Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jun 9.
Published in final edited form as: Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023 Feb 1;25(1):215–230. doi: 10.1177/15248380221146802

A Scoping Review of Nonconsensual Condom Removal (“Stealthing”) Research

Kelly Cue Davis 1, Julia F Hammett 1, Weiqi Chen 1, Robin Stewart 1, Mitchell Kirwan 1
PMCID: PMC12147871  NIHMSID: NIHMS2082501  PMID: 36722370

Abstract

Background:

Nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR; also known as “stealthing”) involves the removal of a condom before or during sexual intercourse without a partner’s sexual consent. Within the past several years, nations across the globe have codified NCCR as a form of sexual violence penalized by civil and/or criminal penalties. Given the recent legal attention to this behavior, we performed a scoping review of the peer-reviewed, empirical, English-language studies conducted on NCCR in order to summarize the current state of this field of research.

Method:

Our scoping review yielded 27 articles meeting study inclusion criteria. Data on NCCR victimization and perpetration prevalence rates and correlates, as well as perceptions of NCCR, were extracted.

Results:

The majority of the reviewed studies were conducted within the past five years and pertained to NCCR victimization. Rates of NCCR victimization ranged from 7.9% - 43.0% for women and 5.0% - 19.0% for men who have sex with men; rates of NCCR perpetration ranged from 5.1% - 9.8% for men and 0% for women. NCCR correlates included sociodemographic variables, relationship type, psychological factors, and sexual health concerns. Perceptions of NCCR were largely negative.

Conclusions:

The nascent field of NCCR research provides empirical evidence from several countries regarding concerning rates of NCCR. Building upon this foundation, continued research regarding NCCR is imperative. Studies that further delineate NCCR prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes would provide critical information beneficial to the development of evidence-based prevention and intervention programs targeting reductions in NCCR.

Keywords: nonconsensual condom removal, stealthing, sexual risk behavior, sexual coercion, sexual assault

Nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR) - vernacularly known as “stealthing” – is a form of sexual coercion in which an individual agrees to use a condom but then takes off the condom without the partner’s knowledge or consent (Davis, 2019). These situations typically begin consensually with both partners agreeing to engage in protected sex; however, once the condom is removed by one partner without the consent of the other, either before or during sex, the sexual activity is no longer consensual (Brodsky, 2017). As such, the partner who was “stealthed” has had their sexual agency and autonomy violated by the stealthing perpetrator, potentially rendering this an act of sexual violence (Ebrahim, 2019).

Despite the clear lack of consent involved in NCCR, there has been debate regarding how NCCR should be located within the sexual violence continuum. In one of the first academic reports on NCCR, Brodsky (2017) argued that this behavior should be considered “rape-adjacent”. Demonstrating the current legal ambiguity of this behavior, legislatures across the globe have grappled with whether and how to incorporate NCCR into their legal codes regarding sexual assault. Globally, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore, and a majority of Australian states currently recognize NCCR as a crime, although prosecutorial results have varied and some NCCR convictions have been overturned upon appeal (Wolters, 2021). In the United States, California became the first state to redefine their sexual battery law to include NCCR, thereby allowing victims to pursue civil remedies. It did not, however, change the criminal code to include NCCR (Wolters, 2021). At the time of this writing, similar legislation has not only been proposed at the state level in New Jersey, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Nebraska (Fell, 2021; White, 2021; Wolters, 2021), but also at the federal level through H.R. 7920 introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on May 31, 2022 (Stealthing Act of 2022, 2022). This federal legislation seeks “to create a civil action for non-consensual sexual protection barrier removal” (Stealthing Act of 2022, 2022, p. 1), enabling victims of NCCR to seek civil damages. Given the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade in the U.S., the ability to seek civil damages after an NCCR event is particularly critical for people who become pregnant after such events and may be forced to carry the fetus to term at potentially significant mental, physical, and financial cost.

Legal considerations aside, NCCR has clear public health relevance. First, a wealth of evidence indicates that correct, consistent male condom use is an effective means of reducing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that are transmitted via genital fluid, such as HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2022a). Further, estimates note that 1 in 5 people in the United States have an STI, and $16 billion in direct medical costs are spent on new STIs each year (CDC, 2021). Second, male condoms also provide significant protection against unintended pregnancies which represent a yearly cost of approximately $21 billion in the United States (CDC, 2022b; Guttmacher Institute, 2022). Although the extent to which NCCR contributes to these costs is unknown, the condomless sex that occurs as a result of NCCR certainly increases STI transmission and unintended pregnancy risk, as well as the resulting personal and financial costs. Finally, NCCR may occur without the victims’ knowledge, which obviates their ability to seek out STI prophylaxis or emergency contraception (where available), thereby potentially increasing these risks.

