# "Stealthing" .... WTF??????



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I never heard of this until today when a friend of mine told about a news story he read in disbelief. My faith in humanity just keeps going down the crapper when I read stuff like this:



> There's a worrying and specific way of violating women's sexual consent that you may not be aware of, but new research shows that it's a real problem. Alexandra Brodsky has published a study in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law on the problem of non-consensual condom removal, a destructive behavior with some really upsetting motivations.
> 
> The study looks at cases where a man purposefully remove a condom during sex, against or without a woman's consent, which is just not OK. Even more worrying was that Brodsky found that in certain areas of the internet "stealthing" is discussed openly. Men who feel that they have a right to do it, to spread their seed, and even share tips on how to do it, which is both terrifying and disturbing. "I was shocked by the unapologetic promotion of so-called 'stealthing' I found on some dark corners of the internet," Brodsky tells Bustle. "The disrespect and misogyny aren't subtle."
> 
> ...


https://www.bustle.com/p/stealthing...sex-its-a-trend-thats-absolutely-not-ok-53203


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I wonder what the profile is of the type of guy who would do that? 

I have seen some documentaries on women who were raped and became pregnant and had the baby either by choice or by circumstance. Even the fathers were in jail for rape, the mothers were still required by the courts to give visitation to the child. 

And of course, for those fathers who weren't in jail, they were entitled to visitation as well.

I would have thought that given the state's quest in making every father child suppport, most men would want to avoid unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

I'm dubious of this "research" since there is no discussion of the details. Even decent research can be distorted and misrepresented to suit the agenda of whomever quotes it. As they say, "to a hammer everything looks like a nail."

I seriously doubt that this is any more an epidemic than women who surreptitiously save semen after a sexual encounter in order to become pregnant and sue the hapless man who had sex with them. Has it happened in certain very isolated instances? Sure. Does than mean it is something to be concerned about? No more than getting hit by lightning.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

zookeeper said:


> I'm dubious of this "research" since there is no discussion of the details. Even decent research can be distorted and misrepresented to suit the agenda of whomever quotes it. As they say, "to a hammer everything looks like a nail."
> 
> I seriously doubt that this is any more an epidemic than women who surreptitiously save semen after a sexual encounter in order to become pregnant and sue the hapless man who had sex with them. Has it happened in certain very isolated instances? Sure. Does than mean it is something to be concerned about? No more than getting hit by lightning.


I would be curious to hear if anyone here on TAM has heard about this or has first hand knowledge of something like this happening. Like I said, I have never heard until my friend mentioned, and since a lot of this is "online" talk you don't know who is just making stuff up to "talk the talk"


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

zookeeper said:


> I'm dubious of this "research" since there is no discussion of the details. Even decent research can be distorted and misrepresented to suit the agenda of whomever quotes it. As they say, "to a hammer everything looks like a nail."
> 
> I seriously doubt that this is any more an epidemic than women who surreptitiously save semen after a sexual encounter in order to become pregnant and sue the hapless man who had sex with them. Has it happened in certain very isolated instances? Sure. Does than mean it is something to be concerned about? No more than getting hit by lightning.


100% agree. It's the fictitious outrage of the week.... 

Next week's headline, "Pissing in pools has reached pandemic levels!"


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> I would be curious to hear if anyone here on TAM has heard about this or has first hand knowledge of something like this happening. Like I said, I have never heard until my friend mentioned, and since a lot of this is "online" talk you don't know who is just making stuff up to "talk the talk"


Do a quick Google search on the woman who published the study. She clearly has an extreme feminist agenda. That doesn't mean she can't be right, but I would need some more impartial confirmation that this is really a problem and not just a few isolated incidents coupled with a small group of internet basement dwellers bragging about things that never happened. She may honestly believe what she published, but that doesn't make it accurate. 

I would no more take her study as fact than I would one published by a prominent member of the MGTOW community promoting the condom-stealing, self-inseminating gold-diggers lurking around every corner. 

The human race is no better or worse than it has ever been.


----------



## Mizzbak (Sep 10, 2016)

OK - I know that a lot of these may be categorised by those uh... in the know ... as "fake news" but they still seem pretty reputable to me

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...ex-trend-you-need-to-know-about/#142dc71f1b07
'Stealthing' sex assault of removing condom during intercourse condemned in legal review - Washington Times
Some call it 'stealthing,' others call it sexual assault - CNN.com

Additionally, I think that the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law probably has some criteria in place that would prevent authors from just making **** up. I mean, where's the journal article about the semen-stealing women? 

