Is stealthing morally okay?

[Guest zyx11]

Just now, hungry_hole said:

You are not mentioning the situation in which the stealthing occurs so I must assume that you condemn all kinds of stealthing, including in anonymous situations.

Yes, I do.

Just now, hungry_hole said:

When I'm at a bathhouse or a darkroom I'm not concerned at ALL about the other guys around me, so it's not a two-way exchgange. I'm there to fulfill MY fetishes, whatever they are, including stealthing if it applied to me. Why would a horny poz guy who goes to a bathhouse after bars close be concerned about ethical issues like consent? He's drunk and horny and if he wants to fuck and breed some hot hole in one of the rooms of the bathhouse, he'll lie if he needs to.

Fucking is a two-person exercise. Full stop. If you are a bottoming, there is a top fucking you, and vice-versa. You can objectify another person, but that doesn't remove their presence as an active participant in sex. When fulfilling your fetishes involves another person, consent comes into play.

To use your line of reasoning, a drunk, horny top could physically hold down a bottom and rape them if the top has a fetish for forced sex. He just "did what he had to." Because they are only there to fulfill their fetishes, the harm suffered by those they abuse is irrelevant. Do you really believe that? 

Just now, hungry_hole said:

Even in countries where it's illegal to lie about your HIV status it would be pretty difficult to bring charges against a guys who stealthed. How can one bring charges to an anonymous breeder?

Likelihood of successful prosecution =/= whether or not an act is illegal or unethical. 

Just now, hungry_hole said:

I think we all agree that stealthing someone who is known, like a love or a date, is not right. So, can we restrict the discussion to anonymous stealthing where the guy being stealthed bares some responsibility?

 

These scenarios are not as far removed from each other as you think. The other partner in an anonymous scenario is just as much of a human being as a lover or person you know better. In fact, you are kind of tacitly admitting some level of guilt over these activities. It seems to me that you don't support stealthing people you know (at least partially) because you can be caught or may be forced to observe the consequences a stealther inflicts on the other party. 

[hungry_hole]

44 minutes ago, zyx11 said:

These scenarios are not as far removed from each other as you think. The other partner in an anonymous scenario is just as much of a human being as a lover or person you know better.

I like anonymous sex precisely because the guys in the cruising area are not people but bodies for me to enjoy. If I want to suck cock and some guy want to suck mine, I move to the next guy. I don't do that when I'm having sex with another human being as you say and I would have to adapt my needs to my partner's needs. It's all fine when I'm in the mood to share my sexuality. But if I want to basically have sex with myself but with cocks and holes available for my pleasure instead of jerking off at home, I go to a cruising-for-sex place (bathhouse, darkroom, gloryholes).

For me anon sex is all about my needs, my fetishes and no one else's. I'm sure most guys into anon sex feel this way too. And both kinds of sex are so different that if I see someone I know at a bathhouse, it screws things up for me because now there is someone in the that I have to look at him as a person. I then no longer interested in sex.

Anon sex is it's own beast.

44 minutes ago, zyx11 said:

In fact, you are kind of tacitly admitting some level of guilt over these activities. It seems to me that you don't support stealthing people you know (at least partially) because you can be caught or may be forced to observe the consequences a stealther inflicts on the other party. 

I accept anon stealthing because infection is totally preventable and it's up to the HIV- guy. The way to avoid HIV infection is to get to know your sexual partners and discuss with them their STD tests results and both sexual behaviour.

There's no point in condemning anon stealthing because no matter how much it's demonized, it won't go away. The solution is for HIV- guys who wanna stay negative not to place themselves in a possible anon stealthing situation.

I'm convinced that some guys who oppose anon stealthing do so out of the frustration that "safe anon sex" is virtually impossible. They would like to go to a bathhouse, get on a sling and have only HIV-negative guys fuck them and breed their hole. And if a horny poz guys shows up, they want the poz guy to say "I'm sorry, but I'm poz and I don't want to infect you". So naive!

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by hungry_hole

[Guest zyx11]

1 minute ago, hungry_hole said:

I like anonymous sex precisely because the guys in the cruising area are not people but bodies for me to enjoy. If I want to suck cock and some guy want to suck mine, I move to the next guy. I don't do that when I'm having sex with another human being as you say and I would have to adapt my needs to my partner's needs. It's all fine when I'm in the mood to share my sexuality. But if I want to basically have sex with myself but with cocks and holes available for my pleasure instead of jerking off at home, I go to a cruising-for-sex place (bathhouse, darkroom, gloryholes).

