What Dan said.

According to my personal experience, month 4 is when someone's true nature starts to come out from behind the facade.

It's early, it's long distance, and the kid thing makes it seem unlikely this will be a mega-long relationship so I agree with Dan and the others. I do disagree that forgiving someone you will see regularly is nearly insurmountable - it is much more complicated than that, as I'm sure Dan would agree.

This is totally the type of situation the phrase, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something" was made for. Yes, people can be forgiven of just about anything. But no, he SHOULDN'T be forgiven. This time was the time she caught him at it. How many times did he do it before this, and she didn't realize? It's called "stealthing" for a reason. The victim isn't supposed to actually know it's happening. Maybe he screwed it up because it was the first time he tried it. Or maybe he just got too comfortable about doing it and slipped up. After this, I certainly wouldn't take his word for anything. Agreeing with @2, schedule a check up soon.

Regarding forgiveness, it would be one thing if you had a history of trust, and this was an aberration that he showed appropriate remorse for. Then, you wanna forgive... sure, if it works for you. But that's not the deal here. You're still getting to know each other. Now you know this.... later dude!

You can also forgive a person and still support or exact consequences.

I once received a letter of apology from a known gang member who fired all 16 rounds of his Baretta semi-auto pistol at me and my partner in what he admitted was an attempt to kill us. I told people truthfully that I did forgive him, sure...but he still needs to do time in prison.

Same here, she can forgive this guy completely if she wants, but she still needs to DTMFA.

Not that Stealthing is appropriate or that this guy doesn't seem to be running an not-so-elaborate confidence scam, but is it actually criminal to stealth? If you don't give someone an STI or pregnancy? I recall after the Hickey thing that some states have rape-by-deception laws, although I would hesitate to call this rape - but it's something.

I'd say do whatever you need to stay sane AND safe. If that includes forgiving the guy, fine. But it most certainly involves putting an end to the sexual and romantic relationship.

Are you sure this is the first time he did this? It's not really normal to agree to using a condom and then saying fuck it later on in the day.

Usually guys that disrespect you enough to do that; have practice.

The one-word answer.

If you have any consideration of forgiving him, you might ask his past partners if he ever stealthed them, because my money is on yes.

raindrop should start an advice column. It would elicit comments.

I'm not sure that what raindrop describes @8 is what I'd understand as forgiveness.

The guy has acted unforgivably. Did he want to get you pregnant? Whatever. This is it--you're over.

And rather than mourning the incipient relationship--which was marked by incompatibilities anyways--maybe SOS can ask what the next forty years are going to be like. Is she going to put out for anyone who lays on candlelit meals and massages? Who has a kind or plausible veneer? Have all the other guys she's dated been worse--more brusque, less attentive, actually less respectful? Why have they all been as bad? Is this a matter of repeatedly making bad choices, or of projecting an unfortunate image--perhaps an image that doesn't shout self-respect? There is food for thought in this awful and sobering story--and I hope the LW can reflect to some good purpose and find the better partner she deserves.

Do yourself and this fellow a favor and end the relationship! You may be 'into each other' but neither one of you 'gets' the other. Sign off....say goodbye

Grudges are underrated.

I even hate the term "stealthing" when "sexual assault" or "rape" are accurate and don't minimize the behavior of changing the terms under which consent for sexual activity was given, thus negating that consent. For those who can't see the obvious, maybe it's be easier when it's your money and not someone's (or a woman's, specifically) bodily autonomy at stake: if you enter into a contract to pay X amount for a good or service, the other party cannot unilaterally change the terms of that contract, and if they attempt to do so, the contract if void. "Stealthing" negates the consent contract, and sexual activity that is not consensual is sexual assault or rape, depending on the specifics of the actions and the jurisdiction.

Agree with Dan, LW, and by the sound of your rage you know what to do.

There's another reason not to forgive him. His behavior sounds like that of the classic domestic abuser. Compare it to someone who beats his wife. He throws the punch, becomes terribly apologetic, showers her with great treatment, then throws another punch. Repeat until she's lost all her teeth or is dead. This guy does something horrible, apologizes profusely, and is trying desperately to get into that cycle where he buys her a diamond necklace, then does it again.

The next subject is that of forgiveness. I usually try to avoid nitpicking on definitions, but with forgiveness, you practically have to. You have to ask what forgiveness means in this context. If it means picking up the relationship where you left where you continue to have sex together, then the answer is no. I'll amend that. The answer is hell no.

But if forgiveness means you have nothing more to do with him and choose to stop carrying around a lot of hatred in your heart that's hurting you more than him, then forgiveness is the way to go. It's something you do for you.

Not only that, sometimes the best way to deal with an insincere apology is to grant a quick insincere acceptance. Nothing he's said or done suggests that anything has changed. He did what he did because he didn't think he'd get caught. He can say he didn't know how upset she'd be, but she was clear in how upset she'd be in the first place. Kudos to Procast and Dumno for picking up on how this likely isn't the first time. I'd missed that, but they're so right.The chances of him just thinking of slipping off the condom all of a sudden are slim. This guy has had practice.

DTMFA, and if anyone can think of a way to get the guy charged with rape or to warn future potential partners of what an asshole he is, I'm all ears.