Just because it seems like an obscene and hideous thing to do, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Although, if that is how you deal with unpleasantness in your world, then by all means, go ahead little ostriches.

(If I come across a little harshly and all feminist-like, then please excuse me. I just found out that someone I care about was raped.)


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Mizzbak said:


> OK - I know that a lot of these may be categorised by those uh... in the know ... as "fake news" but they still seem pretty reputable to me
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...ex-trend-you-need-to-know-about/#142dc71f1b07
> 'Stealthing' sex assault of removing condom during intercourse condemned in legal review - Washington Times
> ...


I have a question regarding this. Not having read the whole article referenced in the OP, I'm unaware of whether this is taking place with or without the woman's knowledge. It seems, especially based on the lingo "stealthing," that this is being done without the woman's knowledge. I'm not sure how a man can remove a condom during any phase of sexual activity without knowing his partner knowing it. Those things are difficult and awkward to remove, especially from an erection. It's not like you could do it on the sly. I have a hard time believing this is happening without the woman's knowledge. This is not being an ostrich; quite the contrary, it is looking at it straight in the face.

Now, if the woman knows and the man persists, then this is anything but stealthy! 

I agree that, no matter how it happens, it is a violation of an egregious nature, and beyond being most heinous, should be prosecutable like any other rape. I'm just wondering how it happens.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I have a question regarding this. Not having read the whole article referenced in the OP, I'm unaware of how this is taking place with or without the woman's knowledge. It seems, especially based on the lingo "stealthing," that this is being done without the woman's knowledge. I'm not sure how a man can remove a condom during any phase of sexual activity without knowing his partner knowing it. Those things are difficult and awkward to remove, especially from an erection. It's not like you could do it on the sly. I have a hard time believing this is happening without the woman's knowledge. This is not being an ostrich; quite the contrary, it is looking at it straight in the face.
> 
> Now, if the woman knows and the man persists, then this is anything but stealthy!
> 
> I agree that, no matter how it happens, it is a violation of an egregious nature, and beyond being most heinous, should be prosecutable like any other rape. I'm just wondering how it happens.


Thinking maybe they stop PIV and he removes while doing other activities (oral, toys, etc...)?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

EllisRedding said:


> Thinking maybe they stop PIV and he removes while doing other activities (oral, toys, etc...)?


That's what I thought of as well. Still don't see how she wouldn't be aware. 

Also, I suppose this varies by woman, but my wife always said she could tell the difference by feel. But maybe that was purely mental because she always knew going in (pun intended) whether or not we were using that form of protection.


----------



## Mizzbak (Sep 10, 2016)

... talked down off my ledge somewhat by my husband.
@zookeeper, curious to know whether you would have been as dismissive of the article if it had been written by a man. Saying that someone has a feminist agenda because that is their speciality is pointless. Of course she does. FWIW, the "sensationalism" that I think you are protesting against is not coming from the author. Mainstream journalists do this to scientific publications all the time. 

The way that I see it, the point that is being made is that there are legal questions around what the outcome would be if sexual assault charges were pressed in the US under these circumstances. (And, according to interviews that the author conducted, it has happened on US soil.) Because it isn't currently "factored in", something needs to change or be made explicit. People are constantly thinking up new and innovative ways to be the worse (and better) that the human race has always been. And the legal system has to keep up.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

EllisRedding said:


> Thinking maybe they stop PIV and he removes while doing other activities (oral, toys, etc...)?


That. But also, for most women underneath a man's weight, there's not much you can do without his consent. 

Other than being spiteful, I can't see what a man gets out of this.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

NextTimeAround said:


> That. But also, for most women underneath a man's weight, there's not much you can do without his consent.


That's my point. Shes gonna know. If he continues despite her not wanting to, that's rape by any standard already on the books today. 

The only new element being introduced by "stealthing" is the implication that she doesn't know. That's the hard part to understand. Also, mechanically speaking, it's going to be near impossible to maintain that "weight on" control while reaching down and removing the condom, which is a task that requires some attention and dexterity.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

General thoughts on this... 

1.Yeah, it's possible. Just slip it off during a position change. If you're in the dark, she won't know until it's too late. I used to know a guy that hated condoms and he claimed he did this regularly.

2. That it's possible doesn't mean it's common or even a real problem. 

3. Even so, it's not rape. I'd oppose any legislation on this unless we're going to start charging women who lie about being on the pill with rape too.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Kivlor said:


> 3. Even so, it's not rape. I'd oppose any legislation on this unless we're going to start charging women who lie about being on the pill with rape too.


Interesting point.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

EllisRedding said:


> Interesting point.


