California Banning Stealthing

[nekofox]

[think before following links] https://www.wliw.org/radio/news/california-is-the-first-state-to-ban-stealthing-nonconsensual-condom-removal/

While so many of us are into the fantasy of this, if you're living in California, be on the lookout about this since that can be an unintentional slippery slope for those that are into the "darker fantasies" about stealthing.

Check it out to see what's up and feel free to discuss.

[ErosWired]

Note that this is an amendment to California’s civil code, providing the victims of stealthing a mechanism by which they may file suit against the stealther to gain recompense for the various harms done. I should think that if you now agree to fuck with a condom on in California, you should be very cautious about removing it. It strikes me that the law is just as likely to have a chilling effect on overall condom use if people become afraid of being sued by false claimants.

[RealCute]

29 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

It strikes me that the law is just as likely to have a chilling effect on overall condom use if people become afraid of being sued by false claimants.

This opens up a can of worms in so many ways.  Use a condom and something breaks, gets lost, or fails the person could be sued.  Don't use condoms and not disclose you could be sued the lawyers are going to love it.  

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, RealCute said:

This opens up a can of worms in so many ways.  Use a condom and something breaks, gets lost, or fails the person could be sued.  Don't use condoms and not disclose you could be sued the lawyers are going to love it.  

I can only imagine the nightmares involved when society decides to litigate its sexuality. Ultimately you end up with a situation where a set of contracts have to be notarized in triplicate and filed at the county courthouse 30 days in advance, with a $45 filing fee, before you can hook up with a random guy off Grindr.

Actually, the prospect of this legislation was discussed recently in another topic here, with some debate about the relative difficulty of proving that a condom removal/failure was deliberate in circumstances that were not egregiously obvious. And even if the issue of removal is undisputed, what evidence does the complainant have to prove that he did not, in fact, consent at the time? What elevates the case beyond he-said/he-said? Justice cannot prejudice in favor of the complaint simply because the complaint is made.

A wormy can, indeed.

[RealCute]

23 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

set of contracts have to be notarized in triplicate and filed at the county courthouse 30 days in advance, with a $45 filing fee, before you can hook up with a random guy off Grindr.

While here comes the end of my sex life......

[badubydo]

They ban “steathing ” but change “unknowingly transmitting” hiv to someone else a misdemeanor. CA had some ass backwards laws. 
 

I believe it’s something that needed to be known of, and people intentionally breaking condoms/removing condoms w/o consent need to know there are repercussions. 

[nekofox]

11 hours ago, RealCute said:

While here comes the end of my sex life......

I personally wouldn't think that, as long as you play smart with the right person, instead of someone that's "weird" (to say it nicely at most) and can be a danger to yourself and others for their acts.  Like any other chances for hook-ups, just the matter of having to weed out the ones that's for you and the ones that are not worth the effort.

[gaynudist61]

I would be against a law banning stealthing

[Guest]

Well intended but don't feel any law will achieve its attended goal.

Like any other sex crime the difficulty often is proof not only about what happened but if it was or was not with full consent. 

[cwhatley]

thankfully I don't live in that liberal shithole

[str8mature5]

Glad I don't live in that state also, they need to stay out of peoples sex lives!

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, str8mature5 said:

Glad I don't live in that state also, they need to stay out of peoples sex lives!

What a silly statement.

Government needs to stay out of the sex lives of *consenting* adults. Stealthing is about subjecting someone to a sexual activity to which they did NOT consent. That pushes the activity squarely into sexual assault territory.

Now - admittedly - it can be hard to prove crimes involving sexual assault, even more so in cases where the general activity was consensual, but it took a wrong turn (as here). That doesn't mean society has no place doing what it can to prevent sexual assault.

[hungry_hole]

On 10/8/2021 at 11:11 AM, nekofox said:

While so many of us are into the fantasy of this, if you're living in California, be on the lookout about this since that can be an unintentional slippery slope for those that are into the "darker fantasies" about stealthing.

I all for anonymous stealthing at the bathhouse, darkrooms and parks, and in these cases it's almost impossible to apply any kind of law like that. These laws are intended for regular sexual interactions where people involved have some idea of who the other is.

Let's assume someone at the sauna gets stealth by a guy who walked into his room, fucks him with a condom that the guy takes off in the middle of the fuck. After the breeding the guy walks out of the room and the guy notices his hole is leaking cum. What can this guy to to "apply" the law? Go after him in the hallways of the sauna demanding his name and address so he can charge him?

No changes in anonymous stealthing.

[barefootboy]

35 minutes ago, hungry_hole said:

I all for anonymous stealthing at the bathhouse, darkrooms and parks, and in these cases it's almost impossible to apply any kind of law like that. These laws are intended for regular sexual interactions where people involved have some idea of who the other is.

Let's assume someone at the sauna gets stealth by a guy who walked into his room, fucks him with a condom that the guy takes off in the middle of the fuck. After the breeding the guy walks out of the room and the guy notices his hole is leaking cum. What can this guy to to "apply" the law? Go after him in the hallways of the sauna demanding his name and address so he can charge him?

No changes in anonymous stealthing.

I agree. How can a person even prove they were stealthed instead of getting fucked by their own consent? Can you imagine the conversation when you call the cops to a bathhouse and tell them someone fucked you in a certain way against your will while you are running around in a towel with the intention of getting fucked anyway?? 

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, barefootboy said:

I agree. How can a person even prove they were stealthed instead of getting fucked by their own consent? Can you imagine the conversation when you call the cops to a bathhouse and tell them someone fucked you in a certain way against your will while you are running around in a towel with the intention of getting fucked anyway?? 

How can a woman who goes to a man's apartment prove she was raped instead of getting fucked with her own consent? In either case, it becomes up to the trier of fact (the judge or jury) to determine credibility.

The point is that yes, in some circumstances, it would be harder to prove stealthing than in others. That doesn't render the law useless; just because sometimes you can't expect to get a conviction doesn't mean that the law is inherently a bad idea. If there's a string of text messages or app discussions that point to the receiving person expressly insisting on a condom, that becomes solid (not ironclad, but solid) evidence that the sex was initiated under a particular agreement about how it was to be done.

The problem isn't the law. The problem is the guys who agree to have protected sex and then use every trick in the book - begging, coercion, or simply stealthing - to swap to unprotected sex. Maybe if these dickwad assholes didn't feel the need to say "yes" to protected sex in the first place, and hold out for what they really want, they would never be in the situation of defending themselves against a stealthing charge.

What's appalling is the number of people defending the stealthers on the flimsiest of grounds that it might be hard to prove, instead of calling them out for being the shitheels that they are.