[Lungker]

Thanks for replying Larry.

Like you, I had been trying to find the statute to back your claim that it is an offence for a gay sauna to admit women into their premises.

I have been looking here - http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ under massage establishments.

I have no luck finding it. Perhaps you can do better. No need for us to buy expensive law books when the statutes are all now on-line.

Until either one of us, or anybody else, can find the law that says it is indeed an offence for a female to enter a gay sauna, I am afraid we shall have to

treat your claim as "without proof." I am sure you understand. As such, I will be posting a comment to your alleged claim which is unproven.

Thanks. Cheers

[Guest Anti BS]

I tried very hard last night searching through the internet on the relevant legislation but to no avail, most of these rules are not on line & needed to be purchased (quite expensive) from Singapore National Press.

Regards,

Larry

Larry,

You are so lame. Stop shooting off your keyboards until you get your so call material facts right. We see a charlatan when we read one.

[Guest statutory provision]

It does not seem to be a matter specific to "gay" saunas. Here is the statutory provision :- Penal Code (Chapter 224) Section 509 Chapter XXII

"Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

The bold italics are mine and IMHO appear to suggest that a man clothed or otherwise encountering a naked woman would be deemed to have intruded upon her privacy. The modesty of a woman is presumed at law. That the woman did not complain may be immaterial if the scene was witnessed by law enforcement officers. Hence it will be noted that in non-nudist colonies where an environment such as a spa is involved and where a reasonable expectation of being undressed exists, in single gender situations it might be clothing optional but in mixed gender situations some form of "clothes" is mandatory be it towels or swimwear.

As far as intent is concerned, while a man being naked when encountering the woman in the 1st instance (were she clothed) may not constitute intentionally insulting her modesty if he could prove that he had no reasonable expectation for a woman to be present e.g. in a "gay" sauna, his continued nakedness subsequent to encountering the clothed woman would then be construed to constitute intent to insult the modesty of the clothed woman. However in this case as reported in the previous entry, the woman was naked and thus the issue of intent may be moot since it would have been her privacy that had been intruded upon. The logical defence to this would appear to be that the woman willingly paid(?) to enter the premises and was naked of her own accord but may then render the impression that the woman was of ill repute and that "the crime" might now involve procurement and places of assignation governed by other statutory provisions.

[Lungker]

It does not seem to be a matter specific to "gay" saunas. Here is the statutory provision :- Penal Code (Chapter 224) Section 509 Chapter XXII

"Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

The bold italics are mine and IMHO appear to suggest that a man clothed or otherwise encountering a naked woman would be deemed to have intruded upon her privacy. The modesty of a woman is presumed at law. That the woman did not complain may be immaterial if the scene was witnessed by law enforcement officers. Hence it will be noted that in non-nudist colonies where an environment such as a spa is involved and where a reasonable expectation of being undressed exists, in single gender situations it might be clothing optional but in mixed gender situations some form of "clothes" is mandatory be it towels or swimwear.

As far as intent is concerned, while a man being naked when encountering the woman in the 1st instance (were she clothed) may not constitute intentionally insulting her modesty if he could prove that he had no reasonable expectation for a woman to be present e.g. in a "gay" sauna, his continued nakedness subsequent to encountering the clothed woman would then be construed to constitute intent to insult the modesty of the clothed woman. However in this case as reported in the previous entry, the woman was naked and thus the issue of intent may be moot since it would have been her privacy that had been intruded upon. The logical defence to this would appear to be that the woman willingly paid(?) to enter the premises and was naked of her own accord but may then render the impression that the woman was of ill repute and that "the crime" might now involve procurement and places of assignation governed by other statutory provisions.

Thanks but what you quoted is not relevant to what we are discussing.

Larry clearly claimed ït is an offence for a gay sauna to admit women into their premises. Neither he nor I have been able to find out the relevant act and statute to back his claim. We are specifically referring to the obligations and responsibilities of the sauna owners NOT to break this so claimed law.