For me anon sex is all about my needs, my fetishes and no one else's. I'm sure most guys into anon sex feel this way too. And both kinds of sex are so different that if I see someone I know at a bathhouse, it screws things up for me because now there is someone in the that I have to look at him as a person. I then no longer interested in sex. Anon sex is it's own beast.

You can attempt to depersonalize these cocks and holes all you want, but they are attached to people. It's fine that you get off on anonymous sex, but just wishing away their personhood doesn't absolve you of responsibility - if you want a cock to ride separate from a person, get a good dildo. If you want a hole, get a tenga. If you want to treat a person like they're just a hole or cock, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't allow you the ability to strip them of their rights. 

 

1 minute ago, hungry_hole said:

I accept anon stealthing because infection is totally preventable and it's up to the HIV- guy. The best thing to do to avoid HIV infection is to get to know your sexual partners and discuss with them their STD tests results and sexual behaviour.

First, if people are going to lie about these things (like you suggested in an earlier post) anyway, then these discussions are pointless - you might as well opt to use a condom to protect yourself because you can't fully trust partners who may lie about their status. 

1 minute ago, hungry_hole said:

There's no point in condemning anon stealthing because no matter how much it's demonized, it won't go away. The solution is for HIV- guys who wanna stay negative not to place themselves in a possible anon stealthing situation.

a - This is very literally the same argument people use when blaming rape victims. 

b - Tons of things will never go away despite being demonized (ex: murder), but we continue to (and should continue to) demonize them.

1 minute ago, hungry_hole said:

I'm convinced that some guys who oppose anon stealthing do so out of the frustration that "safe anon sex" is virtually impossible. They would like to go to a bathhouse, get on a sling and have only HIV-negative guys fuck them and breed their hole. And if a horny poz guys shows up, they want the poz guy to say "I'm sorry, but I'm poz and I don't want to infect you". So naive!

 

Poz guys should disclose their status - in many cases, they have a legal obligation - but besides that, if they are exposing their partners to a chronic condition, their partners should be able to properly weigh the risk so they can give informed consent. 

That being said, I have been mostly speaking about people who sabotage or remove condoms (where people consented to safe sex) rather than people who consent to bareback sex with a poz guy under the impression they are neg. FWIW, analoguous heterosexual cases held that people who deceived partners about their sexual health/viability of their sperm were committing sexual assault.

But it sounds like these "naive" bottoms are similar to naive anon-fuckers who want to live out their fantasies in a vacuum and simply deny their role in harming other participants...

So what if that's why guys oppose anon stealthing for that reason? These people want to minimize their risk in having anonymous sex - they are actively taking steps to reduce that risk by using protection, attempting to serosort or both of these things - and then someone else decides to ignore their wishes and force risky behavior on them. 

[tallslenderguy]

I'd like to clarify that to me "stealthing" constitutes deception, it's not the equivalent of anonymous sex. To my way of thinking, if I choose to indulge i anonymous sex, I assume all the risks with that, including contracting an STI.  If someone asks me if I am positive, I tell them, but I don't wear a sign around my neck, ring a bell and declare "unclean."   If someone wants to have sex with me using a condom, I decline, because sex without cum is incomplete for me, coitus interuptus.  

The fact that sex is a two way street means both parties are responsible for their self, not the other. If a person expresses to me that they are concerned about STI's and they ask, I will tell them the truth.  If they don't ask, then that demonstrates to me that it is not an issue for them. 

To me, stealthing is the purposeful deception of another person who has asked, or implied by insisting on a condom, for the intent of loading them with a poz load. It's not about the person being poz, but them making a deceptive effort to poz someone who has made it clear they don't want to be poz.

[Guest zyx11]

Just now, tallslenderguy said:

I'd like to clarify that to me "stealthing" constitutes deception, it's not the equivalent of anonymous sex. To my way of thinking, if I choose to indulge i anonymous sex, I assume all the risks with that, including contracting an STI.  If someone asks me if I am positive, I tell them, but I don't wear a sign around my neck, ring a bell and declare "unclean."   If someone wants to have sex with me using a condom, I decline, because sex without cum is incomplete for me, coitus interuptus.  

The fact that sex is a two way street means both parties are responsible for their self, not the other. If a person expresses to me that they are concerned about STI's and they ask, I will tell them the truth.  If they don't ask, then that demonstrates to me that it is not an issue for them. 

