Current Events > Man admits to stealthing, says he does not believe its sexual assault

(+) Yeah! (+)

AN Australian man has opened up on the alarming new sexual practice of stealthing, saying he does it because it feels good but does not believe he’s committing sexual assault.

America’s Columbia Law and Medical Journal formally identified the disturbing new trend in a report last month.

It involves a man putting a condom on before sex, but removing it without his partner’s knowledge.

In an interview with triple j’s Hack program on Wednesday, a man using the pseudonym Brendan said he had long been stealthing but did not believe he was breaking the law.

Legal experts have described the practice as a form of sexual assault in the wake of the report’s release, some even saying it’s akin to rape.

“Why do you do it?” Hack host Tom Tilley asked him.

“Because it feels better with no condom on,” came the reply.

He told Tilley he was unconcerned about potentially infecting his unwitting sexual partners.

“I’m confident I get checked regularly. I’m pretty safe in saying I’m clean when I’m clean,” he said.

“So every time you’ve stealthed someone you’ve been tested between that occasion and the last sexual partner you’ve had,” Mr Tilley asked.

“Definitely not.”

“There’s a risk crossing the road and we all do that.

“So there is a risk?”

“Yes, there is but there’s a risk crossing the road and we all do that.”

The man maintained people were “more chilled than you might think” about having sex without condoms with casual partners whose sexual health status they did not know.

“I’m not a dirty-looking guy,” he said.

“But you made an agreement to wear a condom and then you breach that without the person knowing,” Tilley said.

“I don’t know. I don’t think I really make an agreement. I just put one on and if nothing is said I take it off. I don’t think it’s breaking the law.”

The man told Tilley he believed his views were shared by most of his mates.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/dating/australian-man-admits-to-stealthing-says-he-does-not-believe-its-sexual-assault/news-story/edead611381d11a760adf589afb2f316

Oh dear
---

lol
---

Wait, you mean this is something people actually do? I thought it was just one of those things that guys lie about in the locker room.

wtf
---

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.
---

The Admiral posted...

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.

She didn't consent to have unprotected sex. Hell she could be giving him one if he did that.
---

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.

She didn't consent to have unprotected sex. Hell she could be giving him one if he did that.

She consented to having intercourse with the guy. If she has no negative affects from the consensual sex, then she suffered no harm and can't be a victim of assault.
---

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.

She didn't consent to have unprotected sex. Hell she could be giving him one if he did that.

She consented to having intercourse with the guy. If she has no negative affects from the consensual sex, then she suffered no harm and can't be a victim of assault.

Err consenting to sex doesn't mean the guy can do whatever he wants to her without permission.

Not to mention she wouldn't know what his STD status is so she'll need to go check herself. Then you've got birth control on top of that.

It's an incredibly nasty thing for a guy to do and absolutely isn't consensual. Which means it should be considered sexual assault.
---

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?
---

My god, to think the admiral would stoop to defending this. He must really hate women.

The Admiral posted...

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?

We're not talking about lying or manipulation. We're talking about a physical act done to someone without permission.

A guy isn't telling her he doesn't need to use a condom because he got snipped when he hadn't. He's removing it without her knowledge.
---

The Admiral posted...

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?

Yes.
---

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?

We're not talking about lying or manipulation. We're talking about a physical act done to someone without permission.

No, you're specifically saying this is assault because she consented to sex under a specific condition that was violated.
---

AugustAdoulin posted...

My god, to think the admiral would stoop to defending this. He must really hate women.

I've seen him say he refuses to use condoms, so I'm not surprised he's defending this.
---

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?

We're not talking about lying or manipulation. We're talking about a physical act done to someone without permission.

No, you're specifically saying this is assault because she consented to sex under a specific condition that was violated.

I'm saying it's assault because during intercourse he removed a condom without her knowledge and didn't tell her that he did so and didn't get permission.

You're trying to deflect it into an agreement made beforehand. Which is something different entirely and isn't relevant to this discussion.
---

Lying about being on the pill should definitely be sexual assault.

Hell, if you can prove why she lied about it, I say you can charge her with attempted robbery as well.
---

ShinigamiSoul posted...

AugustAdoulin posted...

My god, to think the admiral would stoop to defending this. He must really hate women.

I've seen him say he refuses to use condoms, so I'm not surprised he's defending this.

I really hope he's had a vasectomy. I feel bad for any child that inherits half his genetics. What an awful way to come into the world.

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?

We're not talking about lying or manipulation. We're talking about a physical act done to someone without permission.

No, you're specifically saying this is assault because she consented to sex under a specific condition that was violated.

I'm saying it's assault because during intercourse he removed a condom without her knowledge and didn't tell her that he did so and didn't get permission.

You're trying to deflect it into an agreement made beforehand. Which is something different entirely and isn't relevant to this discussion.

I'm not seeing any difference at all. And your distinction of one deception being "more physical" is completely spurious.
---

Pretty sure the girl would be able to tell immediately that she couldnt feel a condom on the dick. At which point she could tell him to stop. This seems like a non issue to me
---

The Admiral posted...

