Real life stealthing

[Breedingandseeding]

I recently came across a Twitter account with some content of a beefy daddy breeding mostly twinks. After scrolling through a bit and watching some videos and reading his posts he very heavily hints that’s he’s Poz but never outright says it. He says he’s not on prep, talks about his “dirty load” and loves fucking virgins who aren’t on prep. He states he has a “one  and done” rule so he never hooks up with the same guy twice (multiple loads in one session he’s fine with) and he even brags about ghosting or blocking the young guys he breeds after he’s done using them.

I gotta ask since so many fiction stories here involve stealthing, rape, or other morally questionable material, how guys on this site feel about this guy?

The sex is consensual, but he’s very likely stealthing young and dumb 18-20 year olds, and then ghosting or blocking them. Just curious how much of what’s on here is fantasy and what people are actually doing themselves.

(@BeefyBull3 if you feel like checking him out yourself; not an endorsement but you can see what I’m talking about)

[Pigforcum]

Stealthing is a pretty shitty thing to do and he'll land himself in hot water before long

[badubydo]

The sex immediately becomes non-consensual when he lies about hi status. 
 

Stealthing is immoral just plain wrong. 

[BootmanLA]

59 minutes ago, badubydo said:

The sex immediately becomes non-consensual when he lies about hi status. 
 

Stealthing is immoral just plain wrong. 

I don't disagree with you, but: the OP said this guy's profile doesn't lie about his status. It hints he's poz but doesn't confirm it.

I agree that it's better for people to volunteer their status and discuss it if requested. But ultimately, it's these guys' responsibility to ask, to verify if they have doubts, and to protect themselves in any case. If they do the last of these, whether this guy is poz or just helping some guys indulge a fantasy becomes irrelevant.

[Mcv69]

Stealthing is pretty disgusting, right up there with child abuse if you ask me. Totally wrong on every level.

[drscorpio]

I went and checked out his Twitter feed. I think this guy is creating a persona to promote his OF and JFF pages to people into Poz fetish. He has to have signed releases from everyone who appears in videos on those sites. They would be able to find him afterwards if they turned Poz through this professional relationship. Like most things online, this is all fantasy. 
 

That said, I agree that if he were really doing this that it would be a heinous thing. 

[fskn]

@Breedingandseeding, I'd say it's very important for onlookers to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Some rather common sexual fantasies include elements of coercion, which could make the sexual acts inappropriate in real life.

But fantasy is not real life, and finding an idea erotic does not imply that a person wants to do it in real life, much less that the person is doing it in real life. Thus, moral outrage might be misdirected.

I'd say that moral outrage, in this kind of abstract situation, would be dangerous. We as GLBT people are often tricked into attacking ourselves. Unwittingly, we do Anita Bryant's work for her, feeding the conservative lie that gay people are immoral.

Also, there's no way to verify Twitter content. Especially if this person makes money from social media, it's likely that he's posting staged stories and/or images. Eroticism, forbidden fantasies, and controversy are among the best ways to attract attention, garner clicks, and generate revenue.

Edited April 26, 2022 by fskn

[TwinkChaserSlut]

5 hours ago, Breedingandseeding said:

I recently came across a Twitter account with some content of a beefy daddy breeding mostly twinks. After scrolling through a bit and watching some videos and reading his posts he very heavily hints that’s he’s Poz but never outright says it. He says he’s not on prep, talks about his “dirty load” and loves fucking virgins who aren’t on prep. He states he has a “one  and done” rule so he never hooks up with the same guy twice (multiple loads in one session he’s fine with) and he even brags about ghosting or blocking the young guys he breeds after he’s done using them.

I gotta ask since so many fiction stories here involve stealthing, rape, or other morally questionable material, how guys on this site feel about this guy?

The sex is consensual, but he’s very likely stealthing young and dumb 18-20 year olds, and then ghosting or blocking them. Just curious how much of what’s on here is fantasy and what people are actually doing themselves.

(@BeefyBull3 if you feel like checking him out yourself; not an endorsement but you can see what I’m talking about)

Yeah, I discovered him about a month or two ago.

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, Breedingandseeding said:

I gotta ask since so many fiction stories here involve stealthing, rape, or other morally questionable material, how guys on this site feel about this guy?

It bears mentioning that the designated fiction section of the forum is hardly the only source of fictitious content here. I very much doubt the credibility of a great majority of claims made by men here. On a given day I would be astonished if the combined output of toxic cum produced by all the self-proclaimed stealthers on this forum filled a thimble.

[BiCurious100]

8 hours ago, badubydo said:

The sex immediately becomes non-consensual when he lies about hi status. 
 

Stealthing is immoral just plain wrong. 

Hmmmm...  not to offend, but...

I know that in some countries/states, including the UK, it's against the law to delibrately infect someone with HIV (without them knowing); however, being HIV Poz doesn't mean that you will give HIV to the neg person on having unprotected sex.  As 'chasers' have/are finding out, it's not easy to convert...  I'm not aware of any laws against not disclosing your HIV status...?  Also, to add at this point, it's not against any laws, that I know of anyway, to have/be HIV poz in itself - we shouldn't be criminalising HIV...

 

Also, do people now not make any efforts to protect themselves???  If a HIV neg person wishes to have raw BB sex, but remain neg, can they not protect themselves easily, by going on PrEP?