To me, stealthing is the purposeful deception of another person who has asked, or implied by insisting on a condom, for the intent of loading them with a poz load. It's not about the person being poz, but them making a deceptive effort to poz someone who has made it clear they don't want to be poz.

I think the ethics of whether or not poz guys should disclose if unasked is more complex (although I would like to be notified myself in that type of scenario). I don't particularly want to get into the arguments surrounding don't ask don't tell type stuff (at least in this thread) - i'd rather discuss (and have been discussing) stealthing like the kind you describe in that last section, which is very, very unethical imo. 

[tallslenderguy]

2 minutes ago, zyx11 said:

I think the ethics of whether or not poz guys should disclose if unasked is more complex (although I would like to be notified myself in that type of scenario). I don't particularly want to get into the arguments surrounding don't ask don't tell type stuff (at least in this thread) - i'd rather discuss (and have been discussing) stealthing like the kind you describe in that last section, which is very, very unethical imo. 

Yeah. That's why I clarified what I consider "stealthing" vs just having anonymous sex. I agree, disclosure is a complex subject. If a cruising site has a profile section for stating such, I select "undetectable" just as a matter of convenience. It's easier than agreeing to hook up and last minute the other person asks: "are you clean."  But I do not consider it my responsibility to assume the other guy wants to know. That's the other edge of the blade that would assume they want it. I only know they want to know if they tell me, I'm not a mind reader either way. 

To reiterate: stealthing means purposefully deceiving someone who has voiced they wanna know, or wants one to use a condom.

My guess is that most steal thing is done by those who declare themselves "clean" but cannot substantiate it. That's just as much of a deception, but I know that fact whenever I have sex and make my own choice to do it anyway sans condom.

[tighthole64]

To me its both a legal and ethics issue.  Purposely pozzing someone can be criminal if done unknowingly.  Hard to prove who gifter was, but possible by determining strain of HIV.  Some guys want anonymous gifting, but many of those like me that want to know gifter. Sure bottoms should ask status, BUT its the obligation of the top to disclose, not just assume its OK.

[Guest zyx11]

6 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

To reiterate: stealthing means purposefully deceiving someone who has voiced they wanna know, or wants one to use a condom.

Cool, that's the definition I'm working with here. Appreciate the well-considered reply. 

[pozpig]

Just going to throw my two cents in.

 

Stealthing as a fantasy is incredibly hot. But, as some things it should remain a fantasy. It makes for a great fictional story, Stealthing in practice is not something that should ever be condoned or allowed WITHOUT consent from all parties. If it's being used as part of a consensual scene such as a simulated rape fantasy being played out, or prearranged agreement then I have absolutely no moral issue with the idea. 

Personally speaking, I avoid condom use, period. If we're going to fuck, you will fuck raw, you will breed me, and you will hear me beg for you to do so. I have made exceptions for guys who want to live out the fantasy of continued use of a sabotaged condom without the bottom knowing. I tend to be ok with those scenes since I know I will be getting a raw load in the end and generally I can tell the moment of failure or removal and it's been agreed upon by all involved and my consent has been given.

The problem I do have is when choice is removed from one or more persons. There are a number of guys here whom I've spoke to that are willing to be pozzed, and that's fine. My experience speaking with most of these guys is that they want to have a connection with a particular person, either a boyfriend, good friend, or someone else they have an existing connection with. In this case I view stealthing with the intent of intentional infection to be wrong on every possible level. Not only does it take the choice away from someone, but it can also take the ability, either perceived or real of having that genuine and real connection to whomever they choose to be the one to infect and share that bond with. I also realize that one might suggest "well, they were going to get pozzed anyway" and that may be true, but as a stealther you don't know if perhaps their intended gifter is working on building to a sufficient viral load to ensure any conversion may take place. Such a choice impacts more than just your intended conquest. 

I have fought on the last point for several years wondering if it's the top or bottom at fault if choosing to engage in sex (safe or raw) with someone they may not want to be their gifter and if they should take responsibility for their actions. I believe in such cases, both share an equal piece of the blame up to the point that one or the other goes beyond what was originally agreed (top decides to steath/bottom decides to use oil based lube, etc). 

When it comes to anon scenes, respect anything your top/bottom wants. If they insist on a condom, you have the choice to allow or not allow and tell them you aren't interested if you are unwilling to budge on how safe you wish to play. I have shut down guys in a heartbeat that wanted to fuck me with a condom. Although I would have loved to experience their fuck, I won't go against what I want to satisfy them. If they insist on going raw after I state what I am looking for, then that became their choice, and all parties are in agreement and understand the situation. In such cases, any aftermath is the result of their decision. 