The sex was consensual. 

This weird need to try to get the government involved in people's bedrooms is a terrible thing. And let's consider how we would address this, should we make a law against it.

A woman says a guy did this. A guys says "nuh-uh". Now what?


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

*Re: &quot;Stealthing&quot; .... WTF??????*

Easy fix. Use below for secure attachment of Trojan before proceeding...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Kivlor said:


> The sex was consensual.


Sex was consensual. Yes.

But how do we define "sex?"

Penetration by a sheathed member was consensual. Penetration by an unsheathed member was not.

When an expectation of protection has been agreed by both parties and then removed by one party without the other party's consent, given that one deliberately exposing the other to unwanted pregnancy and STDs, that sounds like it meets at least the intent of assault, and in this case it would have to be considered a sexual assault.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I remember after the Kobe Bryant story broke, their articles about sports groupies and how SOME offer condoms with holes in them and others may even take a condom out of the trash can and .... you know.

Of course, the athlete gets hit with child support.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Kivlor said:


> The sex was consensual.
> 
> This weird need to try to get the government involved in people's bedrooms is a terrible thing. And let's consider how we would address this, should we make a law against it.
> 
> A woman says a guy did this. A guys says "nuh-uh". Now what?


The unprotected sex was not consensual. That's rape.

The whole lying about the pill thing is similar, but different. Guy still has his own option here. Girl has option removed from her without her knowledge and consent. That's rape - no different than date rape/alcohol induced rape. Rape doesn't have to be forceful.

Guy in question here changes the dynamic of the implied covenant unilaterally & without consent. That's rape. I don't think there needs to be new legislation for this. I think it's already covered.

Edit to add:

I presume the newfound popularity for this probably results from some weirdo porno where they did it - framed it as "real" when it was all an act, not entirely unlike sibling incest or some other perverted nonsense.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Sex was consensual. Yes.
> 
> But how do we define "sex?"
> 
> ...


Nope.

This is right down the whole "affirmative consent" BS. You completely ignore how human relationships function. And I don't know why? To protect the wimminz who are too weak to take care of themselves? 

Do we prosecute a guy whose condom broke? Or a girl who sabotaged a condom? Or a girl who lied about being on BC? Or a guy who lied about being a pilot? Did you consent to having sex with me with the shirt on or off? If I take my shirt off mid-way is it rape? 

It's not assault in any terms. It's deception.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Mizzbak said:


> ... talked down off my ledge somewhat by my husband.
> 
> @zookeeper, curious to know whether you would have been as dismissive of the article if it had been written by a man. Saying that someone has a feminist agenda because that is their speciality is pointless. Of course she does. FWIW, the "sensationalism" that I think you are protesting against is not coming from the author. Mainstream journalists do this to scientific publications all the time.
> 
> The way that I see it, the point that is being made is that there are legal questions around what the outcome would be if sexual assault charges were pressed in the US under these circumstances. (And, according to interviews that the author conducted, it has happened on US soil.) Because it isn't currently "factored in", something needs to change or be made explicit. People are constantly thinking up new and innovative ways to be the worse (and better) that the human race has always been. And the legal system has to keep up.


I am dismissive of the article because there is a suspicious lack of detail on a study that purports to expose some outrageous practice and implies that it is happening in significant numbers. Generally, when someone alleges something I put the burden of proof on them. Gender has nothing to do with it, but agenda can. When people believe something strongly enough, they will see evidence of it everywhere they look. If you read this article, you will see the bias. That bias itself calls the credibility into question. When the petroleum industry claims that global climate change is a lie, I question that as well. They have an agenda, after all. People tend to question things that are contrary to their world view but blindly accept those that are consistent with it. If this study had been authored by a man and alleged that the majority of women who claim to be raped are lying would you not question it? 

The fact that you grant credibility to the article based upon the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law is a symptom of the problem. The CJGL and edited and published ENTIRELY by students. A group of students with an agenda. To believe that the university does some kind of administrative overview to determine facts is simply incorrect. 

Have you done any reading on the author. Here is a tweet she sent about the "Stealthing" article: "Fwiw, I don't think nonconsensual condom removal is new. It's just rarely talked about. Men have always been terrible." Yeah, I'm sure she performed her due diligence on this issue before publishing her "study" which for all we know, could have consisted entirely of her and 2 friends talking over coffee.

I care about the truth, not propaganda that appeals to emotion and spreads irrational fear. I will reiterate: She may be right, but she has done nothing to prove it to me. I wish more people would be skeptical of unsubstantiated allegation, not just those they disagree with. Emotion is a poor substitute for inquiry.

