California Banning Stealthing

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

better start saving some money if we are planning to have sexual encounters in the states that are doing this.

Properly considered, this is a law of the wealthy. It costs money to hire lawyers to press a civil complaint, and it costs money to hire lawyers to mount a defense. The average starving college student working on an art degree isn’t going to have the wherewithal to sue a man who stealths him. (Stealthing a law school student would be unwise.) The risk of having to pay the stealther’s court costs in the event of a lost case might be a further deterrent to making the attempt if the victim didn’t have the money to burn.

 I suppose that in the worst case imaginable you could end up with a cottage industry of attorneys who advertise to clients “no fee unless you win your case” and then we find lawyers lurking around the doors of cheap motels, waiting for Tops to leave and then sticking their heads in and asking, “So...did he take off the condom? I’ll just leave my card on the table.”

[Guest]

California is the starting point for the rest of the states.  It's already housing the majority of homeless than all other states.  California is the only state that pays it's homeless a form of unemployment, free heath care, free cell phones, free to steal & sell drugs and never go to jail.  It's like they are turning the ties on people that obey the laws to the ones that aren't.  California isn't what it's cracked up to be.  Their govt prematurely lets water out of all the lakes that are close to drying out.  Just so they can charge more for water.  Their laws are wonky, but yet promote theft and destruction.  The governor is an amazing person, his aunt is speaker of the house.  So he has to fallow her no mater what.  By doing so he's wealthier than any other Gov. in the country.  Blue or Red

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

It's more the latter; creating a cause of action for a civil offense does not negate possible criminal charges for the same action. As some of you are old enough to recall, the former American football player O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, but held liable in civil court for their deaths.

Proving stealthing isn't necessarily hard. Especially in the era of apps, an encounter that starts online can be documented with the bottom clearly stating "safe sex only" and making it clear to the top anything else is unacceptable. Presenting that in court, up against the top claiming "he changed his mind in person", while not a slam dunk, is likely to result in a judgment in favor of the bottom. Tops who think they can convince a bottom to change his mind will learn, quickly, to get the bottom to send a message to that effect before they do the deed.

And no, it's not sexy, and of course people aren't going to "want" to stop and renegotiate. But for far too long, we've essentially given the guys who violated the consent the benefit of the doubt (not just with condom/bare sex, but for all sorts of sexual assaults). Shifting the balance doesn't upset me. And as I noted before, maybe tops who really want it "bare only" need to stop going after "safe only" bottoms with the notion of trying to convince them otherwise. And bottoms who say "safe only" but who can routinely be talked into bareback, need to stop pretending they'll only do safe or else deal with the drought of "safe only" tops out there. 

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The risk of having to pay the stealther’s court costs in the event of a lost case might be a further deterrent to making the attempt if the victim didn’t have the money to burn.

As a general rule, we do not have "loser pays" rules in civil court unless that particular tort or other civil action is expressly set up that way in the law. In fact, the concept that each side bears its own legal costs is so widespread that in legal jargon, it's referred to as the "American rule". 

There are two types of cases where the American rule doesn't apply. There are those where the law specifically allows a successful plaintiff to seek attorneys' fees on top of any judgment earned. Civil rights cases, for instance, in federal court generally allow for attorneys' fees to be awarded.

The other type is a law designed to discourage frivolous lawsuits. Many states, for instance, have adopted what are known as Anti-SLAPP provisions. SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation", and they target suits filed by people who are seeking to shut down otherwise legal commentary, op-eds, and the like. A deep-pocketed plaintiff can sue a small paper or magazine, for instance, for defamation, and the costs of defending against such a suit can be astronomical and devastating to the publication, which may fold rather than incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Anti-SLAPP laws allow the defendant in such cases to raise a robust First Amendment defense that, if successful, leaves the plaintiff responsible for the defendant's legal fees.

But again, those types of provisions are generally uncommon to rare in US jurisprudence.

[Godliath]

My one-word summation of this new law: Unenforceable.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But for far too long, we've essentially given the guys who violated the consent the benefit of the doubt (not just with condom/bare sex, but for all sorts of sexual assaults). Shifting the balance doesn't upset me. And as I noted before, maybe tops who really want it "bare only" need to stop going after "safe only" bottoms with the notion of trying to convince them otherwise. And bottoms who say "safe only" but who can routinely be talked into bareback, need to stop pretending they'll only do safe or else deal with the drought of "safe only" tops out there. 

You're absolutely righ as that in general people should stop pretending they do safe only while in practice they don't.

But apparently people do; And in my experience most do.
I can get why when even PrEP-users are slut-shamed by our peers and some doctors I know alike.

I really don't think this will help victims of stealthing, if it really deters assholes trying we will have to wait and see;
In the meantime this will potentially start a witch-hunt against all Barebackers;

And in the process lessen 'fairness' and 'justice' as guiding principles for the courts by not giving people the benefit of the doubt..?
That's one hell of an experiment to conduct considering what's at stake...

 

i am not surprised though. The #MeToo movement had one negative aspect that has hardly been addressed or talked about: that often the question wasn't asked if people reporting harassment, really spoke the truth?

This really is the same slippery slope to trials by accusations only. 

[bbpoznow]

If you   are doing  safe sex  or not , always the chance you will be  stealth at some time .  So  I say  always expect  it  or dont fuck.  

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

You're absolutely righ as that in general people should stop pretending they do safe only while in practice they don't.

But apparently people do; And in my experience most do.
I can get why when even PrEP-users are slut-shamed by our peers and some doctors I know alike.

I really don't think this will help victims of stealthing, if it really deters assholes trying we will have to wait and see;
In the meantime this will potentially start a witch-hunt against all Barebackers;

And in the process lessen 'fairness' and 'justice' as guiding principles for the courts by not giving people the benefit of the doubt..?
That's one hell of an experiment to conduct considering what's at stake...

 

i am not surprised though. The #MeToo movement had one negative aspect that has hardly been addressed or talked about: that often the question wasn't asked if people reporting harassment, really spoke the truth?

This really is the same slippery slope to trials by accusations only. 

No, it's not. As I mentioned, civil suits always involve proving one's case by a preponderance of the evidence. An accusation is simply not enough. And juries are generally wise enough that if they think it's a close case, but just barely in favor of the plaintiff, they may rule for the plaintiff, but they're not going to award excessive damages. 

[timfreo]

Just refuse to use condoms straight up front 

[evilalex]

If someone is into stealthing because of deviance, would the illegality of it enhance its appeal? Serious question (Yes, I realize not all stealthers are into it because of that).