Stealthing

[lucky lucas]

I had a condom break on me once and I was paranoid for weeks, SP was super supportive telling me not to worry, she even told me she was checked earlier that week and was 100% clean, we even kept in touch through email for few months after, she gave me details to visit a very confidential clinic. She was a sweetheart during that scary incident.

It's like playing Russian Roulette, specially with civilian ladies that don't get themselves checked regularly, scary.

LL

 

[mynameisearl11]

I feel this is 100x prevalent in the civilian group mostly under the age of 30. The amount of unprotected sex that's happens in this age group is probably over 60% and I can see that if a girl insisted (especially in a shitty small town I'm from) an idiot would try this. I feel like a client relationship would be more than aware of the reprocussions

I've read it somewhere that the older ages group of 60 or older have been going wild with unprotected sex! It happened a lot in old age homes:Eek:

 

[checks]

I wonder if there's a word for the people walking like idiots on sidewalks looking at their cell phone and not where they're going.

Millennial

 

[mynameisearl11]

Absolutely. I really wonder about guys who do this. Wanting high fives for sexual assault from randoms online? Sad life.

Guys can go 'commando' only with...their wives. Provided they're neutered! LOL

 

[italianguy74]

"Stealthing" doesn't sound disgusting enough for the behaviour.... Ugh.

I agree lol
Its a poorly chosen word but who can understand what is going through a millennials mind these days. The pharmaceutical industry has turned nearly half of them into amphetamine junkies.

 

[Aardvark154]

Speaking of which; Alexandra Brodsky a research fellow at the National Women’s Law Center, in Washington, D.C. has just had published in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, (Vol. 32, No. 2, 2017) an article “’Rape-adjacent’: Imagining Legal Responses to Nonconsensual Condom Removal” dealing with this very issue.

https://cjgl.journals.cdrs.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2017/04/Brodsky_Final_PRINT.pdf

 

[lenny2]

millennial

lol....

 

[desert monk]

What if she lies about being on the pill? Is that rape?

 

[eternalbachelor]

What if she lies about being on the pill? Is that rape?

no, and you will be responsible for the kid if any. But in fairness lying about the pill does not increase your chances of getting an STD

 

[lenny2]

What if she lies about being on the pill? Is that rape?

No, but it's wrong & should relieve you of some responsibility for any child conceived as a result.

 

[Jaymasters]

Why would anyone want to do this to an SP? Isn't it more risk?

I had a condom break on me once and I was paranoid for weeks, SP was super supportive telling me not to worry, she even told me she was checked earlier that week and was 100% clean, we even kept in touch through email for few months after, she gave me details to visit a very confidential clinic. She was a sweetheart during that scary incident.

It's like playing Russian Roulette, specially with civilian ladies that don't get themselves checked regularly, scary.

LL

That's a sweet girl, really nice of her to follow up. Extraordinary service from her

I've had condoms slip off accidentally which may happen from too much pre-cum, we noticed right away and replaced the condom immediately. I was worried but like you, my SP told me to not worry. Got tested and nothing happened thankfully

 

[rhuarc29]

No, but it's wrong & should relieve you of some responsibility for any child conceived as a result.

Really? I'd consider that rape as well. It's a sexual act where one party isn't consenting to what the other is offering.

I guess my next question to you would be, if the guy is STD-free and does this stealthing, would that be rape? If so, why is that rape, but not the lying about the pill?

 

[The Options Menu]

If so, why is that rape, but not the lying about the pill?

One is consent on the basis of reduced disease transmission and pregnancy chance, and the other is consent on the basis of reduced pregnancy chance. Financial liability in the chance pregnancy is not likely considered to be a 'harm' in the same way as exposing somebody to STI risks are. 'Not taking the pill' is a violation of consent (under letter of the law in your local jurisdiction, or not), but good luck proving that, and frankly you would face broad, and systemic, disdain for claiming a violation of consent while taking no reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy yourself. You'd probably deserve it. (Not to mention the pill fails, and it's efficacy can vary based on a list of factors.) Secondly, you cannot compare that to explicit violation of consent from stealthing. A woman bears all of the risks of pregnancy. While a woman has the right to choose, she would have to face the burdens of single motherhood (remuneration or not), and it would likely be single motherhood if you're the kind of dick to take the condom off half way through. You are exposing another human being to the risk of disease. If a man violates consent mid-coitus a woman is likely to be immediately plunged into terror for some pretty obvious reasons, and that would likely be significantly traumatic. Both are bad, but one is worse. Also, because another person is shitty it doesn't give you licence to be shitty to someone else.

 

[lenny2]

Really? I'd consider that rape as well. It's a sexual act where one party isn't consenting to what the other is offering.

I guess my next question to you would be, if the guy is STD-free and does this stealthing, would that be rape? If so, why is that rape, but not the lying about the pill?

It depends on the definition of rape:

" unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconciousness, or deception"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

Not taking the pill could be considered to not be rape because it is not forcing another to engage in sexual intercourse. Instead not taking the pill to get pregnant & then getting pregnant as a result might be called lieing & making a baby under false pretenses.

 

[sweetiepieexo]

if us ladies did this their would be a whole book written for bad clients lol. I have over fifty blacklisted/ do not answer clients in my phone so I can only imagine how many other sps have.... Also stealthing can be doing it with a condom and then taking it off and keeping going without the lady knowing anything.