I am a man and find the very concept of "stealthing" to be abhorrent. Does asking for more facts and objective confirmation somehow negate that?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

dubsey said:


> The unprotected sex was not consensual. That's rape.
> 
> The whole lying about the pill thing is similar, but different. Guy still has his own option here. Girl has option removed from her without her knowledge and consent.


It is different, but not in the way you're saying. Guy still has his own option here? What option is that? To provide his own BC? Wouldn't the woman have the same option to provide her own protection? The bottom line is the same inasmuch as the knowledge of what is happening has been taken away from the man without his knowing, meaning he has no knowledge that he needs to exercise his other option (use another form or cease the act). 

It is different in as much as the man is putting something into the woman without her consent while the woman is allowing for a unwanted result without the man's consent. Definitely both bad things but bad in a different way both in terms of what is taking place and the impact.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

dubsey said:


> The unprotected sex was not consensual. That's rape.
> 
> The whole lying about the pill thing is similar, but different. Guy still has his own option here. Girl has option removed from her without her knowledge and consent. That's rape - no different than date rape/alcohol induced rape. Rape doesn't have to be forceful.
> 
> ...


Got it. Always men's fault. Never women's. 

When a woman lies about birth control it's the dude's fault for not taking precautions. When a dude does, it's the dude's fault because women can't be expected to be adults and take responsibility for themselves. 

That's a pretty condescending thing to think about women. And people say I'm a misogynist.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It is different, but not in the way you're saying. Guy still has his own option here? What option is that? To provide his own BC? Wouldn't the woman have the same option to provide her own protection? The bottom line is the same inasmuch as the knowledge of what is happening has been taken away from the man without his knowing, meaning he has no knowledge that he needs to exercise his other option (use another form or cease the act).
> 
> It is different in as much as the man is putting something into the woman without her consent while the woman is allowing for a unwanted result without the man's consent. Definitely both bad things but bad in a different way both in terms of what is taking place and the impact.


It's different in that, a guy could always put on a condom irrespective of what the woman tells him. If the woman is laying a trap and says she won't do the deed with the condom, he has the option to walk away.

The woman in this instance may have other options to prevent pregnancy, but certainly not against STDs, plus, the option is being taken away from her without her knowledge. She can't walk away.

I agree that the whole sabotaging of the condom thing has a similar result and equally repulsive.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Kivlor said:


> Got it. Always men's fault. Never women's.
> 
> When a woman lies about birth control it's the dude's fault for not taking precautions. When a dude does, it's the dude's fault because women can't be expected to be adults and take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> That's a pretty condescending thing to think about women. And people say I'm a misogynist.


Don't tie in stuff I didn't say. I never addressed the condom thing in that post.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

dubsey said:


> Don't tie in stuff I didn't say. I never addressed the condom thing in that post.


Read your own post dude. You said: 



> The unprotected sex was not consensual. That's rape.
> 
> The whole lying about the pill thing is similar, but different. Guy still has his own option here. Girl has option removed from her without her knowledge and consent. That's rape - no different than date rape/alcohol induced rape. Rape doesn't have to be forceful.


That certainly was a comment about the condom thing. Or are you indicating that we were discussing some other form of protection? Concealed Carry?


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

I did not, in any way, address the sabotaging of the condom thing. I addressed the lying about the pill thing.

The guy, in your example, has an option at that point. He can trust her, do the deed. He can not trust her, put on a condom, do the deed. He can not trust her, and walk away.

The girl, in the example stated here, does not have an option. She had it taken away without her knowledge.

I did not address the sabotaging the condom thing. Yes, it exists. Yes, it's equally reprehensible.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I don't see how lying about being on BC and removing a condom without her knowledge are any different??? In both cases, each person may have decided to NOT HAVE SEX with the other had they not been lied to. It has nothing to do with the guy having other options. Yes, even on BC she could still get pregnant. Also, even with a condom she could still get pregnant or an STD. It is about lying to gain consent.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

dubsey said:


> I did not, in any way, address the sabotaging of the condom thing. I addressed the lying about the pill thing.
> 
> The guy, in your example, has an option at that point. He can trust her, do the deed. He can not trust her, put on a condom, do the deed. He can not trust her, and walk away.
> 
> ...


In the situation of "stealthing" the woman can choose to trust him, and do the deed, or she can not trust him and make sure the condom stays on, do the deed, or use a female condom and do the deed, or not trust him, and walk away.

It's almost like they aren't different at all.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

dubsey said:


> It's different in that, a guy could always put on a condom irrespective of what the woman tells him. If the woman is laying a trap and says she won't do the deed with the condom, he has the option to walk away.


