Is stealthing morally okay?

[hungry_hole]

6 hours ago, bbinbpark said:

 I think the vast majority of men that want the condom off, is not due to them wanting to spread an STI, but because it feels better.

I would go further and say that all stealthers either lie or remove condoms because fucking a raw hole feels good and seems to be the perfect place to drop a load.

Maybe there are some stealthers who are turned-on by the idea of pozing HIV-negative guys. How could he ever know that some random guy he bred at a bathhouse will poz? And if he finds out the guy in fact is now poz, how could he know that it was him who pozed him. I'm not sure how this works for guys who get off on pozing others.

On 2017-04-28 at 7:03 AM, GoodExercise said:

Sex is a state of suspended morality.

...and bathhouse sex is a perfect example of a suspended morality. Therefore, it makes no sense to label anonymous-stealthing as immoral because it takes place in this suspended morality spaces. I prefer to protect these anonymous spaces from morality which is why I reject the idea of anonymous-stealthing being immoral. As I mentioned before, most poz guys stealth because barebacking feels better and if they need to lie they will in order to get some ass. 

Although I'm not poz, I like to protect the right of a poz guy to have spaces where he can go and forget about having to discuss his HIV+ status. I like to keep bathhouses as places where he can go to realize sexual fantasies and fetishes. Just because someone was courageous and took the HIV test to learn his HIV+ status does not justify putting all the burden on HIV+ guys all the time. There has to be sexual spaces for poz guys (detectable or undetectable) to go and basically ignore their HIV+ status, and if asked they could lie because it's the shortest way to end the conversation about HIV.

I don't have a problem protecting the right to anon-stealth because it is preventable for anyone who is serious about staying HIV-negative.

 

 

[Guest zyx11]

On 5/4/2017 at 9:39 AM, hungry_hole said:

...and bathhouse sex is a perfect example of a suspended morality. Therefore, it makes no sense to label anonymous-stealthing as immoral because it takes place in this suspended morality spaces. I prefer to protect these anonymous spaces from morality which is why I reject the idea of anonymous-stealthing being immoral. As I mentioned before, most poz guys stealth because barebacking feels better and if they need to lie they will in order to get some ass. 

Although I'm not poz, I like to protect the right of a poz guy to have spaces where he can go and forget about having to discuss his HIV+ status. I like to keep bathhouses as places where he can go to realize sexual fantasies and fetishes. Just because someone was courageous and took the HIV test to learn his HIV+ status does not justify putting all the burden on HIV+ guys all the time. There has to be sexual spaces for poz guys (detectable or undetectable) to go and basically ignore their HIV+ status, and if asked they could lie because it's the shortest way to end the conversation about HIV.

I don't have a problem protecting the right to anon-stealth because it is preventable for anyone who is serious about staying HIV-negative.

Ugh. I really just want to push back against the idea of either sex or bathhouses as areas of suspended morality. I swear, I am not normally this preachy, but with the two of you out here spreading views that justify rape, I feel the need to do so. First, the idea that sex is a time of suspended morality can be used to justify straight up sexual assault, as well as all kinds of other abusive, non-consensual behaviors.

The idea that bathhouses are some kind of vacuum where laws and ethics don't apply (because you just wish them away) is ludicrous. Bathhouses have never been, are not currently, and will never be some kind of spaces suspended in time. I know it's not necessarily the hottest to think about, but those faceless partners are real people, and there are consequences to behavior in bathhouses that can extend far beyond entering and leaving the place. Someone who contracts HIV from a stealther has to live with that long outside of their fantasy fuck in a bathhouse. You are engaging in all kinds of mental gymnastics to try will yourself into believing in this fantasy space; you can create it in your head, but that doesn't make it real. 

I understand the rights of poz people and I imagine the constant process of disclosing over and over again is frustrating and can result in lots of rejection. I recognize their wishes for a place where they don't need to disclose status. But you can arrange those spaces and play away - with all parties informed and explicitly consenting. There is no reason why a poz partner couldn't arrange a bareback event or party with fellow poz people or those who are consenting to playing with poz people. 

