Is stealthing morally okay?

[ErosWired]

I like this question because it’s designed to cleverly lure out the assholes among us and show us how they think. Fortunately, they seem to be a minority.

The ethical question of stealthing lies in two considerations - is an agreement being breached, and is the victim being subjected to potential harm?

The first question can be answered definitively if the two parties agreed at the outset to protected sex. Stealthing is a clear violation, and ethically indefensible. The question becomes murkier if no discussion or explicit agreement occurred. If the bottom has a box of condoms on the table, it may indicate a preference rather than an insistence. If the bottom actually hands the Top a condom, and he accepts it and puts it on, does that constitute a non-verbal agreement? Legally you’d have to ask an attorney, but ethically, by doing so the Top represents his intentions and leads the bottom to believe he will behave a certain way, and when he does not, it becomes deception - again, indefensible.

One thing that is unclear, and that I think would probably have to get ironed out if the new anti-stealthing laws are put into practice, is whether condom use is the universal unspoken standard of consent. That is, if there is no explicit agreement, can a Top be held liable simply for bare condomless penetration without explicit consent? Given that bare entry is the natural state, that sounds to me a difficult case to make as a standard, but I can imagine an argument being made.

As to the second question, we must assess whether the stealther may harm the person stealthed by his action. A defense might be made that since no explicit agreement was entered into, the Top does not violate the first question (at least in the strict sense). But then we must turn our thought to whether the stealther causes harm, and harm comes in different forms.

First, there is the risk of exposing the victim to any sexually transmitted disease the stealther may carry, and unless the stealther just came fresh from a doctor’s office with a clean bill of health, he can offer no guarantee of that - indeed, even tests give false negatives. Second, the psychological harm that derives from being betrayed and violated in such an intimate way can be substantial and lasting. And third, regardless of whether either of the first two harms occur, the stealther robs the victim of his personal agency and the right to decide what to allow to be done to his body.

The fact that this third harm occurs automatically, and is inherent in the nature of stealthing, means that the second question is always answered in the positive - it’s just a question of whether either of the other two harms are heaped on top as well. For one person to knowingly bring harm to another to achieve his own gratification is unethical; to do so by deceit is odious, and unmanly.

To suggest that it’s wrong to do so but then say that it’s fine to do it as long as the person is anonymous to you and as far as you’re concerned is “asking for it”...is monstrous.

[hungry_hole]

First, I would like to say that now this issue of stealthing is not as relevant as it was years ago before PrEP and medications. At least not for men who have sex with men. 

7 hours ago, ErosWired said:

... then say that it’s fine to do it as long as the person is anonymous to you and as far as you’re concerned is “asking for it”...is monstrous.

I recognize "anonymous stealthing" as a valid fetish so as long as the encounter is anonymous the stealthing is just part of a fetish. I find it naive to think that a law is going to prevent some horny poz drunken guy from stealth fucking some guy at the bathhouse. One of the wonders of sex with men is the huge availability of choices of flavors of sex, from top-bottom to vanilla-kinky.

Anonymous stealthing can be a big fetish for many men including bottoms who get a kick out of the fantasy of being stealthed at the bathhouse. It should not be censored because it's a fetish but also because it would be impractical to prove and to charge. A law may make things worse because guys will now believe everything a stranger tells them.  

If two guys meet on Grindr where they exchange phone numbers and later discuss the issue of STD's, and stealthing occurs, I would then find it morally reprehensible.

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

I recognize "anonymous stealthing" as a valid fetish so as long as the encounter is anonymous the stealthing is just part of a fetish.

Repeat after me: “Your Kink Is Not My Kink.”

A ‘valid fetish’? Seriously? That’s what you hang your moral argument on? So if if I have a fetish for shocking guys in the balls with an electric cattle prod, it’s just fine for me to do it to some random bottom with his sack exposed as long as it’s anonymous?

