Is stealthing morally okay?

[Guest]

In this day and age where so many guys are on PrEP and the vast majority of poz guys are on meds the chances of getting knocked up are lower than ever. If a guy is getting fucked he should and not on PrEP he should accept the risks.  

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

it’s very much a case of intentional harm, and is unconscionable due to its malice.

Of course it's intentional harm, and inexcusable.  However, unless he (the Top) lies about being infectious, if asked by the bottom, or implies (actively misleads in response to the bottom's questions) he is not infectious, I don't see how it can be stealthing.  The obvious solution would be that every bottom that cares, should ask, and then weigh the potential consequences of taking the guy's load.  Whether the bottom believes the Top is up to the bottom to decide.  The bottom should simply assume he may be about to be infected with something every time he takes a raw Cock up his gut.  But, in the absence of any active misleading statement, I don't see how we can call it Stealthing.  

For this reason, it's important (in my view) for bottoms to protect themselves as best they can from whatever may cum their way; PReP is currently the most widely used way to lessen the chances of hiv infection.  When men decide to fuck raw, only a genuine dullard would believe that he'll never contract anything, based on a mere conversation.  

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

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.

Agreed.  Irresponsible, certainly - but I wouldn't call the above a "stealthing" fuck either.

 

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

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.

  Agreed.  To my mind, inexcusable, but that's only my own view.  However, it takes two to tango, and if neither guy asks any questions, then there is no opportunity to "stealth", since by not asking any questions, the bottom has not offered the Top the opportunity to lie in the first place.  Without the questions being asked, there's no lying - no stealthing that can exist.  No guy asked, so no subterfuge can happen without a dishonesty of some sort taking place prior to the lie (or stealth).  

In other words, an infected Top that wants to spread his infection to others (regrettably, they do exist) cannot "stealth" a Hole without a previously deceitful answer to the bottom's question.  Stealthing can only exist when there is a previous, active falsehood.

We're getting down in the semantic weeds here, but I happen to enjoy this .....

[hntnhole]

addendum:

The bottom should ask/say a couple of things, such as "I'm not hiv positive, but I want to be.  Can your Cock convert me?"

Or - I'm positive, and I want more of it.  Can you re-infect me?  Or I'm hiv negative, and I want to stay that way; questions/statements to that effect.  

It the Top says yes, his Cock is potent in that regard, no lie has been told or even implied.  Honest, upfront and truthful.  If the Top says no, I cannot infect you, when he can indeed infect the bottom, then the operative lie becomes operatonal.  That is when the stealthing, however despicable, would become an active action.  

Now.  While I completely disagree with dishonesty in any situation, particularly so when the well-being of others is put in danger, I can think of all kinds of criticisms (my own, not speaking for others) to unleash upon the liar.  Lying is antithetical to decency, despite it's ubiquitous-ness. 

Thus, bottoms who do not want to become hiv positive should take the steps appropriate to avoiding it, and not put much stock in receiving a reliable answer if they pose the question.  They should assume that a stealth-fuck is in the works, whatever the circumstances.  They'll come down with other issues - we all do - but at least they'll have the opportunity to take those appropriate actions before something more serious happens.  

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

In other words, an infected Top that wants to spread his infection to others (regrettably, they do exist) cannot "stealth" a Hole without a previously deceitful answer to the bottom's question.  Stealthing can only exist when there is a previous, active falsehood.

I’m not sure I entirely agree. The premise that the bottom must give the Top an opportunity to lie absolves the Top of any responsibility for the knowledge that he has of his own condition. He approaches the transaction from an advantaged position - he has information the other man lacks about a condition that would a) pose risks to the other man and b) potentially predispose the other man negatively toward the Top. Given these things, the Top would seem to have the ethical obligation not to withhold the information simply because he isn’t positively asked for it.

But look at it a different way - let’s say I walk down a street one evening and a man is lurking in a side alley. As I pass, he doesn’t announce himself, but slinks up behind me and mugs me for my wallet. He has achieved his goal and taken what he wanted by stealth. I don’t see that as greatly different in spirit from a man with an untreated STD who fucks another man without telling him of the danger. When I was in Atlanta, one young Top fucked me, inseminated me, and then said, “Now you got my toxic load.” I consider myself stealthed by him because he knew exactly what he was doing, every bit as though he had mugged me on the street. Do you suggest that I had no right to expect him not to do it because I didn’t ask him if he was infectious? Would I have no right to complain about a mugging if I didn’t ask the mugger if he was about to mug me?

We are each affirmatively responsible for the evil we do and the harm we cause.

[coastalbender]

Stealthing is a sex act without consent. If the bottom consents, then it's stealth play not stealthing. Without consent is sexual assault.