So do you believe it's sexual assault if a girl lies about being on the pill?

Yep, two sides to that coin. Got me to reading about it and curious where precedent will go in the future for this case and inevitable USA cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal#Legal_and_ethical_concerns

Though if precedent is set it damn well better work both ways, but we know it won't in the USA because courts hate men.
---

The Admiral posted...

I'm not seeing any difference at all. And your distinction of one deception being "more physical" is completely spurious.

One is an agreement made beforehand and doesn't change the physical act.

One is a forced act made during the intercourse itself.

I don't care if you think the lie is sexual assault or not. Like I said he didn't lie about why he didn't need to use a condom. He removed it and penetrated her without protection without her consent or knowledge. Which is indeed sexual assault.

Trying to deflect it into a different scenario is accomplishing what exactly?
---

solosnake posted...

Pretty sure the girl would be able to tell immediately that she couldnt feel a condom on the dick. At which point she could tell him to stop. This seems like a non issue to me

And at that point he has already sexually assaulted her even if he did stop.
---

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

I'm not seeing any difference at all. And your distinction of one deception being "more physical" is completely spurious.

One is an agreement made beforehand and doesn't change the physical act.

One is a forced act made during the intercourse itself.

I don't care if you think the lie is sexual assault or not. Like I said he didn't lie about why he didn't need to use a condom. He removed it and penetrated her without protection without her consent or knowledge. Which is indeed sexual assault.

Trying to deflect it into a different scenario is accomplishing what exactly?

It's trying to be intellectually honest about an issue where men are typically seen the aggressors by default in a sexual situation even when both parties do the exact same thing.

Seems like you have an indefensible double standard here.
---

The Admiral posted...

Seems like you have an indefensible double standard here.

Maybe he said so in a different topic and I'm just not aware, but he hasn't actually given his opinion on the latter issue in this topic.
---

The Admiral posted...

It's trying to be intellectually honest about an issue where men are typically seen the aggressors by default in a sexual situation even when both parties do the exact same thing.

Seems like you have an indefensible double standard here.

You're not being intellectually honest at all.

If a man wants to always use condoms and a woman tells him she uses birth control when she doesn't he can still make the decision to use a condom.

In this scenario a girl can do absolutely nothing to stop a man from stealthing. So no it's not the 'exact same thing'

I'm not defending lying about birth control at all or even saying it shouldn't be considered a crime. But it is in no way the same scenario as stealthing. Stealthing is not lying and manipulating someone into a sexual scenario that they wouldn't have consented to if they were told the truth.
---

Darmik posted...

Stealthing is not lying and manipulating someone into a sexual scenario that they wouldn't have consented to if they were told the truth.

Of course it is. The lie is that the guy is willing to wear a condom. And it's done to manipulate a girl into having sex who would have presumably said no otherwise. Same as the girl who lies about being on the pill.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Seems like you have an indefensible double standard here.

Maybe he said so in a different topic and I'm just not aware, but he hasn't actually given his opinion on the latter issue in this topic.

I haven't. It should be considered a crime too yeah but it's not relevant to the OP at all. Admiral is just trying to steer the topic away to make it be way more convoluted than it needs to be. No idea why he thinks this behavior is even worth attempting to defend.

The comparable scenario here is the woman removing or sabotaging the condom without his knowledge.
---

You know he's running on fumes when he only quotes one line out of a post and ignores the rest of it. :v

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

Stealthing is not lying and manipulating someone into a sexual scenario that they wouldn't have consented to if they were told the truth.

Of course it is. The lie is that the guy is willing to wear a condom. And it's done to manipulate a girl into having sex who have presumably sad no otherwise. Same as the girl who lies about being on the pill.

He was wearing a condom. Then he takes it off during intercourse without her consent and penetrates her without protection. Breaking the consent he otherwise had. Which makes it sexual assault.
---

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

Stealthing is not lying and manipulating someone into a sexual scenario that they wouldn't have consented to if they were told the truth.

Of course it is. The lie is that the guy is willing to wear a condom. And it's done to manipulate a girl into having sex who have presumably sad no otherwise. Same as the girl who lies about being on the pill.

All sexual assault is with an unwilling participant.

The point is that these would be different categories of sexual assault. One is a lie in order to have sex. The other is having sex with someone in a way that the other party didn't agree to.
---

new sexual practice of stealthing

ROFL

Some men just don't give a fuck about the risk of pregnancy until a child support order is shoved in their mailbox. And even then, a bunch of them still prioritize "it feels better " over 18 years of payments...

LOL @ Pull Out Method
The nation's #1 form of birth control in trailer parks and ghettos since the dawn of time.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

All sexual assault is with an unwilling participant.

The participate was willing. However, the consent was granted under a condition that was violated. That's the same in both scenarios.

