California Banning Stealthing

[BlackDude]

46 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

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.

I agree. I can’t even get past why you would want to stealth someone. 

[BootmanLA]

Just now, BlackDude said:

I agree. I can’t even get past why you would want to stealth someone. 

I can get why someone would WANT to, just like I can understand how some guys WANT to rape women, or WANT to kill others, or WANT to steal from their employers.

I just am aghast that people will actually *defend* the people who want to do these things.

[BlackDude]

3 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I can get why someone would WANT to, just like I can understand how some guys WANT to rape women, or WANT to kill others, or WANT to steal from their employers.

I just am aghast that people will actually *defend* the people who want to do these things.

True, but 90% of the time those crimes have some type of motive I would think. Revenge, something. When there is no motive, we basically deem those folks as sociopaths and unacceptable in society or mentally unfit. 
 

I don’t get what guys get out of stealthing other than being spiteful, mean and vindictive. 

[BootmanLA]

16 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

True, but 90% of the time those crimes have some type of motive I would think. Revenge, something. When there is no motive, we basically deem those folks as sociopaths and unacceptable in society or mentally unfit. 
 

I don’t get what guys get out of stealthing other than being spiteful, mean and vindictive. 

That's my point. Way more people than we want to admit are sociopathic, spiteful, mean, and vindictive. 

[mblad99]

Stupid law..consent will the issue.   And more importantly a new basis for a lawsuit by scorned lovers, even if the condom was always on.  Prove you never took it off!

[ErosWired]

8 hours 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.

This reasoning is flawed. You would have us believe that there is an arena of human sexual interaction - and specifically, an arena in which most of us on this site participate to some degree - which should be considered lawless in terms of sexual violation because of the difficulty of holding anyone to account? That’s utterly ludicrous.

I don’t surrender my right not to be sexually assaulted or raped when I walk through a bathhouse door. Just because I’m naked and more vulnerable, just because I make known my willingness to engage in intimate activity, does not - does not - grant any license of any kind for another man to to anything to me that I do not consent to. Just because it’s a situation where it’s much easier for a violator to get away with an assault doesn’t make the assault any less an assault.

Sexual assault isn’t a crime in a bathhouse? Bullshit. Rape isn’t a crime in a bathhouse? Try telling that to a judge.

Get this straight - and I’m talking to any sick fuck reading who’s somehow confused about this - just because a guy has his ass up at the bathhouse does not mean he’s “asking for it”, does not mean he “deserves” to be assaulted, raped, or infected with disease, and does not mean that another man has any special privilege whatsoever to cause him harm. If that other man does, he commits a criminal act. That makes him a criminal as well as an asshole.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

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. I

You offer rather strong arguments to the discussion why you're in favour of these kind of laws. I'm in full agreement stealthers are assholes.

I am worried however that making stealthing part of the civil code in stead of criminal law (like rape and sexual assault, the latter is basically what stealthing is) lowers the burden of proof. It might differ in what jurisdictions we live in but in most I know off there are more rules in place to prevent someone being innocently being convicted of a crime, than there are in a court-case between two citizens. For instance an accused often can't be convicted on only one piece of evidence, or only by his own admission.

Besides it being a bummer being convicted for an act one is innocent of,  this  goes against an important principle why we have laws and due proces in the first place: protection of the innocent. 
I've read only examples in this threat of provable offences that seem ar fetched to me. In most or even all cases I can imagine it might be true that both parties engaging in sex were so caught up in the moment that they wanted to forego the condom and went bareback from then on.
I can more easily  imagine a guilt trip after the act by a woman or a bottom and refusal to take their own responsibility for nog having safe sex and going to court to blame their date. Even more so as they can get a sum of money out of it.

So why not make this rule part of the laws against sexual assault - where it should already be covered by in the first place, as the act was by definition not consensual - and invest in education, empowerment and being assertive when it comes to sexual relations?

[hungry_hole]

11 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

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.

Because stealthing is part of the repertoire of fetishes in the anonymous all-male environment. But it's not part of women's repertoire of fetishes.

[ErosWired]

42 minutes ago, hungry_hole said:

Because stealthing is part of the repertoire of fetishes in the anonymous all-male environment. But it's not part of women's repertoire of fetishes.

This is the core of the failure of your philosophy. You seem to believe that as long as something gets you off, it’s okay to do it. Wrong. Sexual sadism is part of the “repertoire of fetishes” in the anonymous all-male environment, but no one would agree that it’s fine for a man to wander around a bathhouse performing cock-and-ball torture on the unwilling. It’s not okay for a guy to go around pissing all over everyone because he’s into watersports. A man doesn’t get to shove his fist up every guy’s ass just because fisting is his thing. You just don’t get to do whatever you want to people, in any circumstance. Sorry. You don’t.