Ugh, no and no and NO! Dude is a selfish asshole who doesn't give a shit about your boundaries, and probably not a whole lot about you! Because he wanted to come faster? Really?

He's a creepy creep creep. Change your locks, block him on social media. DTMFA!

"cooks for me, gives me massages, buys me gifts, showers me with compliments, listens to me at any hour of the night, and has shown nothing but respect towards me"

These things are not rare, LW. All of my boyfriends have done this, and done it throughout the relationship, not just the first few months. There are lots of good, trustworthy men out there, you do not need to deal with this stealthing creep. Don't waste your precious time on him, you deserve better!

DTMFA! This person does not respect you or your autonomy. This type of behavior is a giant red flag that should not be ignored for any reason. If you're Christian, you can forgive him as a Christian, but you can and should end the relationship even if you forgive him. Forgiveness does not negate the consequences of bad behavior.

Supposing, arguendo, this guy is genuinely sincere in his apology and this was a one-off stupid thing he did, accepting his own best argument at face value, it's still Hit The Road, Jack, and that is a favor to him in those circumstances.

This was a bad, bad thing he did, and he needs to learn that and remember it for the rest of his life so he doesn't do it again, and getting tossed out on his ass with no appeal will do that if anything (short of prison) will do it.

He wants kids. She doesn't. That's really non-negotiable, and both should have moved on when that was clear. The trying to make her pregnant by stealth was unforgivable. Some guys believe that the woman will come around to accept being the mother of his children once she's pregnant. I don't buy the "come faster" defense at all. If she doesn't want children and he does, both of them should have been grownups and broken off as friends, with an understanding that he and she both would be searching for partners who did share their life plans. Trying to knock her up by stealth was unacceptable.

Giving the guy the utmost possible benefit of the doubt, you should still dump him just for his sheer stupidity. Live by the phrase, “don’t let crazy stick it’s dick in you”.

Stealthing is not criminal in the US. In other countries it is. I suppose it could be litigated in a civil action but I haven't heard of any. There are academic and legal texts stating it's "rape adjacent" or sexual assault but under the law it's legal. That doesn't excuse a reprehensible action but there are no criminal statues that currently cover it.

He breached the trust and now it's over. He was selfish and put his needs above hers by not respecting her boundaries.

DTMFA.

@10: it's considered rape in Sweden and it's sexual assault as far as I'm concerned.

@13: she doesn't want a family. One of several reasons why this was a huge asshole move.

Tolerating bad behavior encourages bad behavior. If you forgive this asshole for this, you're just giving him permission to knock you up "by accident" down the road.

Dump The Would-Be Motherfucker Already.

Forgiving is constantly brought up as something that should be a goal to achieve. Many times it is driven by a religious need. I say it is all nonsense. You do not have to forgive. Move on and stop thinking about the stupid trend called forgiving. Some people are perpetual in their bad habits and never change and always want to get away with shit by repeating bad behaviour, forgiving them over and over just makes you a sucker for punishment. You are the problem if you are constantly forgiving some assholes behaviour. A child can be forgiven because they are learning from one mistake made but an adult has sorted all the ways out to get away with bad behaviour and being forgiven is one of those ways.

The guy said he can come easier without a condom, meaning he has experienced it before, meaning he is repeating this behaviour. So it is unforgivable and is perfectly fine to be unforgiven! Just move on.

Did anyone else find the purported reason for taking the condom off odd? "'because I wanted to cum faster,'" is not generally considered something someone wants to do during partnered sex. I would have expected, "because it feels better," which I guess leads to "which makes me come faster," but even the stated reason seems crappy.

Fuck that guy. 100% what Dan said, with one additional point: he needs to learn from this transgression. And he’s getting away with a very light sentence (no criminal prosecution), but at a MINIMUM, he needs to learn, “if I do this, my relationship will immediately and permanently end.”

@31 This is because people mistake forgiving with forgetting. So for ext, someone rapes you, you get them locked up and paying their consequences. The forgiveness is letting go of the rage and bitterness in your own heart so that it doesn't poison your life. So yeah, she should promptly dump him, and then forgive him in the sense that she doesn't spend 10 years wasting space in her head about him. Unless she gets an sti or pregnant in which case she should consider sueing him. xP

NoCute @32: Exactly. He basically said, "Because I'm a selfish asshole." He told her who he is; she needs to believe him. He "has shown nothing but respect towards me since Day 1" yet he was reluctant to use condoms from the get-go? That's not showing respect. DTMFA.

One thing about her letter that jumped out at me was that she is "against hormonal contraception." Philosophically, or because it has side effects for her? What is she doing when she does go "bareback" after an STI test and monogamous commitment? If she can take hormonal birth control, she probably should, just as a backup because condoms can break (and as she now knows, assholes can stealth -- and men in bars can roofie and strangers with knives can jump out of dark alleys, and they won't be wearing condoms). Women who definitely don't want kids should take control of that, not leave it up to the man. If she can't take hormonal birth control, she could enquire about getting her tubes tied -- at her age, doctors might just believe she won't change her mind.

Procras @5: Good point that this is unlikely to be the first time, more likely the first time she caught him at it. Shudder.

Raindrop @9: No, she shouldn't go out to dinner with him. Forgive him in her mind, yes, but that does not require her to ever speak to him again.

