Is stealthing morally okay?

[Guest FinalDL2021]

17 minutes ago, hungry_hole said:

For me stealthing is totally OK in anonymous sex, at a bathhouse or Cumunion event, but not OK in most other situations.

very true, that was where I was sort of going with it, ok when anon.

[StanleyMorecock]

I think what people fail to consider is that the term "stealing" refers to an age old practice that has been around as long as condoms.

This is a tactic that straight women have been employing for years in order to get knocked up. Legally doing this is the same as tampering with birth control, lying about being on birth control, and condom tampering. In CA it all amounts to being a form of sexual battery...

 

Also, it would be almost impossible outside a case that has a full investigation done (high profile rape, sexual assaults with multiple victims, or something with minors) this law is just another one of the myriad in CA that does nothing beside provide prosecutors an additional thing they can tac to a series of charges not something they could charge and arrest a person with.   =/

 

Personally I just say 'no' when they mention putting on a condom. Works like 85% of the time, and they'll never bring up wearing a condom again.

[BlazeJP]

Of course it's not.

Some people may find it hot (I do) or enjoy it if it happens to them (I fucking loved it), but let's not bullshit ourselves into pretending it's in any way morally acceptable on any level. 

Where you are, who they are, what you've done with them before, none of that matters. If someone wants safer sex and you then work it so they think it was but you've actually fucked your load up them, that's wrong, there's no way to defend that on a moral basis.

I find it hot, loved it when it happened to me, watched it happen to a stranger in a group fuck and shot a massive load in the lad I was fucking almost instantly. But it's fucking morally wrong.

[ErosWired]

On 2/1/2019 at 2:33 PM, PozTemptation said:

very true, that was where I was sort of going with it, ok when anon.

Sure, because a person is no longer a human being when you don't know who they are.

What the justifying fuck? How does that make the slightest bit of sense? What is it about your ignorance of their identity that changes the equation? If it was wrong to stealth the guy when you knew who he was (yes, it was morally wrong to stealth him), then it's still morally wrong when you don't.

Jeebus...

[Guest FinalDL2021]

13 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Sure, because a person is no longer a human being when you don't know who they are.

What the justifying fuck? How does that make the slightest bit of sense? What is it about your ignorance of their identity that changes the equation? If it was wrong to stealth the guy when you knew who he was (yes, it was morally wrong to stealth him), then it's still morally wrong when you don't.

Jeebus...

I am not sure if I was articulating it correctly. No, a person that would intentionally spread HIV is probably a Sociopath and deserves to be locked up. Yet due to the fact that I have made the decision to take Anon loads at a bathhouse, I have opted to take that risk, and I can't blame anyone but myself if I get pozzed.

[downtownswallow]

If you’re thinking about stealthing a load into some unsuspecting Bottom consider that some lowlife piece of trash in Texas did that to someone and he’s now on his way to prison for the next 30 years. 

I enjoy bareback but I also enjoy feeling cock in my ass. If I ask a Top to wear a condom it’s because I have concerns of some sort or another. I may find him incredibly hot and/or want his cock in me. If he stealths me he’d best be able to run mighty fast butt naked with an enraged equally butt naked man chasing him and waving a 12 gauge shotgun!

[ronnie4u]

I  " TOTALLY ! "  agree others that it is wrong but when I watching a video of  " STEALTH " someone who is neg to making him " Poz ! " is wrong !  How many others re-acts like me having Erections and becoming Excited - wishing I was involved !   I have had Stealth happen to me several times - I have had , as I thought , a date but un-expected turns a 3 or 4 some fucking me - having being forced sniffing poppers or more while they fucked me raw - mild to rough sex .         I do Love Videos !  

[Guest BritBottom]

There are clearly wide divides in opinion in relation to this discussion, but there are also a wide number of personal motivations ranging across a broad spectrum of preferences and needs in the membership which is bound to frame the perspective from which they address the question.

 HardOneLA referenced  Tim Dean’s book, Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking  In an interview with the New York Times in 2013 he said

“What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.”

That sums me up pretty well.  That’s the reason I bareback and that’s the perspective from which most of my thinking arises. 

The discussion has covered morality, personal responsibility and the law and I find that the terms as I see them are clearly set out by einathens in his post, my own views are most closely aligned with those of: Guest zyx11, pozpig,  drscorpio, PhoenixGeoff, JamieLondon, torcub, punaman, find91, tallslenderguy, pervfantasy24, and ErosWired

find91 absolutely reflects my opinion where he says: “Consent is key in in intimate relations. Yes in Dom/Sub dynamic the dom makes the rules but still a sub trust that the Dom will not violate his hard limits. If a Dom because abusive and starts abusing his sub (mentally or physically) then that Dom / Sub contract become void and null.”