A woman can claimed whatever she wants. However, if she was admitted to a gay sauna knowing FULL WELL what goes on inside, and she claimed that her modesty was insulted or somebody had molested her - I think the police would have a very difficult time prosecuting the case.

Cheers

[Guest statutory provision]

Thanks but what you quoted is not relevant to what we are discussing.

Larry clearly claimed ït is an offence for a gay sauna to admit women into their premises. Neither he nor I have been able to find out the relevant act and statute to back his claim. We are specifically referring to the obligations and responsibilities of the sauna owners NOT to break this so claimed law.

A woman can claimed whatever she wants. However, if she was admitted to a gay sauna knowing FULL WELL what goes on inside, and she claimed that her modesty was insulted or somebody had molested her - I think the police would have a very difficult time prosecuting the case.

Cheers

Dear Lungker

While I agree that there may not be a specific provision aimed at the "gay" sauna establishments, it would appear that the penal code provisions quoted would apply to mixed gender environments as intimated by my lead statement or is it your contention that the penal code does not apply to "gay" establishments? Don't be overly hung up over whether a specific offence against "gay" establishments exists per se. It is doubtful that the so-called "gay" saunas are registered as "gay" establishments in the first place but rather in all probability as members' clubs possibily gentlemen's clubs. If the former i.e members' club then they may in fact admit both genders much like other spa establishments in town but because of penal code requirements be obliged to provide separate and segregated facilities for each gender which is clearly not the case in these so called "gay" establishments. On the other hand if they are exclusively gentlemen's clubs, then admitting females into such an environment would be construed as an act of procurement and make the club a place of assignation which would then contravene the Women's Charter (Chapter 353) Part XI Section 140 sub-section 1(a) and 1(b)provisions which are appended below for ease of reference :-

"Offences relating to prostitution

140. —(1) Any person who —

(a) sells, lets for hire or otherwise disposes of or buys or hires or otherwise obtains possession of any woman or girl with intent that she shall be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution either within or without Singapore, or knowing or having reason to believe that she will be so employed or used;

(b) procures any woman or girl to have either within or without Singapore carnal connection except by way of marriage with any male person or for the purpose of prostitution either within or without Singapore;"

and Section 147 sub-section 2

"Suppression of places of assignation

147. —(1) Any person who keeps, manages or assists in the management of a place of assignation shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

(2) Any person who keeps, manages or assists in the management of a club or a place of public resort which is used as a place of assignation shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $15,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both."

Thus the penal code provisions previously quoted and the Women's Charter provisions quoted above are highly relevant to the issue of admitting women into so called "gay" establishments.

I trust this clarifies the issue.

[Guest Boring]

Dear Statutory provision,

Yawn, you just cut and paste these from statutory-on-line. You don't seem to know that the penal code and Women charter is about. From what I read, none of the chapters/ clauses are relevant. With no relevant statutory provision, and since you're so legally knowledgeable, any case laws to support your arguments?? Like Ms Without Penis Vs Sauna man?

Aiyo, what relevance does gay sauna has to do with prostitution clauses?? But since you so knowlegeable, with the statutory provisions that you tried to highlight, how come there are so many fish tanks brothels in Geylang and health-licensed prostitutes?

So amazed by people nowadays to try to sound like lawyers. But please, if you are not a lawyer, time to stop acting like one!!!!

(btw, i am not a lawyer)

[Guest statutory provision]

Dear Boring

Your reply suggests that you are not aware that while prostitution is not illegal in Singapore, solicitation and procurement are!

Your inability to grasp the fine details of the statutory provisions cited in support of the arguments is betrayed by your comment about "fish tank brothels" and "health-licensed prostitutes".

You seem to be operating under the premise that if enforcement is lax then no statutory provisions have been broken.

The reality is that crimes occur all the time although enforcement of the law may not always be evident.

Here is an e.g. that you might be able to identify with :- Section 377A - sexual activity between males -

Is it a crime in Singapore? Currently yes.

Is it actively enforced? The official position is that the authorities will not actively enforce but reserve the right to do so.