Sportlandia @10: "I would hesitate to call this rape". Why does that not surprise me?

Raindrop @13, are you joking or are you on crack?

Miz @27: I disagree. They are long distance; there is nothing wrong with having a Mx Right Now relationship while you are otherwise single, so long as you know its duration will be limited. He is only 36, so there is plenty of time for him to find the future mother of his children. However, knowing that this will only be a fling due to the fundamental kids incompatibility, he should not have asked for exclusivity.
I completely buy the "wanted to come faster" excuse; I've met many men who care only about their own pleasure, especially when aroused. They either don't think about pregnancy or think it magically won't happen. This may be the case more so with SOS, who is outside the fertility window. Perhaps it was an attempt to impregnate her, but at month four with a long distance partner I'm more inclined to believe his plausible explanation -- he's a selfish asshole who cares only about his own dick.

34-Zoa (and others) It's like there's a hole in the language. There needs to be a shorthand way to distinguish between "I forgive you for that mean thing you did when we were both 10 years old so we can continue being friends now" and "I'm not walking around with anger now that you're in jail and I've moved on."

Just like there should be a short way to distinguish between "I'm sorry I did something that caused you pain" and "I'm sorry that happened to you."

My question: Are there different words for these things in other languages? I only know English.

iseult, you nailed it. Plenty of very lovely men out there who do respect women and don't casually "forget" what is important to her and has been stated directly to him is important to her. You were assaulted, LW, and your feelings and tears are confirming that for you.

I'd like to know in what countries stealthing is illegal and how the legislation reads. It sounds like an incredibly difficult thing to come up with consistent laws on this-- but also incredibly worthwhile.

Forgiving doesn't mean forgetting. It's entirely possible to say, "I forgive you, and I no longer want to have anything to do with you."

That said, Dan's spot on with this one.

BDF condoms are effective when used properly most of the time. Let's say a woman decides to rely on them exclusively over the course of her entire lifetime. How many times might one break or fail? Then among that small handful of times, how many times would that happen in such a way that neither notice, the man cums inside, she is fertile and it results in pregnancy? It's unlikely to happen, and if it does, once or twice in a lifetime, there is luckily emergency contraceptive and early term abortion (which is not intrusive). So this is the risk she is running on the one hand. To prevent this risk, you are suggest several decades of putting hormones into her body. For plenty of us, the prevention is worse than the risk. She has obviously considered this and come to this conclusion, so I see no point in second guessing her.

There are alternatives: non hormonal IUD, tubal ligation. She's no doubt aware of them, and since it's unlikely a man will want to wear a condom forever (if she plans to have a long term relationship) then she will probably eventually have to consider them. But right now, it's perfectly reasonable that a woman without a long term partner would put off those procedures and just go with condoms, especially in the US where those others options are expensive and (at least in terms of sterilization) sometimes doctors are reluctant to perform them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (And still shame on you, asshole.)

In terms of hormonal birth control, I just want to say that so far a decade of putting hormones into my body has completely saved me, even as someone who has never had sex.

Let me explain: I have PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome), which, in addition to all sorts of side effects regarding weight, insulin resistance, etc., also leads to the woman/ovary-haver having very irregular but crazy intense periods.

Before I went on the pill, I never knew when I would get my period, it could last for 10 days or more when it did happen, and my cramps and other symptoms were so bonkers that I had to miss school for days to lie in bed in agony. This was late middle school/early high school, by the way.

Finally my doctor put me on the pill, almost 10 years ago now. My periods were regular like clockwork, lasted only a few days, much less bleeding, and cramps I could actually function with. The only problem was that getting my period exacerbated my mental illness issues, leading me to have several unstable days per month.

A few years ago, to cut down on how often I'm unstable, my doctor suggested extended cycle birth control, in which you only get your period every 90 days. I highly recommend this to everyone who is on hormonal birth control. Only 4 periods a year! And the last year or so on the extended cycle, I've actually completely stopped getting my period. Apparently this occasionally happens. I'm not complaining!

All I'm saying is that while I know some people get side effects they can't tolerate, hormonal birth control is a miracle for others. I've never even had sex and it's practically saved my life.

Fuck that guy, he's a total pile of steaming shit.

And fuck whoever first called this violation "stealthing" (and fuck everyone who likes calling it that!), which at best plays on the manner(1) of the offense, without acknowledging the thoroughly evil behavior itself.

And it sounds like the US crime of https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/ to me. I want his prosecution publicized widely, and I want to kick him in the balls (unless he likes that sort of thing).

(1) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stealth

@45 p.s.
Reckless endangerment at minimum even if (he got totally lucky because there's no way we should expect he actually knew whether he was exposing her to any SDI's or not) the encounter was medically harmless to her. Probably it wasn't harmless, in which case in was some kind of Assault by this vermin.

BDF, I reread it, and I missed her age the first time. At this point, she's in her early 40s. Doesn't sound like she needs contraception advice in the first place. I'm sure she's considered all options and has come to this conclusion for whatever reason.