For me the whole issue is about consent.  I choose who I will let fuck me, once that choice is made is utterly submit to his dominant role and I actively work toward his pleasure and ultimately him impregnating me, his pleasure drives mine.

It is my choice to bareback and I expect, and actively want, to be bred and it is my choice to accept the inherent risk that goes with my choice to do so.

I am open to all types of men fucking me and my range of sexual activities is fairly negotiable. Masculinity, self-confidence and open honesty really float my boat. I can’t define why I reject some, it’s based on instinct. None the less, despite my rampant promiscuity, I decide who gets in me.

I generally choose not to enquire about STD’s because I know that unless they are undetectable I am always at risk and I choose to accept that risk. If it volunteered in only engenders my respect.

When he fucks me, at any time I have the right to object to his actions or demand he stop – I have never done so yet, what I start I always want to complete.

That's my consent. Anything else is rape.

If I go to a UK bathhouse, meet a guy in a pub, hook-up on the internet etc. -  the same rules apply.

Guest GoodExercise comments:  “Anonymity is consent because participants know (and thus are informed) that stealthing is one of the sex acts practiced in anonymous encounters.” How are they informed?  I cannot agree that Anonymity is consent to anything but anonymity. If 'I don’t know your name I can infect you at will' really means: 'If you don’t know my name I can infect you at will and get away with it' - seems little different than pushing a blind man under a bus.

I don’t go the fuckfests such as Fickstutenmarkt because I reserve that right to refuse consent, it’s tempting but if I did I’d be obliged to accept the rules and so my consent would be explicit as the terms of entry. e.g.. red sacks are obligated to take anyone’s cock/spunk.

I wholly accept the right of any man to consent to take any and all comers (no pun intended) irrespective of STI status and any other man to take advantage of that consent at will. If someone actively seeks infection that is their choice, so be it.

The issue is that in “stealth pozzing” the receiver has no option permitted.  .

Some appear to abrogate all responsibility and essentially demand that others must always be responsible, and be ‘gifted’ by any means or deciet whether they want it or not The purported justifications amount to no more than "I can, I want to, I will, It’s my purpose in life, you need to be like me whether you like it or not, I don’t care what happens to you, my will be done" -  the dehumanising tone of the concept is to me both repulsive and offensive reducing others to little more than ‘collateral damage’

Guest SpermaFF calls it “biological terrorism”  - what is described appears to  fits the criteria for sociopathy.  A sociopath is a term used to describe someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). People with ASPD can’t understand others’ feelings.

The new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders says that someone with ASPD consistently shows a lack of regard for others’ feelings or violations of people’s rights. People with ASPD may not realize that they have these behaviours. They may live their entire lives without a diagnosis. I can’t suggest a better motivation for “stealth pozzing”.

The comparison with the straight community is irrelevant because the issue is exactly the same, condom use issues and malicious infection is just as common there.  The motivation and mentality are much the same. It is right that none of this is new, sexual domination by coercion and control, rape (gay or straight), war rape, comfort women in wartime, forced pregnancy, child abuse, sex slavery etc.. The treatment of others as objects, dehumanisation of people, discarding others feelings and violating their rights has and will always go on. It happens constantly in wider society and it's unsprising it encompases sexual behaviour. I see it almost daily and the effects on victims can be devastating. The only protection is awareness of the problem so I’m glad it has been so well discussed in this forum.

[Kayne]

Short answer is Fuck No!

Longer answer is that people must be responsible for their actions. If one crosses to fuck anonymous strangers unprotected,  hen one must accept the poential consequences of that behavior.

 

[Guest Tallpike13]

Nope. You have to be a sociopath to think stealthing is okay.

[Kayne]

9 hours ago, Tallpike13 said:

Nope. You have to be a sociopath to think stealthing is okay.

You gotta be a sociopath to take anon loads in this day and age period  

[TotalPig]

Stealthing is morally, and in some cases,  criminally wrong. I think people who say they knowing want to, or knowingly have, exposed someone to HIV or any STI by lying about it or not using an intact condom when it is asked for, are human garbage.   They are bitter and angry about the bad life and health choices they have made and want to lash out at others. These “stealthers” should see a psychiatrist ASAP.

[downtownswallow]

No, stealthing is wrong.  The only scenario I can imagine where stealthing would be ok is if I tell the Top (presuming we’ve agreed to always use condoms) that it’s ok with me if he fucks me raw without telling me first. Problem with that is that the only reasons I would have the Top use a condom would be defeated without one and I’ve always preferred a raw cock fucking me. 

[Davidc]

I just would never get to stealthing because at any sign of a condom it's simply No

In want the bottom demanding the load , not an unwitting participant 

[ErosWired]

On 9/26/2019 at 8:43 PM, Kayne said:

You gotta be a sociopath to take anon loads in this day and age period  

I don't believe sociopath means what you think it means.