Under this circumstances is it still a crime for males to engage in sexual activity with another male? Yes.

If the law is enforced upon 2 or more males caught in this situation can they be punished according to the statutory provisions? Absolutely! (no pun intended)

Finally, while any relatively interested person who possesses an averagely logical and rational mind and who is not lazy may be able to research the local laws online, the same cannot be said for case law. Those who desire this specialist consultation should pay for it!

[Lungker]

Dear Boring

Your reply suggests that you are not aware that while prostitution is not illegal in Singapore, solicitation and procurement are!

Your inability to grasp the fine details of the statutory provisions cited in support of the arguments is betrayed by your comment about "fish tank brothels" and "health-licensed prostitutes".

You seem to be operating under the premise that if enforcement is lax then no statutory provisions have been broken.

The reality is that crimes occur all the time although enforcement of the law may not always be evident.

Here is an e.g. that you might be able to identify with :- Section 377A - sexual activity between males -

Is it a crime in Singapore? Currently yes.

Is it actively enforced? The official position is that the authorities will not actively enforce but reserve the right to do so.

Under this circumstances is it still a crime for males to engage in sexual activity with another male? Yes.

If the law is enforced upon 2 or more males caught in this situation can they be punished according to the statutory provisions? Absolutely! (no pun intended)

Finally, while any relatively interested person who possesses an averagely logical and rational mind and who is not lazy may be able to research the local laws online, the same cannot be said for case law. Those who desire this specialist consultation should pay for it!

SP, what have all you had said so far got to do with this particular topic?

Larry had made a one-line comment that "is an offence for a gay sauna to admit a woman....Law is the law, he added."

Later he wrote he read about this law a couple of years ago in a law book.

However, till now, neither he nor I or any one else can find this particular offence listed anywhere.

Lets not wander all over our legal statutes about prostitution, molest, insulting somebody modesty, 377A etc. Kindly do not post out of topic.

In this discussion, we are sticking to whether anyone can prove if it is indeed an offence for gay saunas to let women into their premises.

Any further post, distracting from the topic will be removed. I thank you all for your understanding.

[Guest statutory provision]

Lungker's comment:

Post deleted for inciting to start a flame war.

And SP, read Larry's post on Oct 14, 8.37 am in this thread before you reply. You post out of topic again, your post will be removed.

[Guest know little bit]

just my little inputs;

1. what the gay sauna registered as?

2. not all requirements are written black & white in the regulations.

3. a friend told me that sauna come under singapore polce CID review before approve for business.

4. some requirements come with a seperate list of compliance given to the operator upon registration, example all rooms for straight massage parlour cannot be locked from inside, but such law cannot be found in any regulations.

5. the police may add or amend that list as & when is deemed appropriate.

6. One thing very sure, that is none of the known gay sauna do / did employe female staff.

[Guest gayhood]

just my little inputs;

1. what the gay sauna registered as?

2. not all requirements are written black & white in the regulations.

3. a friend told me that sauna come under singapore polce CID review before approve for business.

4. some requirements come with a seperate list of compliance given to the operator upon registration, example all rooms for straight massage parlour cannot be locked from inside, but such law cannot be found in any regulations.

5. the police may add or amend that list as & when is deemed appropriate.

6. One thing very sure, that is none of the known gay sauna do / did employe female staff.

I agreed. It depends very much type of business registered as for these gay spa. But one thing for sure, the police know what is going on, they are not stupid, only thing is they keep one eye close so long is within the premise, as what PM Lee said during the debate on penal code 177A, the government will not legalise homosexual activities but keep it in the gray area.

Allowing gay spa is invitable as it help to promote safe sex instead to push them go underground, so as prostitution houses in Geylang, these joints are million dollars investment with water bed, mirrors all around & etc, surely the police approve for such investment, but what is all the joints register as? Maybe can't even be found in the law, similarly those prostitutes, are they termed as sex workers? Regardless they are required for MOH check-up bi-monthly, do such requirement be found in the law book? I doubt so.

