SINUKLIAY SA HUNAHUNA

mang_tomas

‘Stealthing’ is the act of removing condoms during intercourse without consent.

"Stealthing" is interestingly a new-found thing which is best addressed to the mind of consenting sexual partners. Putting a condom before the sexual congress presupposes the need, but taking it off midway before the throes of ecstasy, exposes the want of one partner who seeks  to preserve the law of nature, which is a universal right.

To those who are against “stealthing”, they say that it is an assault on one's trust and consent. Bear in mind, what constitutes sex is the penetration and not the condom that goes along with it. Clearly, this is not a violation of attaining satisfaction from the sexual act. Let’s face it, condom is just an accessory to sex which can be done without it.

To me, "stealthing" is just an initiative of one who is possessed with a fertile mind to make sex dynamic and avoid boredom when he gets to doing sex repeatedly using a condom. In short, this is not a violation of any privacy. Neither could it be considered as element of rape.

tasukete  to  mang_tomas

Nope, your definition of "universal right" is defective, but one suspects that won't change your laughable rationalization.

Speaking as a man, no man has the right to impregnate a woman AFTER AGREEING THAT HE WON'T, which is what the condom represents. Spin it any way you like, but there is no such thing as the right to lie, and that is universal.

SKroger  to tasukete

I strongly agree with everything you've said except for the very last sentence. You know Plato is famous for introducing the idea of a noble lie. While we might agree or disagree with him, it would be hard to say there is never a right to lie.

mang_tomas  to  SKroger

Getting into the core of a peculiar topic like "stealthing" is healthy. It runs the gamut of getting the pros and cons of the story. And i am elated with it. Thank you skroger and tasukete.

SKroger  to  mang_tomas I agree that it's important to be able to talk. See you next time.

tasukete to  SKroger

Good point, and I think we are actually in agreement, though we may be using different words. Certainly, there are many cases where lying can be justified. I'm just using the word "rights" in a stricter sense than that: a moral entitlement that a person can generally assert upon other persons. This is the sense in which mang_tomas was asserting the right to reproduce -- but this is incorrect, because very few things fall into this rarefied category (classically, only life, liberty, and possibly property). In particular, the "is-ought" problem establishes that nothing in "nature" falls into this category. In fact, that's called the "naturalistic fallacy." :-)

SKroger  to  tasukete

Yes, I'm sorry. I also think we agree.

mang_tomas  to  tasukete

"Stealthing" by itself is nothing but a misconception of fornicators.

tasukete  to  mang_tomas

"Stealthing" by itself is a phenomenon that exists because boys are not taught how to be men. To put on a condom, WITH THE HIDDEN INTENTION OF REMOVING IT, is a LIE of precisely the same nature as when my 6-year-old puts on his seatbelt with the intention of removing it. "I promised I would put it on, but I never promised to keep it on!" is an excuse that nobody tolerates from 6-year-olds about seatbelts, because grown men recognize it as a lie: the child thinks that he has discovered a clever loophole, so the man must teach the child that to MISLEAD USING EXPECTATIONS is absolutely no different than to MISLEAD USING WORDS.

"Stealthing" is saying "I promised I would put it on, but I never promised to keep it on!" and believing you are a clever child. Grow up.

If you wish to disagree, then please do so in an adult manner: you will need to rigorously demonstrate a difference between the seatbelt scenario and the condom scenario. If you cannot, then you get to admit defeat and grow up. This is a good thing.

mang_tomas to tasukete

No excuses are needed. Neither could we consider "stealthing" or justifying it as something that is misleading the discussion. If you engage in sex then you have to face the necessary consequence of its effects. Accepting it at the start then questioning later the manner in which the partner pursues the climactic part smacks of unnecessary hypocrisy.

tasukete  to  mang_tomas 

You did not demonstrate any relevant difference in the two scenarios I related, you simply asserted it. In particular, you are asserting that the parent is at fault when he expects the son to keep the seatbelt on for the duration of the ride. This is, of course, precisely the child's perspective. The child thinks his loophole is so secure that "no excuses are needed."

In reality, the child does not get to complain, "If you get in a car then you have to face the necessary consequence of its effects." Because that is a strawman: no one claimed that a seatbelt eliminates all consequences, but everyone is expected to know that a seatbelt dramatically changes the probabilities. It is precisely this reduced probability that is being "accepted at the start of the act," and all adults understand this as part of the agreement.

Therefore, the hypocrisy arises when a person defends "stealthing" on grounds that they would never use in equivalent contexts, such as:

- Seatbelts ("I promised I would put it on but I never promised to keep it on!")

- Taxi rides ("I promised I would take you to your destination but I never promised to stop there!")

- Rock climbing ("I promised I would tie your rope but I never promised to keep it tied!")