It's sort of a pet peeve, but I just get a bit annoyed when people second guess other women's contraception choices- there isn't a good solution for everyone which is why a variety of options is super important, and I know you know this too, but I'm just hammering it home because it seems like the most common assumption is that the primary goal should be preventing any pregnancy at all costs, when for many women (myself included) an unwanted pregnancy is not a greater risk than the side effects of long term hormone use. Other primary goals include: long term health of the woman, finances of the woman, etc.

Fichu,
interesting question. The problem seems to be that "forgiveness" and other various English synonyms focus on the violator or offending person- like it's something you do for them. It absolves them. My guess is this comes out of Christianity and sin and all that? Whereas I can't think of a word that focuses more on the violated or offended person - like, a word that means that you no longer carry around anger or feelings of betrayal towards that person but this doesn't mean you forget it or want to accept that person into your life. I guess equanimity would be close, but it doesn't focus on feelings towards another who wronged you, etc.

Also...I'd say also the relationship here was not so great anyway, or rather, it never really was a relationship but rather just a regular lover. It's long distance. He wants commitment, she doesn't. He was reluctant to use condoms in the first place. They have different life ambitions. She keeps saying he has shown her respect otherwise, but she seems to be confusing respect with things like giving gifts and doing nice things for someone else- pampering someone you like is fun and nice, but it's really got very little to do with how much you respect them. Respect is when you take someone else's values and life very seriously which she gives no examples of him doing. Seems like what she wants is some excuse to continue having sex and receiving attention and gifts with this distant lover, but he's spoiled all that. So I say, find another distant lover. Again I'm reminded of what it would be like if we had brothels for women- discreet spas where you can spend the weekend fucking hot attentive guys and getting foot massages- these things don't exist. Find another weekend lover.

Calli, absolutely. Birth control has changed the world. It's probably the most important invention in human history. But the question of how to deal with contraception does not have an easy answer- each individual woman has to make choices depending on her circumstances, body, risk assessment, etc. Again I'm just pushing back against the idea that women can just do X, or that they should. Or that they can't simply state "I'm against hormonal birth control" without having to qualify it with all their personal reasons for their choice. Let's just assume they have those reasons and move on to the real question (unless the real question is about contraception of course).

DTMFA. There are 7+ billion people on the planet. There's another guy out there who will make breakfast, give massages, etc. But this guy sexually assaulted you. Why do you think you need to forgive sexual assault? You don't.

EmmaLiz @41: Yes, I'm aware that for many women the side effects of birth control are worse than risking pregnancy. That's why I asked whether her objection to hormonal birth control was philosophical or based on her own negative experiences. She refers to "going bareback" with a trusted partner, so how is she preventing pregnancy then? Genuine question. Good point that the morning after pill exists as an alternate backup plan to condoms only, but this might be more difficult to obtain depending on where she lives, etc., and has its own associated risks.

Calliope @43, just wait until you get to my age and birth control makes your periods disappear completely! It's bliss!

Emma @47: "It's sort of a pet peeve" -- that was obvious! ;) Yes, I was simply making an observation based on her own somewhat confusing (to me) comment. I do know all that. Her mileage may vary and yes, no matter whether her reason for not taking hormonal birth control makes sense to me, it is her choice and her menfolk need to respect it and work around it.

@48 EmmaLiz. Of course, I'm not disputing that. Jusr pointing out that, just as there are considerations and concerns other than just contraception efficacy, hormonal birth control can have more uses than just contraception. There can be no default assumed, every body and brain is different, etc. In light of all the side effects and everything, sometimes I just think people can forget all the good that hormones can do for some people.

*Just

Completely agree with Dan. What stood out to me as possible evidence he has done this before to the LW are her words about how he resisted using condoms initially and then seemingly had no problem with it. Maybe he had no problem with it because he wasn't using them. This is non-consensual reproductive sexual assault on another. DTMFA, and don't look back.

@46 The medical extent of the harm is particularly applicable in a criminal sense. If you break in and rob someone, it doesn't really matter much if you take $100,000 in jewelry or just the toaster. Still breaking and entering.

This would become relevant in a civil case. If she were to become pregnant or contract an STI, she would have a civil case against him and the extent of the medical harm would impact the liability of the douche.

is not particularly applicable

In addition to Sexual Assault I do think it's Rape; it's /not/ what she consented to.

@56 larrystone007
I'm glad the extent of harm "is not particularly applicable". That's what I expected from the language at that link https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/ that simply "...risk of serious physical injury...or potential harm..." is criminal. I very much want him convicted, that could help save his future victims. Please consider pressing charges, LW.

I hope no one suffers medical harm but if they do I hope the awarded civil liability is gargantuan.

This just in on Captain Awkward:
"When you spot a skunk, don’t pretend it’s a cat."

I hundred percent agree with DTMFA.

What you know about him is that when you want something that he doesn't want, he's going to ignore your wants. It's as simple as that. Your wants don't matter. Your needs don't matter. If he wants something, he'll take it and he'll lie if he has to. It's easy to be kind and considerate when you both want the same thing. It's a different matter to be respectful of somebody's clearly stated boundaries even if you wish those boundaries weren't there. BOTH are needed in order for you to be safe with somebody.

This is only the beginning. What other boundaries will he ignore just because he feels like it? If you do get pregnant and he decides that he doesn't want children after all, is he going to poison you to induce a miscarriage? This sounds extreme but when somebody shows you that they have a frighteningly bad grasp on boundaries, you have to believe what they've revealed about their character.