Flip this around -- A gal could always take the pill irrespective of what the man tells her. I the man is laying a trap and says he won't do the deed without a condom, she has the option of walking away.

It all comes down to whether or not the other party, male or female, knows and is able to make an informed decision.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

It's splitting hairs, to be sure, but I think it comes to implied risk.

IMO, the level of risk you take if a woman says she's on BC. There's pregnancy risk, STD risk, and also the risk someone is lying to you, you've agreed to by not taking your own precautions.

When you've asked someone to wrap it, or you choose to wrap it, there's another level of risk that you've agreed to. The condom could fail, they're not 100% effective, etc.

Now, someone removing the condom after you've begun doing the deed against your will, that level of risk was not agreed to.

And again, to be clear, the whole sabotaging the condom or doing nefarious things after the dude has left is equally terrible and should have similar consequences. And honestly, those should really be addressed as 2 different things because sabotaging and doing something later have different implications from STD protection.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Flip this around -- A gal could always take the pill irrespective of what the man tells her. I the man is laying a trap and says he won't do the deed without a condom, she has the option of walking away.
> 
> It all comes down to whether or not the other party, male or female, knows and is able to make an informed decision.


Pill doesn't stop an STD. This is bigger than pregnancy.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Kivlor said:


> In the situation of "stealthing" the woman can choose to trust him, and do the deed, or she can not trust him and make sure the condom stays on, do the deed, or use a female condom and do the deed, or not trust him, and walk away.
> 
> It's almost like they aren't different at all.


Because the whole idea of stealthing is giving the woman a chance to re-inspect your penis every time it comes out of her. Ooookay.

Are you bored and being deliberately obtuse?

And yeah, if I had a daughter, and she ever caught a guy trying to do this, I'd hope she'd walk away, and tell every f'n person she knows about the dude who tried to do it.

And yeah, as a guy, with a son, we've had conversations about trusting what women say and what that's actually worth, using condoms, disposing of condoms, and a lot of other really awkward conversations just like this to protect himself. In no way am I attempting to imply all women are to be trusted.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

dubsey said:


> Because the whole idea of stealthing is giving the woman a chance to re-inspect your penis every time it comes out of her. Ooookay.
> 
> Are you bored and being deliberately obtuse?


Are you saying that she can't pay attention when she's having sex?



> And yeah, if I had a daughter, and she ever caught a guy trying to do this, I'd hope she'd walk away, and tell every f'n person she knows about the dude who tried to do it.


This seems fair. No one says she shouldn't. I'm arguing against trying to call this assault or rape. Those are very specific things punishable by law.



> And yeah, as a guy, with a son, we've had conversations about trusting what women say and what that's actually worth, using condoms, disposing of condoms, and a lot of other really awkward conversations just like this to protect himself. In no way am I attempting to imply all women are to be trusted.


I didn't say you think women should be trusted. I said you think they can't be held up to the same moral and legal standards as men. That only men can be responsible for sexual relationships. That would actually indicate that you think they can't be trusted.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

dubsey said:


> Pill doesn't stop an STD. This is bigger than pregnancy.


So we're talking about taking away options either way. The only real difference is that in losing the option (or more accurately, losing the knowledge required to assess options), the woman has two potential pitfalls to worry about rather than one. 

Maybe that's worse, maybe it's not. 

Most STDs are quickly cured.

In the case of the unwanted pregnancy, the woman has 100% control of the decision whether or not to bring the conception to term. Meaning the deceived man has 0% input on whether or not he's paying at least 50% of that child's support for the next 18 years. 

Apples and oranges, so it's hard to say which is worse, morally speaking. Legally speaking is a different matter as people are regularly prosecuted for reckless endangerment (deceitful sex leading to and STD), but there is no statute holding a woman accountable for deceiving a man into an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

I don't think ANYONE can be trusted, to be clear.

Difference here is that it'd be awful difficult for a woman to get a condom off a guy and do something similar and get her to do the deed unprotected without his consent.

It's a bit easier for the guy to do it to a girl, and that someone would actually want to do it is disgusting, and yeah, I believe should be punished just the same as doing it without consent, because you've unilaterally chosen to have unprotected sex without her consent.

And yes, I believe this should be a two way street if a woman intentionally sabotaged a condom in a similar manner. I'd wager that would be much more difficult to prove.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> So we're talking about taking away options either way.


