Is stealthing morally okay?

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, Sissywhoresuzy said:

I think it totally acceptable  to be stealthed

Cool. Are you okay with being robbed, beaten, maimed?

Regardless, what you think is acceptable for you is pertinent and relevant to you alone. You thinking it's okay doesn't make it acceptable for anyone else to do it to anyone else. Period.

[RealCute]

Below articles of consent in Canada 🇨🇦 and impact.

[think before following links] https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2021/11/04/bc-sex-supreme-court-condom-consent/

 

[BlackDude]

8 hours ago, BigPaleBottom said:

Not sure tbh. To be clear, when I say stealthing I mean not using, removing or sabotaging a condom without the knowledge and consent of the partner. 
 

It happened to me several times. A guy removing it secretly, another fucking me doggie without putting the agreed condom on. Also one where it turned out the condom had a hole. Not a poked hole, but a 5 mm piece missing (I have photos). I may write about it in this other thread here. 
 

it happens. Worse, these are those cases where I noticed. Were there more where I didn’t ?

 Can’t say how often it happens but it definitely does. And it fucked up my sex life for a long time. 

I didn’t mean to disrespect or ignore that situations like yours happen. My point, which I probably did not articulate well enough, are guys trying deflect and confuse the conversation to say what happened to you is the same as not telling guys their status. 

[btmboy3in]

On 11/6/2021 at 4:45 PM, Sissywhoresuzy said:

I think it totally acceptable  to be stealthed

I agree, Suzy. I am fine with being stealthed.

--Jamie near Boston MA

[NEDenver]

No.  Of course it isn’t.

[badubydo]

3 hours ago, btmboy3in said:

I agree, Suzy. I am fine with being stealthed.

--Jamie near Boston MA

Just because you are doesn’t make it morally or ethically okay. 
 

Some of you guys are sick in the head. 

[Guest]

We all know stealthing is a kink for some people. But I still think it’s pretty clear that the answer to OP’s question is that it’s an immoral act. 

Whether or not you take it isn’t relevant.

I think it should be pretty clear too that any of us who take loads no questions asked will at some point have guys do it to you.

Unless you don’t take condoms at all, which I am pretty sure is the only thing that’s kept me from being stealthed.

[ronnie4u]

On 11/9/2021 at 3:01 AM, DianaTSSlut said:

We all know stealthing is a kink for some people. But I still think it’s pretty clear that the answer to OP’s question is that it’s an immoral act. 

Whether or not you take it isn’t relevant.

I think it should be pretty clear too that any of us who take loads no questions asked will at some point have guys do it to you.

Unless you don’t take condoms at all, which I am pretty sure is the only thing that’s kept me from being stealthed.

I totally agree with Ms. Diana - I was raised by sexual activity by my parents , boy friends and others growing up ! Seems I like to party - becoming like my parents - insisting having condoms used but they always broke . I really enjoying getting high - sucking cocks - then being fucked - barebacking - do not care anymore . Growing up became very popular with older men and women .  Found out some married couple having their wives being used on me so the men can have their ways with me - do not care - cocks squirt cum loads are BEST !

[valldelxeno]

I don't think it can possibly be morally ok, it flies in the face of consent. 

As much as it turns me on, I am glad that I am able to keep that to just being something I watch in porn. In person I just refuse to mess around with condoms in the first place, so I'm never in a position where I *could* stealth someone even if I wanted to.

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, valldelxeno said:

I don't think it can possibly be morally ok, it flies in the face of consent. 

As much as it turns me on, I am glad that I am able to keep that to just being something I watch in porn. In person I just refuse to mess around with condoms in the first place, so I'm never in a position where I *could* stealth someone even if I wanted to.

Just for the record: condoms aren't necessary for stealthing, which has multiple definitions. A top promising a bottom he'll pull out, and then ejaculating inside (especially if he can cum again "outside" soon after) is stealthing. So is a top telling a bottom he's negative when he knows he's not, and getting the bottom to bareback under false pretenses.

As you say, they're all violations of consent, whether or not condoms are involved.

[NWUSHorny]

No, never.  I have never cum in a bottom without some kind warning and a chance for them to pull off before I shoot.  I don't necessarily disclose status if it is a scenario where I'm hooking up with random sluts, but they must give tacit consent to get bred.  I expect the same when I'm on the receiving end.

[valldelxeno]

On 12/7/2021 at 8:57 PM, BootmanLA said:

Just for the record: condoms aren't necessary for stealthing, which has multiple definitions. A top promising a bottom he'll pull out, and then ejaculating inside (especially if he can cum again "outside" soon after) is stealthing. So is a top telling a bottom he's negative when he knows he's not, and getting the bottom to bareback under false pretenses.

As you say, they're all violations of consent, whether or not condoms are involved.

It's good to clarify those things. Again I just wouldn't do them - I hook up almost exclusively via apps and generally talk a bit about what we like in bed, if someone didn't want my cum in his arse I probably just wouldn't hook up with him to be honest. 