[drscorpio]

15 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

For me, whether or not stealthing is wrong depends on the situation. The more anonymous the situation, the more acceptable If find stealthing is.

If a slutty bottom is on a sling at a bathhouse and before each guy fucks him he asks them "Are you clean?", then I see nothing wrong if the top fucks him and dumps his toxic load in the bottom's hole. It would be like leaving your car with the keys in the ignition and running and then complain because someone stole it.  No, there is something to be said about personal responsibility.

The problem with your analogy is that even though they would chew you out for not taking precautions, the police still would arrest the guy for stealing your car if they caught him. The fact that you should have been more careful does not make the theft no longer a crime. 

Personal responsibility goes both ways. Yes, the bottom in the sling should practice a more effective prevention strategy, but the top has a responsibility to answer the question truthfully (even though the use of the word "clean" is rude, everyone knows what is meant by it) and respect the bottom's wishes. 

What you are doing is blaming the victim, and that is never okay. Expecting people not to steal or lie may be naive. Still, the negligence of the car owner or the bottom does not relieve the thief or the stealther of their personal responsibility. 

 

[Beefypervpigphx]

11 hours ago, zyx11 said:

 

Poz guys should disclose their status

 

 

Bullshit neg guys shouldnt offer their raw ass if they are too pussy to face consequences of those actions.  I'm sorry if you put your ass to a Gloryhole or post ads online about being Ass up waiting with an open door I'm gonna show up and breed your ass and u will get more than HIV I promise!  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  

[Guest Dickmagnet]

26 minutes ago, Beefypervpigphx said:

Bullshit neg guys shouldnt offer their raw ass if they are too pussy to face consequences of those actions.  I'm sorry if you put your ass to a Gloryhole or post ads online about being Ass up waiting with an open door I'm gonna show up and breed your ass and u will get more than HIV I promise!  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  

I totally agree with you on this it really is bullshit, A bit like the boy who kept on saying the wolf the wolf & every time it was bullshit. I find this whole discussion is more for condom nazi's then anything else & guys on Prep in denial really. How many times have we all met guys who claim to be clean only to be really poz or the guy in the darkroom that lets everyone fuck him & then plays the blame game that the poz guys should have told him. We are all adults & should open our eyes & take our own responsibility.

[Beefypervpigphx]

1 hour ago, Beefypervpigphx said:

Bullshit neg guys shouldnt offer their raw ass if they are too pussy to face consequences of those actions.  I'm sorry if you put your ass to a Gloryhole or post ads online about being Ass up waiting with an open door I'm gonna show up and breed your ass and u will get more than HIV I promise!  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  

I am not being disrespectful or lashing out on anyone personally.  So please don't take it personally however I know I'm not the only one who feels this way and I don't believe in "pussy-footing" around reality. 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Beefypervpigphx
Removing sentence before I regret it

[PhoenixGeoff]

On 4/28/2017 at 0:28 AM, Sem said:

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't think it's morally okay, especially when it comes to the health of another person. 

The real question though is whether Breeding Zone is the most appropriate place to contemplate about society's or one's own moral standards. 

Why not?  Just because we're sex pigs doesn't mean we're amoral bastards.  Never heard of the classic "hooker with a heart of gold?"

I am very up front with potential sexual partners about my strong preference to bareback.  I won't say I'd never use a condom because it has happened, but there better be a damn good reason.  Especially nowadays in this age of PrEP and undetectable men.

Communication is key.  My profiles have my HIV status all over them.  They are also very up front about barebacking.  Weeds out a lot of the "safe only" guys.  I highly recommend it.

[PhoenixGeoff]

6 hours ago, drscorpio said:

The problem with your analogy is that even though they would chew you out for not taking precautions, the police still would arrest the guy for stealing your car if they caught him. The fact that you should have been more careful does not make the theft no longer a crime. 

 

There is a really good point in here.  A lot of jurisdictions here in the US have statutes that state that if you have HIV and you have sex without disclosing, then your ass can be thrown in jail.  Yes, even if the guy you bred was lying blindfolded in the sling in a bathhouse.  Yes, even if he doesn't convert.

I haven't heard of it happening, but it could.  All it would take would be one bitchy queen who converted and got mad at the world to lash out and take out his frustrations on you.

Better by far to cover your ass.