So there are facilities cater for both catergories, gay sex & straight sex. If the gay spa openly admit female (inclusive post-ops) into their premises, and the police doesn't react, do you think this is possible? Let do not push the limit. Whoever in this forum saying welcoming to have female in the gay spa are nuts & idiots, simply brainless.

I strongly believe these are seperate written rules & regulations given to the gay spa operators for compliance, they might not be available publicly, because on paper, government will never say they legalise gay spa.

[Guest guest studying law]

In this discussion, we are sticking to whether anyone can prove if it is indeed an offence for gay saunas to let women into their premises.

Lungker,

I think otherwise the approach, that is "whether anyone can prove if it is indeed not an offence for gay saunas to let women into their premises."

In court to proof things right or wrong can be tricky, example:

1. It is not an offence to have a bathroom for both male & female in the public swimming pool.

2. It is not an offence to have male masseur doing full body nude massage on female cusomers.

In law, sometime common sense & general public perception rules.

Think about. Larry may be right.

[Lungker]

Lungker,

I think otherwise the approach, that is "whether anyone can prove if it is indeed not an offence for gay saunas to let women into their premises."

In court to proof things right or wrong can be tricky, example:

1. It is not an offence to have a bathroom for both male & female in the public swimming pool.

2. It is not an offence to have male masseur doing full body nude massage on female cusomers.

In law, sometime common sense & general public perception rules.

Think about. Larry may be right.

Why potential legal eagles like you have to make things so difficult for everyone to understand.

Double speak, double innuendos, and double jeopardy. Perhaps that's how lawyers make so much money. :clap:

We should be straight forward and see if anyone can prove Larry is right when he said firmly and clearly it is an offence for a gay

sauna to admit women into their premises. So far, no one can concretely prove so.

Larry may indeed be right but he also said "law is the law"and so far neither he nor anyone else could find anything in the law books

to prove what he claimed.

My gut feeling, and it cannot be substantiated, is that no such law exist. A gay sauna exist to service men only and it is not logical for

them to admit women. No gay spa owner is going to admit them. There is no need for the govt to enact such a law in the penal codes

establishing mandated punishments for the specific offence of admitting women into gay saunas.

Gayhood may be right when he said there may be written rules and regulations (not offences under the penal codes) for gay saunas.

Note that in such instances, non-compliance of the rules and regulations could mean the termination of the license of the said establishment.

That is the deterrence. Non-compliance, unless it is explicitly spelt out in the penal codes, is not considered an offence.

In any case, this example of a fully legal woman going to a gay sauna is so far fetched it probably will not happen.

Since this discussion is heading no where, I am closing it. Lets move on to something else. I thank everyone for their contributions.

One last thing, I am prepared to re-open this thread again if anyone can provide proof what Larry said is indeed correct. You

can email or PM me if have such proof and I will re-open this thread again.

Everyone have a good week ahead.

Cheers.

[Guest GUEST]

I wonder if Transgender guys are allowed in Gay Sauna.  Has this happened before ?  What was the reaction ?

I doubt female would want to a gay sauna but same curious question, are they allowed ?  If yes, how would you feel/react when you see one (may be on a nude night) ?

 

[kaze]

I'm pretty sure there are PLUs out there that like transgender. Just a matter of whether they are there or not. 

That said, don't suppose transgender are allowed in gay sauna. Cuz majority of the crowd is still not into female.

[Shashi]

I'm stil confused guys. So can I or can't I bring a few of my transgender friends (chicks with dicks) into a gay Suana in sg? :/

[Stormrider]

By right and by law, the saunas have no ground to refuse trans persons to enter, as their ICs are still reflecting their gender as 'male'.

 

Just imagine the number of clocks those trannies can suck and savour; it would be 'heaven on earth', for both the suckers and the 'suckees'. LOL

[kaze]

Honestly speaking.. I don't mind tranny in gay sauna.. not exactly bothered by them anyway.

Edited April 1, 2017 by kaze