This guy is right now asking you to believe that he just didn't know how serious his crime was. Well, that doesn't matter. The fact that he didn't realize what a big deal it was means that he has fucked up ideas about women's autonomy over their own bodies. And if he has any goodness in him, he needs a good kick in the pants to show him how wrong it is to violate somebody's consent, so that he hopefully won't do it again. A break up will perhaps be just that kick in the pants that he needs.

And, honestly, I don't believe he just didn't know that it was really wrong. I think he just thought he'd get away with it. He may have done it multiple times, or intended to do it multiple times, with the intention of getting you pregnant and trapping you into an ltr and family with him.

As for whether you forgive him, I agree completely with @ 7 Morty. Whether you forgive him or not, you don't have to trust this man with your body ever again.

I know I'm probably overthinking this. BF assholery aside, I find this letter somewhat confusing do to some of her statements. Including but not limited to: somewhat exclusive (whatever she means by that) He has asked to be exclusive with me (was he asking for mutual exclusivity or was HE willing to be monogamous in the relationship) I'm not sleeping with anyone else (is he or is he just saying that he isn't) different ambitions (having children or something else and if it is something else then accept this as a STR)

As I said at the start, I'm probably overthinking this, but my conclusion is valid either way.

long-distance relationship. We have known each other for a short time (four months) but have clocked hours upon hours on the phone and have discussed important issues and values. (is there miscommunication, i.e. what she says is different from what he hears and vice versa, nonverbal clues are missing in phone conversations)

Everything is moot since this relationship is not going anywhere unless he gives up on children (even he convinces her to try to have children the probability of her getting pregnant is declining rapidly, she is also at an age where menopause could start to be an issue/unless she has some eggs frozen) and it stops being a long distance relationship (both or one or the other is going to have to move) If he isn't willing to forgo children then just forgive him (why not end it on good terms) and move on (let him find his baby momma now instead of later)

As I said at the start, I'm probably overthinking this, but my conclusion is valid either way. (this was intended to be the last line in my post)

LW just an anecdote- of the dozen or so guys I’ve dated, some amazing others horrible— universally the ones with the most dramatic “remorse” were the biggest pieces of shit. Part of that is that like everyone is telling you, a truly decent partner would NEVER. For example, I’ve had two partners cheat in monogamous relationships. Both relatively early on. One, when confronted was quiet, ashamed, apologetic, and understood it was the likely end of the relationship and cried... but was respectful of what me needing to do what was best for me. The other, my god. Deeply remorseful, borderline inconsolable... called me over and over again with voicemail after voicemail of apology. He ended up being a serial cheater and gaslighted- and it followed that abuse cycle of cheat, beg forgiveness “I’m such a piece of shit but I love you so much please don’t leave me.” Just yuck.

Truly, a decent partner would just never do that in there first place. Ever. And the courting stuff, it’s par for the course, as Dan said. You’re in true colors phase now, and it doesn’t look good.

TLDR:displays of deep remorse do not indicate a good or changed person

@10 Sportlandia, surely you are a troll. No one could be consistently this obtuse.

So many things to chime in on, sorry I am not calling out the comments I’m responding to (mobile device, annoying navigation):
Forgiveness and giving someone another chance are two separate things. If she wants to, she can forgive him for her own sake, hanging onto anger can be a waste of energy. I agree with probably everyone else in this thread — and of course Dan — in saying she should in no way take him back or continue the relationship. She has NO reason to believe he will act differently, and quite a few reasons to believe that he’s been acting this way all along.
Regarding birth control options — I used condoms exclusively in a 6 year relationship and did not get pregnant. Your mileage may vary, but they do have a good success rate when used properly. Hormonal birth control was awful for me every time I was on it. A diaphragm or spermicide suppositories worked pretty well, but my favorite is having a partner with a vasectomy. Perhaps the LW can find a kind and respectful one of those!

61-qapla-- Let me guess. Not only was he inconsolable, he needed YOU to console him. Neat trick there. He really was sorry, but the funny thing about all his sorriness. It worked in his best interest, not yours.

I'm remembering the first thing I learned about rape way back when I was first introduced to the concept. It's not about sex, it's about control. It's not about sex, it's about violence. It's not about sex, it's about power.

Fits the stealth scenario pretty well, I think.

@34
Nah! If you have rage over something a perpetual offending jerk does to you, forgiving is not going to be some magic bullet that will release everything and make life clam, better and all DISNEY. You will still be hurt and asking yourself "Why the Fuck did I forgive that shit"!
The point I am making is some people knowingly use forgiveness as a last resort when manipulating people so that they can get away with bad behaviour over and over and retain power over suckers that think forgiving will make them feel better.

I can just see him hanging with a buddy over a beer answering the question:
"What are you going to do?
and replying
"it's ok she will forgive me"
Sometimes NOT forgiving someone is a great way of staying powerful when confronted with what seems like an habitual abuser.

If a child makes a bad choice then forgiving can be part of the learning experience and a guide to understanding the difference between good an bad behaviour. But that is a child learning, this an adult and it seems like he has done this "stealthing" before and already knows he is being a shit. Sooo no he does not get a "get out of jail free card" in the form of being forgiven and the victim gets to retain some power in the form of a small chunk of dignity.