From what I can tell, your idea of it anon-stealthing being preventable is either a: an expensive and often unavailable medication regime or b: entirely opting out of anonymous sex because you can't trust partners to disclose their status truthfully and (in your eyes) they have the right to sabotage condoms despite another party's wishes. Why should this burden be placed solely on the negative partner? You aren't attempting to make the burden mutual - you are attempting to shift it entirely on the negative partner. You are very concerned about protecting spaces where poz people do not worry about their status - don't other parties have a right to places where they don't need to fear being stealthed or deceived by their partner?

[hungry_hole]

2 hours ago, zyx11 said:

I know it's not necessarily the hottest to think about, but those faceless partners are real people, and there are consequences to behavior in bathhouses that can extend far beyond entering and leaving the place. Someone who contracts HIV from a stealther has to live with that long outside of their fantasy fuck in a bathhouse.

Someone who is careless at a bathhouse can contract HIV from a stealther or a guy who does not know that he's poz. The solution for HIV-negative is to stop being so careless, which would be the same advice you would get at any STD clinic. Getting rid of stealthers does not guarantee staying HIV-negative.

Let's assume that a poz detectable horny guy is hunting for holes late at night at a bathhouse and he comes across a bottom who is serosorting his tops, basically playing Russian roulette. Somehow the horny poz guy convinces the bottom to go bareback by either lying or somehow letting the bottom believe he's also HIV-. After the poz guy breeds the bottom's hole he leaves and they never see each other again.

It would be safe to assume that by the end of the evening, if the bottom is young and hot, he would have  taken a few more loads, supposedly all HIV-. And because taking anon loads at a bathhouse is so much fun, there will probably be a repeat of this experience. In other words, trying to view the bottom as a victim of a stealther makes no sense. I would accept the concept of being victim of stealthing but only when there was supposed to be trust between the partners.

3 hours ago, zyx11 said:

Why should this burden be placed solely on the negative partner?

Because apparently he is the one with the most to loose.

 

3 hours ago, zyx11 said:

Ugh. I really just want to push back against the idea of either sex or bathhouses as areas of suspended morality. I swear, I am not normally this preachy, but with the two of you out here spreading views that justify rape, I feel the need to do so. First, the idea that sex is a time of suspended morality can be used to justify straight up sexual assault, as well as all kinds of other abusive, non-consensual behaviors.

You sound like one of those women who despise the objectification of the body and who reacts in disgust. And I'm one of those men who gets lots of pleasure and excitement from anonymous sex where I get the freedom to objectify bodies to fulfill my needs. Anonymous sex always works for me, it never disappointments me.

I think that by censoring my need to completely objectify other men in bathhouses and instead "feel for them as people" is equivalent of having to feel sorry for some UFC fight who gets beaten up bad at a fight. No matter how bad they get beaten up they are no victims, first because they chose to fight.

 

[drscorpio]

Here is the definition from the Department of Justice: Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

I think it is clear that stealthing meets that definition.

 

[JamieLondon]

Stealthing is wrong.

If someone wants to get fucked with a condom and the top takes off the condom (or the other way round) it is wrong. Especially when the top/bottom knows he has any sort of disease.

Going to a bath house/sauna etc, does not justify stealthing in any way shape or form; the point of an establishment like that is that so for the most part people stay anonymous. The definition of anonymous is; a person not identified by name. Therefore, being in a bath house/sauna does not give ANYONE the right to stealth; even with an infection or with no infection.

If a bottom/top is reckless and does not use a condom for anyone; then stealthing is still wrong if the stealthier knows he is infected but nobody can be blamed apart from the reckless bottom/top.

If you think stealthing with intent to infect someone is not wrong and you are using rubbish arguments such as "suspended morality" then you are tying to jusitfy your own fantasy to make yourself feel like your normal or that your fantasy/actions are justified and sane. You don't get to decide if someone becomes infected with anything; your part of the reason gay sex is such a taboo - it's ruining it for gay/bi/straight people who enjoy it.