It's not options, it's consent. The situation changed from the moment it was agreed to.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

The arguments here are academic. BC pills are not 100% effective, and neither are condoms. So if 2 consensual adults agree to engage in sexual activity, the outcome can never result in rape charges, or sexual assault, or entrapment, or anything else criminal. At worst it may be deliberate deception, which is not a crime. 

If we are going to start prosecuting people for deception, the list will be long with all of the cheating spouses. And if women wear fake eyelashes, hair extensions, push-up bras, spanks, etc., isn't that deception also when you finally see them in the morning and realize you were tricked?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

dubsey said:


> It's not options, it's consent. The situation changed from the moment it was agreed to.


The option to take alternative action.

But okay, consent is the best word for the central issue. 

The point remains the same--either way, we're talking away consent.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

MAJDEATH said:


> The arguments here are academic. BC pills are not 100% effective, and neither are condoms. So if 2 consensual adults agree to engage in sexual activity, the outcome can never result in rape charges, or sexual assault, or entrapment, or anything else criminal. At worst it may be deliberate deception, which is not a crime.
> 
> If we are going to start prosecuting people for deception, the list will be long with all of the cheating spouses. And if women wear fake eyelashes, hair extensions, push-up bras, spanks, etc., isn't that deception also when you finally see them in the morning and realize you were tricked?


Academic indeed. This is truly all just so much mental masturbation.

That said, you're still taking away consent to engage in one level of risk vs. another. It's not just about deception--it's about consent, and the potential impacts of the deception.

We prosecute people for deception every day (deceptive lending practices, fraud of all types). I'm not sure why sexual fraud with severe, potentially life altering consequences would be any different.


----------



## dubsey (Feb 21, 2013)

MAJDEATH said:


> The arguments here are academic. BC pills are not 100% effective, and neither are condoms. So if 2 consensual adults agree to engage in sexual activity, the outcome can never result in rape charges, or sexual assault, or entrapment, or anything else criminal.


The laws would disagree with you.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

Oh, come on. Guys lying to women about using a condom? Like, that's supposed to be something new?

People were talking about this stuff back when I was a kid. Same old story, just a new audience.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm only recently hearing about it as well. I think it's an awful thing, and as a woman, would be a horrific violation and quite traumatic. Beyond the risk of pregnancy and STDs, it's also a huge violation of trust in one's partner. Granted, I would expect the type of men who might do such a thing aren't interested in having a healthy LTR--they're looking for ONSs... because once they do this to a woman, she's never going to sleep with them again.

That being said, I don't think it's as wide-spread as the article might suggest; I sense a little fear-mongering here. It does, however, present a public health risk, simply by existing, even in small numbers of occurrence, and a risk that single women need to be aware of. There are women that lie and say they are on birth control when they aren't, in order to get pregnant and trap a guy. They are just as small in number, but men are cautioned about these women just the same--this is the same sort of thing, just flipped on its head.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I know that the rationale for giving women condoms is because don't carry them and so, the woman can be prepared. IOW, I guess, men don't care if they go bare back. And for some reason, women can't hold men to account about bringing their own condoms. I might want to mimic Nancy Reagan and "just say no......" This is an example of infantilising women. 

I guess this scenario goes a step further. That is, even woman supplies the condom, the guy will want to take it off at a key moment. 

Since I dated a guy once who would have loved to have become a member of my family (his entry to the middle class), in that case, a guy like that has strong motivation to get a woman pregnant.

But these guys who contests abortions and adoptions but then want nothing to do with the child's life, makes no sense to me.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Everyone should take individual responsibility for their personal reproductive safety. End of, IMO.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

Yeah, but the issue in Switzerland was about the guy lying about condom use and the potential for STD spread. 

It's mostly about diseases.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That's what I thought of as well. Still don't see how she wouldn't be aware.
> 
> Also, I suppose this varies by woman, but my wife always said she could tell the difference by feel. But maybe that was purely mental because she always knew going in (pun intended) whether or not we were using that form of protection.


Since sex takes place "down there", what goes on is out of a woman's line of sight. It would be very easy for a man to do something like remove a condom without a woman see it. She could be further distracted by foreplay, oral sex on her, etc.

I know that when I get near the point of orgasming, I have very little awareness of what is going on around me. I’d say that I’m so lost in the feeling of being sexually aroused that the world goes away. So yea, a guy could easily remove a condom at this point and I would be completely unaware.