A good F U and kick them to the curb can feel great while considering your next move.

Yup. Whether or not she forgives him, she should tell him she will never forgive him. He does not deserve that absolution, he deserves to feel shitty about this every single time he thinks about doing it to someone else.

After I was sexually something (I haven't found a word that feels comfortable to describe my experience and the verb form of battery is battered so using what he was legally charged with would be a hilarious way of describing something that was traumatic) I knew I SHOULD forgive him, but no one could seem to tell me what forgiveness looked like in practice. I finally came to the conclusion that it meant not actively wishing him malice. Five years down the road I can honestly say that I have forgiven him, but I do not ever want to see him again and I am okay with the fact that when I do see him, I have the physical urge to punch him in the face. So in that sense, yes. Forgive him, but move on. Also realize that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference, but it will take some time for her to get there. You can't just decide that you won't feel angry or hurt after being assaulted. No one else seems to have commented on the fact that the LW says this is the best relationship she has had. I guess this is as much of a learning experience for her as it will be for him when she dtmfa.

@67 tachycardia Not sure why "battered" would be "hilarious" (sounds traumatic to me). But it's your experience and your pain, so only you will know when you find the right word.

fichu @64, yup. He needing consoling. Needing comfort we could "start over fresh"-- needed to know I wouldn't try and get "back at him"-- so never trusted me properly... what a nightmare.

LW seriously watch out for that high-drama remorse after "unforgivable" acts. It's another huge red flag in and of itself.

She shouldn't forgive him, but as a born pedant I have to say, while it may be criminal in Germany, I'm pretty sure it's not criminal in the only state whose rape laws I have read (California). LW could probably sue him for it, but it wouldn't be worth the bother.

To clarify, there is a part of Penal Code section 261(a)(4)(C) sounds like it could cover stealthing, but I don't think it actually does. It defines rape to include instances where the victim is incapable of resisting because the victim is "not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact." There is a 1985 case indicating that the being unaware "essential characteristics of the act" applies to situations where the victim is unaware that the act is sexual at all (being deceived into believing that a penis is a speculum) and not into believing that sex is serving a medical purpose (the perpetrator convinced a victim that he had been inoculated against a disease with a serum and that having sex with him would cure her or the imaginary disease).

The law has since been amended to directly address situations in which the perpetrator convinces a victim that the sex serves "a professional purpose," but that amendment says nothing about stealthing.

tl:dr Rape is a big deal. It's serious crime. For that reason, it is not defined very broadly and not everything that is totally asshole-ish and fairly rape-y is actually rape.

(This is a personal opinion, not legal advice. If you stealth someone based on my thoughts or for any other reason, you are a terrible person and if a court decides that stealthing is rape and sends your butt to jail, I'll laugh myself silly.)

41

You are dangerously misinformed.

From Planned Parenthood;

"in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year."

And the rate of STI transmission will be higher than the pregnancy rated.

Educate yourself.

Sara Jean~ You’re right, but to clarify... “If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so therefore...”

Ms. Muse @ 68, Maybe I just know too many people who deal with stuff through humor. I was writing while overtired, and “sexually battered” immediately brought to mind images of being covered in unbaked cake as part of foreplay because this is Savage Love after all. I think it's safe to assume a fair number of the commentariat have minds that reflexively go to kink and innuendo. I know mine does, and while there is nothing funny about battered women, or sexual battery, sexually battered still sounds funny/strange to me.

@74 tachycardia I didn't even consider that "battered" could be a kink term or a sex thing. I guess I haven't been around long enough for this place to really affect my brain that way. I guess we'll see if that ever happens...

What life has taught me: forgiving someone is giving them permission to do it again.

@76 Ricardo
It's entirely possible to /both/ forgive someone and eliminate them from your life because you know it's not gonna stop.

p.s. Of course by forgiveness I mean in the sense of it as an inner state.

Looks like lovebombing and a gas-lighting narcissist to me. Be wary because it gets SO mindbendingly awful, so fast.

@76 and @77- exactly.

@skeptic- yeah I was trying to say something like that too. Obviously the 'stealthing' issue is a no brainer (dude's a selfish abusive asshole who should be dumped right away), but if the LW wants to dig deeper, I'd say she should look into why she's confusing being pampered in a long distance short term sexual relationship (in which they seem incompatible anyway) with a deeper relationship involving mutual respect. Being pampered is not the same as being treated with respect.