No, it isn’t, and neither is anonymous stealthing. Your argument is that maybe the other guy will get off on it? Yeah? Well you wouldn’t know one way or the other before you did it, would you, because he’s anonymous. So essentially, you would just be making a baseless assumption because it conveniently lets you get off on your ‘valid fetish’.

Let me tell you something, as one guy who has serviced many, many, many anonymous cocks - you’re wrong. I wouldn’t get off on it, and nobody’s fetish is so ‘valid’ that it trumps my consent.

[hntnhole]

Dishonesty is never ok.  It's antithetical to every moral intellectual thought-process.  If a "chaser" chats up a guy that say's he's poz, and they agree to Breed, there's nothing dishonest about that.  Questionable, maybe - but it's between two men who are being honest with each other, and those two men only.  If a chaser is in a fuckclub, taking loads off any/every Cock that ruts in him without saying a word, no problem.  He is indulging in behavior that he loves, and more power to him.  When one or ten of those Cocks pumps pos Sperm up his gut, no problem.  Neither guy has discussed anything, they're merely doing what they both need to do.  No problem, since no discourse has happened between them.  Thus, without any discussion between the men involved, there can be no "stealthing".  The very word implies a level of dishonesty.

For a man to purposefully, willfully attempt to infect another man through dishonest answers about status, with serious illness, whether it's hiv, the flu, a common cold, or the bubonic plague, is not only dishonest, it reeks of self-hatred.  Any sub/bottom that doesn't ask for a) status, b) specify raw or rubbered is purposely avoiding the topic, and therefore accepting any potential outcome.  Likewise, any Dom/Top that is dishonest in answering a) or b) has lost his moral compass, and needs to re-consider his own humanity.

There are tons of guys that think becoming pos will somehow free them of every other characteristic of their personalities that restricts them from becoming pos in the first place.  One need not become positive to live a wanton, sex-dominated life.  One only needs to actually do it, and accept any potential consequences.  

Men that stealth Holes are (which definition would include lying about their status so as to accomplish spreading hiv to anyone he can) are no longer "men", they've become something less than a man.  When I hit the fuckjoints, I don't ask questions, because I have taken at least some precautions.  For me, that is enough.  For me, it's the behavior - wanton Breeding with my like-minded Brothers - that is important. Thus, it's almost a certainty that I have rawfucked positive Holes.  It's likely that I've been fucked by positive Cocks.  That's ok, because I haven't asked prior to the mating act.  

Purposely attempting to infect others with a serious illness through dishonesty/lies/deceit  is morally indefensible. Now, it's also legally indefensible in CA as well.

[bbpoznow]

If you are chasing  is there really a difference in taking pozz loads, either stealth or not . You are after the same outcome 

[baldwin]

I may have answered this before but in my state (Kentucky USA) it is a felony to knowingly transmit a life threatening STD.  Not sure how the law works but seems stealthing would be illegal if not morally objectionable.

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, bbpoznow said:

If you are chasing  is there really a difference in taking pozz loads, either stealth or not . You are after the same outcome 

The difference is not in the taking of poz loads.  The difference is in lying about what's in the Sperm when one is asked that question.  

[descartes70817]

While I find the idea of stealthing a huge turn-on it is so much easier to role play with a willing partner, especially when I'm legally bound to notify all potential sex partners of my status. Fuck, there's enough guys to want to take bare cock that you can easily find one who gets turned on by role-playing being stealthed, so why break the law trying to do it to an unwilling partner.

[whoai]

You might as well ask if it’s ok to poison someone’s food for your own enjoyment. Actually stealthing (not consensual role play) is so clearly morally wrong, how can there be a question? 

Edited October 24, 2021 by whoai

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, whoai said:

You might as well ask if it’s ok to poison someone’s food for your own enjoyment. Actually stealthing (not consensual role play) is so clearly morally wrong, how can there be a question? 

How? Because there are a lot of sociopaths out there who think their own wants and desires outweigh everything else.

[ErosWired]

11 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Purposely attempting to infect others with a serious illness through dishonesty/lies/deceit  is morally indefensible.