Not to mention that the pulling out method is really hit-or-miss - I say hit-or-miss because it's hard to say it's effective or ineffective, as it reduces the risk of transmission by about 50%. So like, wow, a whole 50%, but also only 50%...

If anything, with a guy that wanted me to pull out when I came, I would explain to him that that's not really that effective...but without pressuring or anything. Just education 

[ErosWired]

On 12/7/2021 at 1:57 PM, BootmanLA said:

Just for the record: condoms aren't necessary for stealthing, which has multiple definitions. A top promising a bottom he'll pull out, and then ejaculating inside (especially if he can cum again "outside" soon after) is stealthing. So is a top telling a bottom he's negative when he knows he's not, and getting the bottom to bareback under false pretenses.

I’m not sure that the issues of disclosure/nondisclosure are as universally associated with stealthing as an act. On the one hand, you have a very specific matter of whether a condom was or was not worn as understood and/or agreed.

Expanding the definition of stealthing to encompass acts performed under the false pretense of falsifying one’s HIV status, however, begins to make the definition pliable to the point that uncertainty arises as to its absolute ethical standing. For instance, we may agree that falsely answering a question about whether you pose a health risk in order to get your fuck is stealthing by this definition; but what do we make of a man who has been durably Undetectable for a number of years, who answers the question “Are you poz” with “I’m safe”? It could be argued that he has misled the bottom into believing that he’s Neg, which would implicate stealthing, but he has also told the truth, and he does not pose a risk to that bottom from his fuck. Has he stealthed him? He didn’t lie - he just answered in a way subject to interpretation.

Does all nondisclosure amount to stealthing? What if the question isn’t asked? There’s a lot of talk on here about how bottoms who don’t ask any questions should expect to get stealth-bred by men with disease. While doing so is indisputably heinous on the part of the Top who does it, is it stealthing per se if there is no expressed consent to be violated? Do we adopt the position (as one would hope) that the default for consent in sexual relations is that the recipient does not agree to be knowingly infected with disease? Or do we create a standard in which affirmative consent must be expressed for any act, on the basis of true information, and therefore anything that happens under color of deceit is stealthing?

If I host ass-up for an evening and take half a dozen anonymous cocks and no conversation is ever had with any of those men about my Positive status, have I strealth-bottomed all of them? Some would shrug their shoulders and say ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ as though that were some kind of answer, but that doesn’t address whether I met my ethical obligations. Now, what I do is make sure that my status is clearly posted in every profile - I’m not hiding anything. If I’m asked, I answer truthfully and in detail. But if I feel another man’s penis enter my body and I do not know whether he is aware of my status, does my allowing him to continue possibly unaware mean that I’m stealthing him? I know that I’m Undetectable or I wouldn’t be in that room with my ass up in the first place.

As anyone can tell by my previous posts on the subject, I have firm views on the utter dickishness of stealthing, as it has been heretofore more narrowly defined, and I take an extremely dim view of any practice that risks harm to another person. Yet it seems to me the vagaries of sexual interaction are too complex to be simplified to a sense that anything dishonest, by lie or by omission, is “stealthing”.

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Does all nondisclosure amount to stealthing?

I don't think so.  If you mean merely saying nothing (nondisclosure being the active act), no mention of any potential transmission being made by either party, I don't see how that could be called stealthing.  The very word implies secrecy, and carries an aura of dishonesty (from either party).  

I rather doubt that there are many men in the world who need raw sex with other men, and have never heard of STD's.  If no mention, no questions are asked (or even hinted) regarding health-related issues, and the men engage in raw fucking, there cannot be any violation, any "stealthing".  Merely engaging without any mention, however vague, of transmission cannot be called (in my opinion) "stealthing".  It may or may not make much sense, but absent any dishonesty, the chips fall where they may.

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I rather doubt that there are many men in the world who need raw sex with other men, and have never heard of STD's.  If no mention, no questions are asked (or even hinted) regarding health-related issues, and the men engage in raw fucking, there cannot be any violation, any "stealthing".  Merely engaging without any mention, however vague, of transmission cannot be called (in my opinion) "stealthing".  It may or may not make much sense, but absent any dishonesty, the chips fall where they may.

There is the distinction, though, in the situation where a man knows that he is a potentially infectious carrier of disease and fucks another man anyway without disclosing that fact. On the one hand, he may have no malicious intent and is simply (irresponsibly) hoping for the best while he gets his fuck, but he isn’t approaching the situation with the idea if surreptitiously infecting the other person. Calling this stealthing seems uncertain to me.

On the other hand, you have the infected and infectious Top who does the same thing, no questions asked, except he has it in mind that he is going to expose the bottom to his disease in hopes of transmission. This, I would easily call stealthing. It’s not a question of letting chips fall where they may - the infected Top already knows which way the chips are likely to fall and does his best to see that they do. It’s not no-harm-no-foul, it’s very much a case of intentional harm, and is unconscionable due to its malice.