@calli- I'm taking your point to be in defense of her statement she's "against hormonal contraception"- as if she's saying that it's generally a bad thing rather than bad for her. If that's the case, then yes it's a narrow minded and anti-scientific view to take, regardless of what it's used for. I took her statement to be more specific- that she's against it for herself, as am I for myself, as it gives me terrible side effects (as it does for many women). Though there are other birth control options she did not mention, I suspect she's considered them as well. As for non-contraceptive uses, of course I agree with everything you say, but she specified contraception. She didn't say "I'm against hormonal medication". Just as an aside, it bothers me that hormonal medication (prescribed for things other than contraception) is still called "birth control". I remember as a young teenage virgin what a stigma it was when friends (and their parents!) discovered I took "birth control" which - like you- I was on for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

@sara- I said they were very effective when used properly which brings the success rate up to about 98%. And even if you count the rate of failure of condom (most of which is from improper use), a woman does not get pregnant each and every time. That percentage is not the rate at which people get pregnant from a failed condom but rather the rate at which a condom fails. As for the 15 out of 100, that does not mean a person will get pregnant 15 out of 100 times they have sex with only a condom- it means that each year, 15% of people who rely only on condoms will become pregnant. The chances for an individual each year is not 15%, it's much lower. Even if we just look at stats and ignore individual differences (like the ability to consistently use condoms correctly, varying levels of fertility, awareness of ones own cycle, etc) then you are talking about someone who is facing a reasonable chance of becoming pregnant once or twice a decade. BUT EVEN THIS assumes that the woman does not use emergency contraceptive the day the condom fails in order to prevent the pregnancy in the first place (since emergency contraceptive can prevent uterine implantation). And even in that case, there is still early term abortion. So this is the worst risk.

As for myself, I have never had an abortion because I've never been pregnant, but the risk of having an abortion is far less concern to me than the risks associated (for me in particular) with using hormonal birth control. It's also the cheapest option. If I ever became pregnant and then had an abortion, I would re-evaluate going on int the future and go for another option (probably), but one or two abortions in a life time is a risk I'm very happy to take- it's my preferred option. And it's obnoxious of you (and others) to assume that I'm uninformed or can't read a fucking planned parenthood website or need to educate myself about public health stats which is a field I worked in for years both on the ground and abstractly in research.

Pet peeve as I said.

As for STDs, of course, but that is irrelevant to the discussion since condom usage is really the only way to reduce risk (other than abstaining) and has no bearing on whether or not a person also uses birth control.

@142 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
A point resting upon that some women "took such aggravated exception to [you]...that they emotionally asked [you] to refrain from addressing them" isn't strengthened by your calling them "battleaxes" (regardless of your facial expression).

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=battleaxe
"A woman, who is nasty, overbearing, mean, pompous, arrogant, a selfish busybody, aggressive, disagreeable, or any combination of these. A battleaxe is usually an older woman, and often somewhat unattractive. The standard dictionary definition does not address looks, but one seldom hears a beautiful woman being called a battleaxe, no matter how disagreeable she is."

@81 oops I meant that for the previous day's thread, sorry!

DCP123 @71, that wording looks like it applies very well to stealthing. He defrauded her of her consent to sex with a condom. The use of a condom is an "essential characteristic of the act." I do hope some rape prosecutions are brought against stealthers using this clause.

Donny @72/EmmaLiz @80, "Sara Jean" is Commentor Commentatus, ignore.

Ricardo @76, amen. If it's forgivable, it can't have been that bad. Curious @78, of course -- she can forgive him in her mind in order to move past this, but she should never tell him she forgives him. She should tell him that he is to be saddled with guilt over this forever as he deserves.

EmmaLiz @80: "as if she's saying that it's generally a bad thing rather than bad for her. If that's the case, then yes it's a narrow minded and anti-scientific view to take." That's exactly what I meant in flagging up that statement, and thank you for agreeing that the reason she's against it DOES make a difference. To swap the genders, many of us would rightly blast a male LW who said he did not want children but refused to even consider a vasectomy, preferring to saddle women with the full responsibility of birth control precautions, even when this meant side effects for the woman in question. What's the difference between this hypothetical man and a hypothetical woman who announced that she had a moral objection to birth control and therefore expected her men to accept condoms for life, even if this resulted in less enjoyable sex? (Not this particular woman, as she refers to stopping condoms in a relationship -- which I also queried, because if she's "against hormonal contraception" and not using condoms, how is she preventing pregnancy? It was a confusing sentence, and remains so for me, which is why I flagged it -- not to challenge someone else's birth control decisions.)

Curious @81, regardless of the wrong thread error, you really think that the actual sexism in Harriet's calling certain women "battleaxes" was that they were implying they were unattractive?? That's sort of heaping sexism on sexism.

@83 BiDanFan
Of course not, and I can't think of any basis for you to ask me that. I simply quoted a definition of the insult for the convenience of readers; "unattractive" being just one of about a dozen of it's possible barbs (/all/ of which are sexist, right?).

I either poke holes in the condom or push it inside her while pretending to be squeezing her booty. Whichever way is easier depending on how we reach the bed. Raw is the best when the opponent feels safe.

Sure, BDF, agree with all that, though she didn't say she was opposed to birth control, she said hormonal contraception, so that does not exclude some IUD nor surgical options both of which a hypothetical woman with this LW's stance might be willing to consider after the establishment of a long term relationship and also reasonably wish to avoid (due to expense, hassle/pain of the procedure) in she is not in a long term relationship- especially if she isn't seeking one and has a habit of short term partners or casual sex. So I don't see any reason to jump to the conclusion that she's dumping it all on him just because she's negating one option (hormonal bc) as well as expecting condoms now (which is pretty common before relationships become regular). I agree with you about the ambiguity of the wording though- something that didn't jump out at me before Calli focused on it, but even still I wouldn't have interpreted it the way that you did, even hypothetically. But yes, for sure, if a woman negates ALL responsibility for contraception for no reason at all - or on some moral ground which is even worse imo- yes that would be really shitty.