[Guest GoodExercise]

For voluntary (with informed consent) sex the moral code, if any, is whatever code is mutually agreed by the persons involved.  Of course, to mutually agree to a moral code would require an intimate trust and accountability relationship, which is the exact opposite of anonymous sex.  Thus, anonymous sex occurs outside the realm of a moral code -- in a state of suspended morality.  Any presumption that there is a universal moral code for anonymous sex is empirically false, particularly in bathhouse, ABS or other venue where the men gather with a wide range of interests and agendas in pursuit of a broad array of experiences.  Anonymity is consent because participants know (and thus are informed) that stealthing is one of the sex acts practiced in anonymous encounters. 

[hungry_hole]

45 minutes ago, GoodExercise said:

Any presumption that there is a universal moral code for anonymous sex is empirically false, particularly in bathhouse, ABS or other venue where the men gather with a wide range of interests and agendas in pursuit of a broad array of experiences. 

The interests, agendas and experiences are different from one man to another, and that includes the evaluation of the moral code within the context of anonymous sex environment.

46 minutes ago, GoodExercise said:

Of course, to mutually agree to a moral code would require an intimate trust and accountability relationship, which is the exact opposite of anonymous sex.

So well said. I favor initiatives like safestsex.org that allows members to enter their STD test results and then exchange those results with other members. The fact that you have entered the results online adds some accountability. Better than coming up with an answer on the spare of the moment, when horny.

19 hours ago, zyx11 said:

...don't other parties [HIV-negative guys] have a right to places where they don't need to fear being stealthed or deceived by their partner?

I totally agree with this concept, having like a Cumunion of all HIV-negative guys, at least tested on entrance.

I heard that safestsex.org organizes private events with members who fall under certain conditions of seniority, testing pattern, etc, which is why they don't advertise the events. These parties could be a way for HIV-negative guys to have anon sex but also reducing the risk.

For me it's

[Guest zyx11]

On 5/5/2017 at 5:39 PM, hungry_hole said:

Someone who is careless at a bathhouse can contract HIV from a stealther or a guy who does not know that he's poz. The solution for HIV-negative is to stop being so careless, which would be the same advice you would get at any STD clinic. Getting rid of stealthers does not guarantee staying HIV-negative.

Let's assume that a poz detectable horny guy is hunting for holes late at night at a bathhouse and he comes across a bottom who is serosorting his tops, basically playing Russian roulette. Somehow the horny poz guy convinces the bottom to go bareback by either lying or somehow letting the bottom believe he's also HIV-. After the poz guy breeds the bottom's hole he leaves and they never see each other again.

It would be safe to assume that by the end of the evening, if the bottom is young and hot, he would have  taken a few more loads, supposedly all HIV-. And because taking anon loads at a bathhouse is so much fun, there will probably be a repeat of this experience. In other words, trying to view the bottom as a victim of a stealther makes no sense. I would accept the concept of being victim of stealthing but only when there was supposed to be trust between the partners.

The STD clinic would also tell stealthers to disclose status and stop stealthing, but they aren't going to come forward because of legal repercussions. Look, I think I've been pretty clear - bottoms who bareback with strangers are at an elevated risk of contracting STDs - but I still don't understand why you are so reluctant to recognize a top's role in deceiving a partner as violating their trust.

On 5/5/2017 at 5:39 PM, hungry_hole said:

You sound like one of those women who despise the objectification of the body and who reacts in disgust. And I'm one of those men who gets lots of pleasure and excitement from anonymous sex where I get the freedom to objectify bodies to fulfill my needs. Anonymous sex always works for me, it never disappointments me.

I think that by censoring my need to completely objectify other men in bathhouses and instead "feel for them as people" is equivalent of having to feel sorry for some UFC fight who gets beaten up bad at a fight. No matter how bad they get beaten up they are no victims, first because they chose to fight.