There have been times during PIV when condoms come off on their own. It happens. So apparently not all condoms are hard to get off. Maybe a guy planning on doing this would buy extra large ones so that they are not so tight?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

EleGirl said:


> Since sex takes place "down there", what goes on is out of a woman's line of sight. It would be very easy for a man to do something like remove a condom without a woman see it. She could be further distracted by foreplay, oral sex on her, etc.
> 
> I know that when I get near the point of orgasming, I have very little awareness of what is going on around me. I’d say that I’m so lost in the feeling of being sexually aroused that the world goes away. So yea, a guy could easily remove a condom at this point and I would be completely unaware.
> 
> There have been times during PIV when condoms come off on their own. It happens. So apparently not all condoms are hard to get off. Maybe a guy planning on doing this would buy extra large ones so that they are not so tight?


I must be horribly uncoordinated then; I don't think (morality aside), there's any way I could pull this off (so to speak). 
Sure the condom is "down there", but to pull it off, I'd have to put my arm down there as well and there's no way that would go undetected. In my experience, condoms do not come off erections easily (and I'm not "big" enough for the XL condom theory to convince me either). It takes some doing. The rhythm of the action would definitely be disturbed. 

This would seem to go for being near "near the point of orgasmin" as well. If what's going on is working for you, then a sudden change in what's going on is likely to break that pleasure cycle, is it not? 

Not arguing here, just trying to understand. I fully admit my anecdotal experience in this is pretty limited.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I must be horribly uncoordinated then; I don't think (morality aside), there's any way I could pull this off (so to speak).
> Sure the condom is "down there", but to pull it off, I'd have to put my arm down there as well and there's no way that would go undetected. In my experience, condoms do not come off erections easily (and I'm not "big" enough for the XL condom theory to convince me either). It takes some doing. The rhythm of the action would definitely be disturbed.
> 
> This would seem to go for being near "near the point of orgasmin" as well. If what's going on is working for you, then a sudden change in what's going on is likely to break that pleasure cycle, is it not?
> ...


I'm not arguing either. Just thinking out loud I guess.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> MAJDEATH said:
> 
> 
> > The arguments here are academic. BC pills are not 100% effective, and neither are condoms. So if 2 consensual adults agree to engage in sexual activity, the outcome can never result in rape charges, or sexual assault, or entrapment, or anything else criminal. At worst it may be deliberate deception, which is not a crime.
> ...


Sexual fraud LOL! "No it really is 10 inches long".


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

MAJDEATH said:


> Sexual fraud LOL! "No it really is 10 inches long".


Of course my parents left me a $30,000,000 trust fund and I just pilot airplanes for fun...

Yeah, I'm an award winning surgeon...

I'm a big-time attorney...

You're only the second girl I've been with...

Of course I'm single...

No one has ever made me feel the way you do...

I never sleep with a girl on the first date...

I'm looking for someone to spend the rest of my life with...

You should see my weekend home in Aspen this summer...


----------



## Mizzbak (Sep 10, 2016)

zookeeper said:


> I am dismissive of the article because there is a suspicious lack of detail on a study that purports to expose some outrageous practice and implies that it is happening in significant numbers. Generally, when someone alleges something I put the burden of proof on them. Gender has nothing to do with it, but agenda can. When people believe something strongly enough, they will see evidence of it everywhere they look. If you read this article, you will see the bias. That bias itself calls the credibility into question. When the petroleum industry claims that global climate change is a lie, I question that as well. They have an agenda, after all. People tend to question things that are contrary to their world view but blindly accept those that are consistent with it. If this study had been authored by a man and alleged that the majority of women who claim to be raped are lying would you not question it?


Your point is well-made, and IMO better the second time around. I agree that adopting a critical stance up-front to any and all publications is a good thing. And I can appreciate your argument regarding considering agenda in adopting that stance. In this specific instance, I do find it hard to reconcile using that filter without seeing it as a sort of ad hominem argument. Whilst I can certainly see that it is possible that the author has a biased view, I also think that that doesn't mean that we should disregard her article as likely to be without substance because of it. 

To get to her article - on my reading, the author is not focused on arguing that stealthing is a "real thing". Rather she assumes that it is so, and spends almost 80% of the article describing possible legal remedies for addressing the criminality of such an act. Her introduction to the phenomenon and recounting of victim interviews is emotive and she does the use word "widespread" to describe the practise - a view based substantially on her observations of the online activities of self-professed practitioners. (She did manage to gather together multiple victims with social media requests - I am assuming that your statement about them being her friends was intended to be glib?) And I would also point out a press report from January this year, where the Swiss court convicts man of rape after he removed condom during sex. I agree that the use of the word "widespread" by the author is both unfortunate and weakens her credibility, but would also point out that "more prevalent than is acceptable" is somewhat clumsy. When something smells extremely disgusting, one don't need a lot of it for it to taint the air pervasively. For me personally, one victim is enough to require a review of legal options, if they are currently insufficient. 