Yep it is, as you've made a unilateral decision to up the risk factors - thus removed the lady from the decision making. Such clients should be blacklisted. One SP I like told me that the public might be better served to have lists of clients who ask for BBFS rather than lists of ladies who offer BBFS.

 

[rhuarc29]

It depends on the definition of rape:

" unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconciousness, or deception"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

Not taking the pill could be considered to not be rape because it is not forcing another to engage in sexual intercourse. Instead not taking the pill to get pregnant & then getting pregnant as a result might be called lieing & making a baby under false pretenses.

But then, how is stealthing rape in your opinion? The sexual intercourse isn't being carried out forcibly, but by consent.

My belief is that if you enter into a sexual encounter knowingly under false pretenses, that is rape. I don't, however, believe that it is black and white. There'd be varying degrees, of which lying about being on the pill or lying about, say, a vasectomy would be on the lower end of the scale. I agree with TOM though, it'd be next to impossible to prove these things.

 

[lenny2]

But then, how is stealthing rape in your opinion? The sexual intercourse isn't being carried out forcibly, but by consent.

My belief is that if you enter into a sexual encounter knowingly under false pretenses, that is rape. I don't, however, believe that it is black and white. There'd be varying degrees, of which lying about being on the pill or lying about, say, a vasectomy would be on the lower end of the scale. I agree with TOM though, it'd be next to impossible to prove these things.

Stealthing is a rape done slyly without the other person's consent or knowledge. It's like penetrating a female without her consent when she's passed out from alcohol.

You were given permission to penetrate her with a condom, thus having sex with a condom inside her body. Removing that condom to touch her directly on her flesh is against her consent & another kind of sex she did not agree to.

You were given permission to ejaculate inside of a condom, not inside her body.

 

[TeeJay]

The link is hilarious in its repeated descriptions of "survivors"

And despite the fact that removing a condom during intercourse is pretty dumb one must question why any woman would sleep with such a winner in the first place

 

[The Options Menu]

The link is hilarious in its repeated descriptions of "survivors"

Using a bit of human empathy, realizing somebody half again as big as you, and twice as strong, has violated the terms of consent by taking sneakily taking the condom off would be pretty fucking traumatic mid-coitus. Even if it isn't a crime under the letter of the law in a given jurisdiction, it is undoubtedly a breach of consent and some form of assault. Given the presence of an assault and trauma contemporary language increasingly uses the term "survivor" (in no small part because of the negative value loading around the word "victim"). I think this use of the word is "Icky", but it's hardly the most meaning deforming abuse of the language in common use today.

And despite the fact that removing a condom during intercourse is pretty dumb one must question why any woman would sleep with such a winner in the first place

People like to get off. Even women. Confronted with the prospect of sex most men will become whatever they need to be to get in there. Hookup or not, there is only so much screening that would be deemed reasonable in any given situation. I suppose a woman could demand a 3 month wait period, reference letters, a background check, and a blood test, but she probably wouldn't be 'getting hers' all that often if she did.

 

[sweetiepieexo]

I'm pretty sure if a girl/ sp does not consent to bbfs and you remove the condom anyway I'm pretty sure she can still charge you with rape because she did not consent to it. Or it could be a sexual assault charge. I'm sure if the sp took the text messages to the police of what was originally agreed upon , they might look at it as rape because the girl did not consent to it. But the other part of me thinks that they might blame it on the girl but that's a small possibility. Either way it is a disgusting thing to do to a sp and would definetly be traumatizing.
I really hope that sps who are offering bbfs realize that they are just opening the doors to more people catching stds/ stis and are the reason that men who hobby are even asking for it. Anyone who asks me immediately gets blacklisted. Also some safety procedures for girls to make sure that their safe is

1.) ask age and background prior to meeting the client in question.
2.) ask for a confirmation phone call when they arrive or when they are five minutes away.
3.) have an age requirement


Most men who are older appreciate the ladies that want to play safe but young guys who are new and extremely horny are not always thinking with their big head and are more so thinking with their little head. Although their can be some older gents who ask for this because they say they are "snipped" but regardless no one in the adult industry should ever consent to bbfs . Its just not safe.


I really hope everyone respects each other and the health / well-being of themselves and others. Its already a hard industry with us girls dealing with nice customers, to rude customers, to now shows ,etc ,etc. It really is a time consuming job and can be emotionally draining if the sp does not have the right mindstate for the industry.

Be safe gents and happy hobbying xoxox

Using a bit of human empathy, realizing somebody half again as big as you, and twice as strong, has violated the terms of consent by taking sneakily taking the condom off would be pretty fucking traumatic mid-coitus. Even if it isn't a crime under the letter of the law in a given jurisdiction, it is undoubtedly a breach of consent and some form of assault. Given the presence of an assault and trauma contemporary language increasingly uses the term "survivor" (in no small part because of the negative value loading around the word "victim"). I think this use of the word is "Icky", but it's hardly the most meaning deforming abuse of the language in common use today.


People like to get off. Even women. Confronted with the prospect of sex most men will become whatever they need to be to get in there. Hookup or not, there is only so much screening that would be deemed reasonable in any given situation. I suppose a woman could demand a 3 month wait period, reference letters, a background check, and a blood test, but she probably wouldn't be 'getting hers' all that often if she did.