Loving that barely disguised sexism there- nicely done. I love anonymous sex, and objectifying people in your head is just fine in my opinion. I like that you are trying to paint me as some kind of prudish "woman" to discredit my arguments. I have a problem if your fantasy encourages you to run roughshod over other people's rights. Again, your argument could be used to justify straight up, forcible sexual assault, where one partner holds one down and rapes the other - by your logic, it's only your fantasy and desire that matters, not the experience of your victim.

And to just to apply this to your UFC metaphor, UFC victims are fully aware of the risks they are consenting to! They have entered into a contract to fight, fully aware of the risk at hand. A party who is stealthed does not have full information and is not given the opportunity to fully consent. Those scenarios are not analogous.

On 5/6/2017 at 8:02 AM, GoodExercise said:

For voluntary (with informed consent) sex the moral code, if any, is whatever code is mutually agreed by the persons involved.  Of course, to mutually agree to a moral code would require an intimate trust and accountability relationship, which is the exact opposite of anonymous sex.  Thus, anonymous sex occurs outside the realm of a moral code -- in a state of suspended morality.  Any presumption that there is a universal moral code for anonymous sex is empirically false, particularly in bathhouse, ABS or other venue where the men gather with a wide range of interests and agendas in pursuit of a broad array of experiences.  Anonymity is consent because participants know (and thus are informed) that stealthing is one of the sex acts practiced in anonymous encounters. 

We make all kinds of arrangements and transactions every day without intimate trust, so I'm not buying that argument. An accountability relationship may be necessary if you are attempting to punish deviation from a moral code, but it is not necessary for establishing one - so yes, you probably CAN stealth and get away with it, but that does not imply that you should, or that the difficulty in punishing a stealther justifies the practice. As a side note, even if these two partners do not establish their own personal agreement, law still applies in this scenario, and the law is pretty damn clear that stealthing = sexual assault. 

I'm not presuming there is a universal moral code - in fact, that's why I'm saying that partners need to verbally seek consent with their partners in these anonymous exchanges. That's part of what makes stealthing a violation - partners are unaware of the deception and thus can't consent to the change in practice/risk.

And believe it or not, there are many, many people unaware of stealthing. BZ and BBRT users may be more informed, but given how little sex education most people get, I find it hard to believe that people are generally aware of the practice. 

[garsento]

On 4/28/2017 at 3:11 PM, 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.

This. I have no problem with having sex with poz people. (Most of my sex these days is with them.) I do have huge problems with people who lie to me and do things to me I did not consent to.

[garsento]

On 5/6/2017 at 8:02 AM, GoodExercise said:

For voluntary (with informed consent) sex the moral code, if any, is whatever code is mutually agreed by the persons involved.  Of course, to mutually agree to a moral code would require an intimate trust and accountability relationship, which is the exact opposite of anonymous sex.  Thus, anonymous sex occurs outside the realm of a moral code -- in a state of suspended morality.

That actually is not the case. I might have a very limited relationship with a guy I meet at Steamworks, but if I tell someone I do not want to do something and he goes ahead and does it anyway that is the violation of a moral code.

[Leather69]

There is a case in Australia that has gone all the way to the High Court (equal to the US Supreme Court). Two guys who I will call A and B (the court didn't disclose names). A was the top and B the bottom. A is positive, knew it and wasn't on medication. His doctor had told him that any sex he had need to be safe sex. B, was negative and was testing frequently.

They had safe sex on quite a few occasions and eventually A convinced B that he too was negative and started fucking B raw. B contracted hiv and also a slew of other medical complications, following his infection. A was charged with causing grievous bodily harm and was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years jail.. he appealed to the court of appeal and lost.. then to the High Court and has lost again...

Just be aware of your actions....   