[hntnhole]

34 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Given these things, the Top would seem to have the ethical obligation not to withhold the information simply because he isn’t positively asked for it.

Well, ok.  I accept your position and respect your arguments and reasoning.  Purposely infecting others is simply not something any guy should do - and thanks for the interesting discourse.  I very much enjoy it. 

[BootmanLA]

20 hours ago, ErosWired said:

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?

In the case of the man who answers "Are you poz?" with "I'm safe", I'd argue that he has deliberately misled the person. It's true that scientifically speaking, he's "safe" - but he's not only NOT answering the question asked, but he's doing so in a way calculated to mislead, AND missing an opportunity to educate the other guy. If the other guy does end up finding out, the selfish actions of the guy saying "I'm safe" are likely to have more backlash, where his onetime partner now has less reason to trust people. You know, and I know, that an UD top essentially can't infect a negative bottom. But the bottom still deserves to know the status so he can decide for himself whether that's a risk he's willing to take; so answering in a way that could mislead the bottom to make a decision in favor of sex (or bareback sex) when he would not otherwise, is stealthing.

I wouldn't say ALL nondisclosure amounts to stealthing. Stealth, to me, in this context implies deceit. And deceit requires at least some level of intent, beyond "not volunteering information". It includes lying by commission and lying by omission. "I'm safe" is true, but it omits the truthful answer to the question asked.

But just because I think "not volunteering information" isn't stealthing doesn't mean I think anything goes, morally speaking, if no questions are asked. I just think it falls into a different category of behavior than "stealthing".

[PupLucca]

No it isn’t morally ok. If you can’t be upfront with a guy you shouldn’t be hooking up

[chargedodger]

Yeah its wrong on a lot of levels.But personally having made the decission to chase I am okay with getting pozzed by a guy who isn't honest about his status or just forgets to tell me.am okay with being a poz man;s latest breeding project too.

[Guest]

No. It is sexual assault if the other person does not consent to it or says they do not want it, and it is still done.

In many countries and places stealthing is illegal.

If 2 or more people having sex decide they want it raw or BB or without barriers that is their choice but it is consensual sex between adults.

Edited January 3, 2022 by TotalTop

[hntnhole]

Never.  Ever.  If a guy is pumping poz, there are tons of guys that say they want it.  If a guys says he doesn't, have the honesty to move on to the next guy.

[PigBoyDallas]

Is stealthing morally OK…fuck no. But let’s be honest; guys lie. Guys will say and do almost anything to have sex and I’m probably as guilty of that as anyone else. And I know guys lie about their status…I’m not so stupid I assume everyone is honest. I’ve been with and run across guys who say they’re on Prep, but aren’t, and guys who say they’re neg when in reality they don’t know their status. And I hear all kinds of rationalizations, like most guys are on prep and shit like that.  I just pretty much assume every guy I get with doesn’t know their status. I’m not asking them to bring their prescription to prove they’re on prep or recent HIV test. And when I talk to the guys that lie they aren’t trying to stealth anyone…they just hate the questions that come, they just want to get to fucking raw and taking their chances. And I get that. I hate it when guys ask me if I “do this often” or get fucked a lot, or do bare a lot. And yeah, I’m gonna lie and say I don’t do it often, that I don’t get fucked a lot, and rarely bareback. Stealthing is tough as you have to prove malice and intent. Most guys are spreading it unintentionally because they just don’t know.

[PozTalkAuthor]

On 4/28/2017 at 9:28 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. 

I think it's a matter of respect. OK, there are people who _LOVE_ to be objectified and they all know the risk of being treated as a container where men empty their balls.

But in the other case, people must be free to decide of their health. They can have many reasons for using condoms, so I'd never feel the right to take it off without their consent.

I have not been free, my former bf gave me HIV by cheating at a time where PrEP was not an option; who can blame a couple deciding to bareback? And who can guess the man you love is fucking around behind your back?

That was not stealthing, but I don't find a correct behaviour when you decide for another person's health without their consent.

Then, OK, with FANTASY you can fly high and talk as dirty as you want, virus transmissions in roleplay do not harm. But reality is another matter.

 

[evilalex]

On 11/6/2021 at 10:24 PM, RealCute said:

Below articles of consent in Canada 🇨🇦 and impact.

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

 

I consent to whatever the fuck you want to do to me, fucking stud.

[YourNoLimitsBottom]

I'm a bottom, and would hope that if my sex partner and I had taken the time to discuss and agree to being safe or bare for whatever reason, we both stick to it.

I have a somewhat consistent fuck buddy but we are not exclusive. If I ever became poz or suspected I took a poz load, I'd be up front with him before we did anything. So far he has done the same for me. But he does love to get in the poz breeding talk during sex!

I couldn't live with myself if I knowingly passed along something to him or anyone that they were not anticipating.