 

I know that people have been sent to prison, in the past, for infecting others with HIV; however, I'm not aware of any recent cases...?  Since PrEP has become available (freely available, in some countries, including the UK), neg people can now easily protect themselves and, thus, makes the HIV irrevelant.

 

It will be an interesting 'test' case, in court, to see if a HIV neg person could now successfully sue a HIV poz person for giving them HIV, when they could have easily protected themselves...?  The same goes for when a state takes someone to court.

I guess the only exceptions to this are, obviously, rape/underage sex and if someone was in a LTR, with a partner who (unknowingly) cheated on them and passed on HIV then.  These are the only exceptions that I would make, but, apart from that, you can now easily protect yourself, from HIV anyway, so not sure why a HIV poz person needs to disclose their status, as in the OP.

 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, BiCurious100 said:

I'm not aware of any laws against not disclosing your HIV status...?  Also, to add at this point, it's not against any laws, that I know of anyway, to have/be HIV poz in itself - we shouldn't be criminalising HIV...

In the United States, 12 states have laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners. The criminalization of HIV is still very much a thing.

Here’s a link to an infographic about the status of HIV criminalization around the U.S.:
[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/HIV Criminalization in the US%2C CHLP 020122.pdf

 

1 hour ago, BiCurious100 said:

It will be an interesting 'test' case, in court, to see if a HIV neg person could now successfully sue a HIV poz person for giving them HIV, when they could have easily protected themselves...?  The same goes for when a state takes someone to court.

Just because I could have easily locked my door does not give a burglar license to come into my house and steal my belongings. A person who presents a hazard to someone else’s health has a moral and ethical obligation to tell them before knowingly exposing them to that hazard. It’s as simple as that. The question of a legal obligation isn’t to promote liberty, it’s to promote deterrence.

Edited April 26, 2022 by ErosWired

[blackrobe]

20 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

In the United States, 12 states have laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners. The criminalization of HIV is still very much a thing.

Here’s a link to an infographic about the status of HIV criminalization around the U.S.:
[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/HIV Criminalization in the US%2C CHLP 020122.pdf

 

Just because I could have easily locked my door does not give a burglar license to come into my house and steal my belongings. A person who presents a hazard to someone else’s health has a moral and ethical obligation to tell them before knowingly exposing them to that hazard. It’s as simple as that. The question of a legal obligation isn’t to promote liberty, it’s to promote deterrence.

The reform of the earlier HIV criminalization law in WA is quite extensive. Here are the details from the same source as the above graphic: [think before following links] https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/news/washington-state-advocates-succeed-reforming-state’s-hiv-criminal-law-2020

[fskn]

I think we're already being tricked into legal and moral debates, even though the material on Twitter is probably erotic stories and pornographic images published for the sake of making money — not reflections of real-life behavior.

It surprises me that people are so quick to assume that 'something I saw on the Internet' must be real.

[ErosWired]

57 minutes ago, fskn said:

It surprises me that people are so quick to assume that 'something I saw on the Internet' must be real.

Human stupidity is a well that never runs dry.

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, blackrobe said:

The reform of the earlier HIV criminalization law in WA is quite extensive. Here are the details from the same source as the above graphic: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/news/washington-state-advocates-succeed-reforming-state’s-hiv-criminal-law-2020

Here is an excerpt from the link blackrobe provided (thanks blackrobe). The law reform happened 2 years ago so it's a little strange to me that the map ErosWired provided from the same source doesn't seem to reflect that? (the map was updated 4/2022?). 

"ESHB 1551 reduces penalties for HIV exposure from a felony to a misdemeanor, requires specific intent to transmit HIV and for transmission to occur, and removes the requirement for sex offender registration. Before this reform, the law carried a felony conviction (punishable by up to life in prison) for exposure, which required neither intent to transmit nor that transmission occurred."

It is striking to me that the former WA law carried "felony conviction... which required neither intent to transmit nor that transmission occurred."  i think it's important to remember that half the US voted to elect a vice president a few years ago who is openly anti gay (pence).  This from the ACLU

 

"Sodomy laws began to be used in a new way, distinctly against gay people, in the late 1960's. As the young gay rights movement began to make headway, and the social condemnation of being gay began to weaken, social conservatives began to invoke sodomy laws as a justification for discrimination.

In nine states, sodomy laws were explicitly rewritten so that they only applied to gay people. Kansas was the first state to do that in 1969. Kansas was followed in the 1970's by Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas. In two states, Maryland and Oklahoma, courts decided that sodomy laws could not be applied to private heterosexual conduct, leaving what amounted to same-sex only laws in effect.

In many other states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Washington, government agencies and courts treated sodomy laws that, as written, applied to all couples, straight and gay, as if they were aimed at gay people."

i was arrested in Virginia in 1998, for asking an undercover vice cop pretending to be gay at a popular gay cruising spot, if he wanted to fuck me. 1998!?! i was charged with a 100 year old Virginia law that made sodomy a felony (the judge reduced it to a misdeamor).

Bob McDonnell was elected governor of VA in 2010, he was openly anti gay.   

Laws criminalizing HIV are, largely, another form of sodomy law in my opinion, they are anti sex, and often, anti gay laws.