Almost everyone was shocked to find out that real life celebrity couple, Nikki Gil and Billy Crawford broke up after five years of being together.
Crawford admitted that it was all his fault. Then, after months of the announcement of their separation, Gil granted an exclusive interview to cosmopolitan, hinting that Crawford had cheated.
In the interview Gil shared that she was a virgin, and commented on people saying, "that I am a stuck up prude na naghoholy holyhan."
Netizens, in several showbiz sites, were quick to react on Gil's statement that Crawford "lalaki sya, may pangngayalangan". Saying that it might also have been Gil's fault , and may pagkukulong din sya. After all it takes to tango.
For me, I think the issue here is whether or not Gil was a virgin not. Neither is it about Crawford having needs to fulfill his sexual urges. The issue should be about who cheated, who lied.
Looking their issue from a bigger perspective, would the people react this way to Gil if she had had sexual relations? Crawford was lured (or came voluntarily) into another woman's arms. Is not that enough reason to break someone trust, therefore saying you are truly unworthy of that person.
According to Gil, Crawford had known about her promise of celibacy and had agreed to it. If Crawford did in fact love Gil couldn't he fight off his arousal? Was not the moments he spent with the Maria Mercedes star enough? Couldn't' Crawford comfort his little buddy with his hands.
Posted via Blogaway