My point is not that this kind of stuff is okay, it's that it isn't assault unless there is some harm after the fact (i.e. transmission of an STD).
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

Stealthing is not lying and manipulating someone into a sexual scenario that they wouldn't have consented to if they were told the truth.

Of course it is. The lie is that the guy is willing to wear a condom. And it's done to manipulate a girl into having sex who have presumably sad no otherwise. Same as the girl who lies about being on the pill.

All sexual assault is with an unwilling participant.

The point is that these would be different categories of sexual assault. One is a lie in order to have sex. The other is having sex with someone in a way that the other party didn't agree to.

Exactly.

The dumb thing about Admiral's logic here is that apparently this would also mean a girl can lie about her birth control if she doesn't get pregnant. Apparently consent only matters if there is a consequence.
---

The Admiral posted...

The participate was willing.

To have unprotected sex? No she was not.
---

AugustAdoulin posted...

You know he's running on fumes when he only quotes one line out of a post and ignores the rest of it. :v

---

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

The participate was willing.

To have unprotected sex? No she was not.

The man was not willing to have sex with a girl who wasn't on the pill, either. However, in both scenarios, the parties did agree to have intercourse willingly.
---

The Admiral posted...

Darmik posted...

The Admiral posted...

The participate was willing.

To have unprotected sex? No she was not.

The man was not willing to have sex with a girl who wasn't on the pill, either. However, in both scenarios, the parties did agree to have intercourse willingly.

Yes, but in one case the breach happened before the fact and during the fact in the other. That's the categorical difference that Darmik is trying to establish.
---

The Admiral posted...

The man was not willing to have sex with a girl who wasn't on the pill, either.

Being on the pill is not a sexual act.

The Admiral posted...

However, in both scenarios, the parties did agree to have intercourse willingly.

One consented to protected sex. The other consented to unprotected sex.

Breaking the consent with an unwanted sexual act is what is different in this scenario.

Manipulation and deceit (and the consequences of that) is something different entirely and branches out way further than birth control.

Regardless of whether or not the woman gets an STD or becomes pregnant it is sexual assault. She did not consent to unprotected sex and he did it anyway.
---

Darmik posted...

Apparently consent only matters if there is a consequence.

Admiral logic.
---

Stealthing should definitely be counted as some sort of crime for a number of reasons the biggest being spread of disease

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Darmik posted...

Apparently consent only matters if there is a consequence.

Admiral logic.

That's his logic also, actually. He doesn't think consent is the relevant part here, otherwise he'd be agreeing about the pill analogy. He thinks the difference is that one involves a physical act. That's a trivial distinction, IMO.
---

The Admiral posted...

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Darmik posted...

Apparently consent only matters if there is a consequence.

Admiral logic.

That's his logic also, actually. He doesn't think consent is the relevant part here, otherwise he'd be agreeing about the pill analogy. He thinks the difference is that one involves a physical act. That's a trivial distinction, IMO.

It's not my logic for several reasons I have stated in this topic. Your attempts to deflect are obvious. All I've said is that they aren't comparable. You somehow think they're the exact same thing despite the scenarios being completely different.

It also isn't a trivial distinction because regardless of the consequence of the guy stealthing she is being sexually assaulted. All of the external factors (whether or not he lied, she lied etc) aren't relevant to that single fact. Which makes them completely different scenarios. Women don't always want unprotected sex with men. Even if the guy was STD free and snipped if he removed a condom without her consent he is sexually assaulting her.

Your scenario relies on the girl outright lying to make him consent into having unprotected sex when he might have not otherwise agreed to. In this scenario the woman doesn't consent in any single way.
---

Kind of sad how so many guys cry about wearing a condom during sex, yet options for male birth control is so far behind due to lack of investment.


You're filthy rich and want to fuck half the holes in the world without ever becoming a father? Fund R&D for male birth control...
---

I think Admiral channeled Unfairrepresent in his absence.
---

I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it assault. More like it's sexual fraud.
---

I would classify sex that is undertaken with certain understandings and deliberately and stealthily subverting those understandings to be a form of rape, sexual assault, or some other form of crime.
---

The Admiral posted...

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.

Sorry if anyone else asked you this, but have you stealthed before?
---

That_Happened posted...

The Admiral posted...

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.

Sorry if anyone else asked you this, but have you stealthed before?

Nope.
---

Boiling it down to the simplest way possible
- One is someone who lies and manipulates their partner into unprotected sex to give them a specific consequence (such as an STD or getting pregnant)
- One is someone who during sexual intercourse removes a condom because they think it feels good and they don't care that she didn't consent to unprotected sex

The intent behind each act is completely different. If the girl hasn't consented to unprotected sex she has been sexually assaulted regardless. They both should be considered crimes but for very different reasons.
---

The Admiral posted...

That_Happened posted...

The Admiral posted...

It's not sexual assault unless he gives her an STD.

Sorry if anyone else asked you this, but have you stealthed before?

Nope.

But you defend the practice as being no big deal? Or are you just saying it's not sexual assault?
---

Don't bother, TC. Addy has likely checked out by now.
---