[hntnhole]

As usual, I'm with ErosWired on this one.  Stealthing may be something that interests +guys, but this is a practice that is inherently dishonest, unfair, and destructive, and based in an unhealthy mind.  BreedChat is one thing ... acting on it is quite another.

[barefootboy]

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

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.

Don’t misunderstand…I am not a proponent of stealthing and not endorsing it. I am just pointing out how difficult it is to enforce that law. 

[tallslenderguy]

It was bound to happen (i.e., the new law).  The sad part is that it had to become a law in the first place, that there are enough uncivilized people violating other peoples volition that laws have to be made to deal with them.  When we do not govern ourselves, others step in and do so.  Others who are often not familiar or accepting of gay people.

 i was arrested once for asking an undercover cop to fuck me. He was at a gay cruising site pretending to be gay. i was charged using a 100 year old 'sodomy law' that made my request a felony. i got a judge who laughed and reduced it to a misdemeanor, thinking he was liberal and doing me a great favor, but i should not have been charged with a crime in the first place.  

my point is, there are a whole lot of people out there who think being gay is evil and would love to see us locked up, or worse. We do not need to be giving these people just cause to condem gays... and that can happen. i can take you into churches filled with people who voted for Mike Pence, who won't let a gay person teach their kids because being gay is equal to being a child molester in their minds. These people think in general, all encompassing terms, grouping all gay people together.. Many here are not old enough to have experienced this mentality, but it is still out there, just not as socially acceptable now.  Give them an opportunity and they will come crawling out of the wood work declaring their righteous cause against gay people. 

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I am worried however that making stealthing part of the civil code in stead of criminal law (like rape and sexual assault, the latter is basically what stealthing is) lowers the burden of proof. It might differ in what jurisdictions we live in but in most I know off there are more rules in place to prevent someone being innocently being convicted of a crime, than there are in a court-case between two citizens. For instance an accused often can't be convicted on only one piece of evidence, or only by his own admission.

Besides it being a bummer being convicted for an act one is innocent of,  this  goes against an important principle why we have laws and due proces in the first place: protection of the innocent. 

It's true that in California - and generally speaking, the U.S. - where the law under discussion is being enacted, the burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". But that's a good thing.

That said, a single piece of evidence can easily be enough to convict someone in a criminal case, if that evidence is persuasive enough. In our criminal courts, there are (broadly speaking) two types of evidence: direct evidence, which means testimony as to personal knowledge ("I saw the defendant point his gun at the victim and pull the trigger, and the victim collapsed", for instance, and indirect or circumstantial evidence, which means any other kind - fingerprints, bullet casings, blood splatters, DNA, whatever. A credible direct evidence witness can be all that's needed, sometimes. And since security cam and video recordings are also direct evidence, sometimes they're exceptionally compelling evidence.

And the point about "convicted for an act one is innocent of" makes the point: it's NOT a conviction if it's a civil suit. There are no "convicts" in civil suits. There's a plaintiff, and a defendant, and if the defendant loses, he's not "convicted" of anything - he's simply held liable for damages.

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, barefootboy said:

Don’t misunderstand…I am not a proponent of stealthing and not endorsing it. I am just pointing out how difficult it is to enforce that law. 

I agree - enforcement of a lot of laws is difficult. But I still think the laws are worth having. The threat of prosecution alone is enough to deter some instances of most offenses. 

[Guest]

Hmm.

Lawyers / barristers might ben enthusiastic about these kinds of laws as there can be more court cases they represent their clients in and so that's good for business.
Politicians will probably like this as in the wake of the #metoo movement they can tell the voters they did something, by giving alleged stealthees an instrument to sue their alleged stealthers. 

But as this will now basically be a matter of civil law can we conclude that in these jurisdictions legally, stealthing is not a crime?

Or is it just another regime created besides the one covering sex crimes, to possibly make it easier for stealthees to sue for damages?

This does nothing for the people traspassed against by stealthers as proving it remains complicated when one person says the barebacking was consensual and the other person says it was not.
If it's simplifying this question and proving it made easier, this is deterring all sexual intercourse without a condom aka barebacking, and not just stealthing.

 

As we are all members of a web-community for people enjoying barebacking I think we - or at least the tops and versatiles - better start saving some money if we are planning to have sexual encounters in the states that are doing this.