I would take that a step farther, in reference to the other sense of stealthing, i.e., intentionally infecting someone. Purposely attempting to infect others with a serious illness for any reason is morally indefensible. Disease causes harm to the human body, sometimes potentially grievous, lasting harm, sometimes permanent, irreversible harm. A man who acts with the intent to cause another person to contract disease perpetrates a physical assault as surely as if he had used a cudgel. One person does not ethically set out to harm another in such a way.

Nor do the scenarios so often cited here of bugchasers and bathhouses absolve the intentional infector. Much, much is said in these forums (ad nauseam) about the sanctity of the rights of two individual men to make a decision for one man to infect another with disease - as if this were not insane. But at its core, the ethical question remains absolutely the same: Is it right to knowingly make another person ill? Some here would have us believe, “yes, if he wants to be ill,” but that doesn’t answer the question put to the infector: Is it right for you to knowingly make another person ill?

No. It is not. The illness in your body is a weapon. You must not use it to harm.

If a man knows he has Gono, is it morally acceptable for him to go to a bathhouse and fuck a dozen bottoms who don’t ask any questions because they obviously know the risks? No. For a Top who knows he has gono to go fucking, that means they’re no longer taking a risk, they’re facing a threat. The fact that safety wasn’t discussed does not translate into permission to intentionally harm.

I will never know if the man who gave me HIV knew what he was doing when he did it. I choose to believe he was unaware of his status, because to think that someone would have intentionally given me the disease that nearly took my life seven years ago would blacken my outlook on humanity.

[raw773]

On 10/26/2019 at 7:22 AM, hungry_hole said:

From a legal standpoint, HIV+ guys who stealth can be charged and face the law but not in anonymous sex situations: "Judge, I was in my room at the bathhouse offering my hole for anon loads and this guy bred my hole knowing he was HIV+". In anon sex names and addresses are unknown and most likely you'll never see them again. Not enough information for a legal case.

The best legal defense would be "How do know it was MY load?" followed by "Of course I told you in the bathhouse where you took nine other dicks..."

(Genotyping I guess.)

[Hairypiglet]

It never ceases to amaze me how hot topics such as this spiral out of control. The difference in opinion of reprehensible actions and how so many choose to pretend they're blinded by grey space is just astounding.

 

The actual question is very straightforward and they way so many here are choosing to expand upon it to circumvent what I can only guess is related to some personal guilt or pleasure they may hold is just laughable.

 

It's discussions like this that make me feel like this community is just terrible.

 

Stealthing is absolutely wrong. Reprehensible. People who stealth are abhorrent. 

[cman54]

There seems to be many variations of what some think is stealthing. My opinion is if you lie to a guy that is wrong. If you don`t discuss status at all then thats not stealthing in my book. Even say a top is asked to put a condom on and he does but status has not been talked about and during sex the condom breaks. WHich can happen. I have broke  a few myself. The top or even the bottom is not going to want to stop even though one or both might know the condom has broken.  So if they continue fucking and the top cums in him it is not steaalthing. We all know they break from time to time. I  know the risks and will except whatever the results are of my fucking and sex.

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, cman54 said:

If you don`t discuss status at all then thats not stealthing in my book. 

In my book, if you know you're HIV-positive, you have an affirmative moral responsibility to disclose that to sex partners. Period. Anything less than that is lying by omission, which amounts to (attempted) stealthing. Even if you're undetectable - and yes, I realize that means you can't, under ordinary circumstances, infect someone - that person has a right to know so he can make an informed decision about the risk.

Can that be made legally binding? Probably not. Lots of things, though, are morally required even if they're not legally required. It's presumably not illegal to use the entire roll of toilet tissue in a public restroom, for instance, but it's still wrong unless you have a serious, serious NEED for it, right this minute - otherwise, the right thing to do is to use what you must, and leave the rest for other people. I think most normal people know what they SHOULD do, but too many people are sociopaths who don't care how their actions affect anyone else and who figure it's every man for himself.