[Guest Pwrfkme06]

every time a top stealths me I say thank you

[SpermMyCumhole]

On ‎28‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 6:15 PM, zyx11 said:

I personally find stealthing to be an incredibly hot fantasy, but genuine, actual stealthing is very unethical in my opinion. Sex is a two-way exchange which requires the consent of both parties - one partner unilaterally deciding to change the terms of that sex without agreement from the other party (by breaking a condom, pulling it off, etc) is committing sexual assault. Deliberately infecting a partner or exposing them to STDs definitely increases the severity of this act, but either way, it's a non-consensual sexual act. It's definitely illegal.

Again, not sure if this place is the right place to discuss the subject, but I personally have started feeling some guilt about indulging in this fantasy in chat - even though I get turned on by the power dynamics (just like how people can have a rape fantasy but be sickened by actual rape), this is an unambiguous violation of consent in reality for me. I'm increasingly concerned that very fictional dirty chats or reposting condom-to-bb porn could be seen as an endorsement of this behavior. I know I can separate fantasy from reality, but I'm starting to wonder if others are doing the same...

I do agree with most of what you're saying here, although Condom to Bareback porn is acceptable - at least in the event that the bottom removes the condom, to me this communicates clear consent and if the top is unhappy with the new terms he's free to leave. Particularly in a bathhouse or glory hole situation.

[pigpozdad]

I never stealth and always am verbal about what i have.  That is also why i prefer to fuck only poz dudes, or dudes who say they are poz.

[hungry_hole]

8 hours ago, Leather69 said:

There is a case in Australia that has gone all the way to the High Court (equal to the US Supreme Court)...

I want to mention that this is not a case of anonymous-stealing because I think in this case we all agree that stealthing is not acceptable. I remember a case of a male in Canada who knew he was HIV+ but would purposely look to infect women.  Not a very nice behavior.

10 hours ago, Leather69 said:

B contracted hiv and also a slew of other medical complications, following his infection.

Any damage that stealthing may cause is only speculative which is why I object comparing stealthing with rape or other forms of sexual assault where the damage is obvious and immediate.

I was stealthed for the first time by a hook-up at my place. It was not at a bathhouse but it was still an anon hook-up. In the middle of the fuck he pulled out and then re-entered. I remember that it felt different but wasn't sure why. He pulled out, got dressed and before leaving he whispers in my ear "I left you a present". When I touched my hole I could feel the cum leaking out of my hole. I enjoyed it and I was never infected.  How can I compare this stealthing incident with rape?

I'm sure that most stealthing incidents are initiated by horny guys who don't like condoms and not by poz guys who purposely want to infect other guys, as many try portraying stealthers.

Let's imagine a typical anon scene. A poz guy who is walking around in a bathhouse looking for a hole to dump his load. I will call him the poz top but it doesn't matter whether he is a "top" or a bottom who just wants to unload and go home after a night of taking loads. What's important is that he's horny and breeding a hole (not making love to a man) is all he wants. There is a hot young guy getting fucked on one of the public slings which catches his attention but when he gets closer he notices the top is wearing a condom. He wants to fuck him next but he wants to fuck him bareback so he can dump his load. He bottom on the sling says he's HIV-negative and requests a condom but after a few seconds of teasing the bottom agrees to go bare as long as he's HIV-negative. The poz guy is horny so he manages to convince the bottom to go bare with vague answers such as "I'm OK" which really means nothing about STDs.

I know that many of you who are against all forms of stealthing, including anon-stealthing, believe that all wishes have to be respected and consent is required, no matter what. The problem I have with that is that we are relying on very ambiguous information to make decisions that we think are rational. Starting with the bottom guy on the sling.

How accurate is the HIV-negative status of the bottom on the sling? If our poz top could convince the bottom to go bare, how many other anon tops have been able to convince him to take their loads? How seriously can our poz top take the bottom's self-assessment of being HIV-negative? "He will go bare with me so he must have gone bare with others." Our poz top may easily assume that the bottom is already poz or that he will eventually poz, all based on the bottom's behaviour. 

If everyone had to get tested for HIV on entry to the bathhouse I would feel different about not telling the truth. At least in this case the question and the answer are both clear and unambiguous, unlike what's happening now that someone who tested 2 years ago considers himself to be HIV-negative.