As for battleaxe, I didn't think Curious was implying that Harriet was saying that some women here were ugly. I thought he was pointing out that the word Harriet used is sexist (which it is) and explaining why. I don't think Harriet intentionally used it to be sexist, and it's good for him to learn why it is. However I do think that perhaps subconsciously, this was his go-to because he thinks of older loud women who disagree with him this way (minus the comment on looks).

@85 Stealthhandler
Some brave person created an account then immediately deleted it just to troll.

@86 EmmaLiz
Do Harriet's pronouns include "he"/"him"/"his"? If not that that's not cool either.

I've asked Harriet repeatedly which pronouns to use. He says it does not matter to him and has a long explanation about his view of gender and his experience of gender fluidity. Since he also alternately calls himself a gay man and says that this is how he describes the majority of his relationships (as gay male relationships), I've stuck with he/him which he's said is fine with him. I would happily use whichever pronouns he preferred if he ever expressed a preference, and I would never intentionally misgender someone.

@88 EmmaLiz
I apologize, I'm sorry for questioning you EL. I should have known you "would never intentionally misgender someone" in any circumstance.

I honestly didn't know Harriet's preference, which is my fault since I don't have all the time I want to read everything everyone writes. (I have noticed that Venn addresses Harriet as M?? or something which hasn't feel really kind to me; with your information perhaps it now looks to me like a repeated question someone declines to answer.)

Curious @ 77 - Yes, but by not forgiving them, you're letting them know it's not alright to do it, period (not just to you). In other words, they can't honestly tell their next victims that their previous lovers didn't mind as a way to try and shut them up (the next victims) when they complain.

BDF @ 83 - "she can forgive him in her mind in order to move past this, but she should never tell him she forgives him. She should tell him that he is to be saddled with guilt over this forever as he deserves"

Amen to that!

@90 Ricardo
Oh I didn't say anything about /telling/ them they're forgiven, I just meant (quoting me@78 "forgiveness...as an inner state"). But I think that even if one did tell them that, they'd know that it's not alright to do it once they found you've (quoting me@77) "eliminate[d] them from your life" because you can't accept it happening again.

Curious @ 91 - You'd be surprised by the amount of people who'll manage to turn that into "They were too stupid to realize how good I was for them" or something similar so as to avoid having to do some soul-searching.

@92 Ricardo
You're right, most people aren't gonna (because of lack of self-awareness or narcissism or etc) realize they have a problem. No matter /what/ one says.

@80 EmmaLiz. Yes, my intention was only to point out that, in my interpretation, saying, "I'm against hormonal contraception," is a much broader, more wide-sweeping statement than, "I can't use hormonal contraception," or "I don't want to use hormonal contraception," or any other way she could have phrased it.

In terms of still calling it "birth control" when it's not used for contraception -- I have had the thought that calling it "birth control" doesn't make sense for me given the reason I take it, but I'd never thought about the topic seriously as a real semantic issue. You make an interesting point.

About forgiveness -- I think she should only forgive him if it's what she needs to do to stay sane. That does not mean she needs to communicate with him about forgiveness (or communicate with him about any other topic). She certainly needs to end the relationship -- and make it clear why she's doing so. I think most of us are in agreement about this.

@curious2 actually this article was shared on a stealthing form. They are enjoying the triggered peoples comments.

BDF @83, I don't claim to have thoroughly researched all law on the issue and it's possible that there's something newer out there, but my recollection from what I'd read previously is that the "essential characteristic of the act" is the fact that it's a sexual act. That's consistent both with the cases finding that telling someone they are being penetrated by a speculum, not a penis, is rape and the case I mentioned distinguishing those cases where the woman was misled into believing that she needed to have sex with the "doctor" to preserve her health.

It's possible that some court has since changed the interpretation of the statute to extend it to cover sex without a condom as essentially different from sex with one, but I'd be very surprised. The crime of rape is defined pretty specifically.

It sometimes seems that many would like to believe that rape statutes simply say something like "any sex that is not exactly what the other participant has specifically agreed to in advance verbally or in writing while stone cold sober." They don't. If you're curious the statute covering non-marital rape in California is here: https://codes.findlaw.Com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261.Html I think it's an interesting read.

Marital rape and statutory rape have their own statutes.

Stealthing forums. I think I'm going to vomit.
DCP @96, I hope someone does bring a suit invoking that clause and that a judge with some sense in their head interprets it as, if a condom was specifically required for the sex, then removing the condom changes the "essential characteristic of the act" as being an act of safe sex and renders consent invalid.

Oy. I don't want to deny anyone their fantasy (as long as they never act on it nonconsensually), but still. Oy.

@8, @9, and @13: Are your triglycerides riding high again, sugarlips?
@10 and @85: TROLL ALERT!
@23 & @24 iseult: For the WIN! You nailed it.
@97 BiDanFan: Okay. Here I am in this comment thread, however late. Agreed on "stealthing forums"--YUCK! Thank you for confirming the mass support of my DTMFA comment in SLLOTD regarding the LW (SOS). The 36 year old asshole who violated her is indeed, a slimy piece of shit. He took off the condom because he "wanted to come faster"?! Really? What a creep!