A final comment here on data and evidence. In my country at least, data on sexual assault is notoriously difficult to gather. It tends to be messily anecdotal and cluttered with definition difficulties. I think that human beings are difficult to quantitatively analyse at the best of times, and when it is around such a sensitive issue, then I fear that sufficient detail and proof may only come too long after some type of action was needed. But that is just my opinion. 



zookeeper said:


> The fact that you grant credibility to the article based upon the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law is a symptom of the problem. The CJGL and edited and published ENTIRELY by students. A group of students with an agenda. To believe that the university does some kind of administrative overview to determine facts is simply incorrect.


In this you are correct. Mea culpa. Next time I will study the journal pedigree more closely. (That said, I still wait anxiously for a semen-stealing article from even the most reputation-tattered of journals.)



zookeeper said:


> Have you done any reading on the author. Here is a tweet she sent about the "Stealthing" article: "Fwiw, I don't think nonconsensual condom removal is new. It's just rarely talked about. Men have always been terrible." Yeah, I'm sure she performed her due diligence on this issue before publishing her "study" which for all we know, could have consisted entirely of her and 2 friends talking over coffee.


Yes indeed, a women who thinks men are terrible and says so must clearly be without integrity, a bad researcher, and capable of fabricating blatant lies. 



zookeeper said:


> I care about the truth, not propaganda that appeals to emotion and spreads irrational fear. ... I wish more people would be skeptical of unsubstantiated allegation, not just those they disagree with. Emotion is a poor substitute for inquiry.


On this, we are in total agreement. (It is however, a sad fact that many people have to be angry in order to have the energy to effect change.) But from where I sit, the article itself was not fear-mongering. Emotive in the introduction, yes. But manipulative and unsubstantiated, no. She defined a problem that she saw as real and described a set of possible legal solutions. As you said, it was published in a student-edited journal. How could it possibly have had the power to spread irrational fear at any scale? If you must cast blame, then perhaps you could also aim something at the journalists who took her words and knit propaganda and sensationalist ratings-fodder from them. (Unfortunately not all of them are feminists.) 



zookeeper said:


> I am a man and find the very concept of "stealthing" to be abhorrent. Does asking for more facts and objective confirmation somehow negate that?


Not at all, and your blunt statement is both elegant and well-received. I would however argue that, in the absence of more facts or objective confirmation, a neutral position is an easier one to defend than an overtly negative or suspicious one. But maybe I'm just a glass half-full kind of woman.

Thank you for this debate.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> I would be curious to hear if anyone here on TAM has heard about this or has first hand knowledge of something like this happening. Like I said, I have never heard until my friend mentioned, and since a lot of this is "online" talk you don't know who is just making stuff up to "talk the talk"


It happened to a friend of mine, about 20 years ago.

She was a divorcee. She met a man, took him home, they were using a condom, then they weren't, so she threw him out of her bed and her house.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

My wife said her sister got pregnant from that abusive first husband in 1969 because he was using a condom, then he wasn't. Somehow it slipped off!

This just ain't new. Probably good it's getting some press, though.

Maybe condoms should be stapled on, and then have security tape put on over the staples.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

"Stealthing" is the latest in a string of made-up words and phrases, like transgender and sex-change. They are meaningless but sound good in a media headline.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I read in 2 places that a new type of abuse against women is forcing a tattoo on her. One source was a woman's mag, Elle or Marie-Claire. The other I can't remember. but it wasn't too scholarly either.

All these newly identified categories of abuse or insult, is it really helpful?


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> I read in 2 places that a new type of abuse against women is forcing a tattoo on her. One source was a woman's mag, Elle or Marie-Claire. The other I can't remember. but it wasn't too scholarly either.
> 
> All these newly identified categories of abuse or insult, is it really helpful?


I can confirm. I make all the women I date get branded... I mean tattooed. >


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

There's an easy way for this not to happen to women and to an extent men, quit casual sex until you are in a serious relationship. 
Then you can stealth away, as long as you have enough personal information for child support, I seriously doubt any stealthing will happen when money and if not paid, a possible jail sentence is concerned. 

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

yeah, I hate to be anti-feminist, but supporting someone's right to fly by night encounters doesn't seem to me to be good use of the public's time.

If you could read some of the flimsy date rape cases that make it to court and then in the newspapers in the UK, most Americans would be appalled.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

And pregnancy is not a disease that you can catch. Maybe the couple was meant to make a baby and shouldn't try to block it.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

This may be yet another job for my bull**** stamp.


----------