In the present scoping review, we examine the existing research literature regarding NCCR in order to provide an overview of this nascent field of sexual violence research. As defined by Colquhoun et al. (2014), scoping reviews are a “form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge” (p. 1294). A scoping review is an appropriate method for reporting on evidence in an emerging field as it provides an initial scope of the literature on that topic, including method and evidence types, key concepts and characteristics related to the topic, and remaining knowledge gaps (Munn et al., 2018). In particular, we seek to provide information on prevalence rates of NCCR perpetration and victimization, correlates of NCCR perpetration and victimization, and general perceptions of NCCR. As such, the research question, “What is the extent and nature of the current literature on NCCR (‘stealthing’), including NCCR prevalence, NCCR correlates, and perceptions of NCCR?” guided this review’s scope and focus. Our overarching objective is to present a compilation and synthesis of the current research in this area that can 1) create a foundation for future research and policy decisions regarding NCCR; 2) provide critical information for providers and advocates working with NCCR victims; and 3) stimulate the development, testing, and implementation of prevention and intervention efforts specifically targeting NCCR perpetrators.

Method

Stages of Scoping Review

Below we describe details on each of the four stages included in the current scoping review: (1) establishing eligibility criteria; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) screening relevant studies; and (4) charting and organizing data.

Eligibility Criteria

Articles included peer-reviewed studies in English examining empirical findings focused on NCCR victimization, perpetration, or perceptions thereof. Articles were excluded if they (a) were not peer-reviewed, (b) were not journal articles (i.e., conference abstracts etc.), (c) did not present empirical evidence, (d) were literature reviews, and (e) did not explicitly examine NCCR (e.g., collapsing NCCR with other forms of birth control sabotage). Due to the current limited research on NCCR, there were no limitations with regards to population or time of publication.

Identification of Relevant Studies

A literature search using the following databases was conducted: Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), PsycInfo, and PubMed. We used the following terms across each database: “stealthing”, “non-consensual condom removal”, “nonconsensual condom removal”, “condom sabotage”, “contraceptive interference”, “contraceptive manipulation”, “contraceptive sabotage”, “coercive pregnancy behaviors”, “condom interference”, “condom manipulation”, “condom use resistance”, and “birth control sabotage”.

Selection of Studies

To select studies, titles and abstracts of each identified article were reviewed first, followed by a full-text review. Study titles, year of publication, and author names were entered onto a spreadsheet. Zotero reference management software was used to store articles and identify duplicates. At each stage of study selection, articles were reviewed by two authors independently and brought forward for a team discussion if uncertainty occurred to ensure consistency.

Title and abstract review.

Using the above search terms, 1,332 articles were identified. After removing 235 duplicates manually and using the duplicate detection function in Zotero, 1,097 articles were included in title review. In the title review stage, nine articles were excluded because they were not published in English, 36 articles were excluded because the title suggested non-empirical evidence, and 982 articles were removed because of lack of topical relevance. Of the remaining 70 remaining articles, articles were excluded because they were conference abstracts instead of full texts (n = 2), their abstracts indicated that they did not contain empirical evidence (n = 7), or they did not examine NCCR (e.g., articles were focused on condom negotiation; n = 7), leaving 54 articles for the full-text review.

Full-text review.

Of the 54 remaining articles, articles were removed because their full texts indicated that they lacked explicit data specifically examining NCCR (n = 27). The remaining 27 articles were included in this scoping review (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

PRISMA Flow Diagram Outlining Identification, Screening, and Inclusion of Articles in this Scoping Review

Charting and Organizing the Data

To summarize and organize selected studies, the first author developed a template for data extraction (see Table 1): Study design, study population, recruitment criteria, and the operationalization of stealthing used in each study. Study design presents the methods of the investigation. Study population includes sample size and demographic information. Recruitment criteria provide information regarding study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Operationalization includes information on the measurement of NCCR, including interview or survey questions.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics and Methodology of Included Studies

Study Authors (Year) Design Study Population Recruitment Criteria Operationalization of Stealthing
Ahmad et al. (2020) Qualitative focus group; quantitative cross-sectional survey Focus group: N = 13;
Survey: N = 153		 Male and female college students aged 18+ Focus Group:
1. What is stealthing?
2. Do you think stealthing increases one’s risk of STI transmission and how?
3. Do you think stealthing is considered a form of sexual assault and why?
4. Do you think stealthing should be against the law and why?
5. What are your thoughts on stealthing being socially acceptable?
Survey:
Closed and open-ended
questions assessing knowledge, attitude, and self-efficacy related to sexual consent
Alam & Alldred (2021) Qualitative semi-structured interview using vignettes N = 9;
66.7% female;
66.7% post-graduate; 33.3% undergraduate		 College students aged 25 years and younger who had heterosexual intercourse in the last 2 years Discussion of vignettes in which a heterosexual couple engaged in intercourse without a condom, followed by discussion of personal views and experiences
Boadle et al. (2021) Quantitative cross-sectional online survey N = 364 women;
87.4 % Caucasian;
M(age) = 24.3, SD = 3.3		 Women living in Australia or New Zealand who had penetrative sexual intercourse with at least 1 male partner 1 item:
A partner removing a condom during sex without your knowledge or consent
Bonar et al. (2019) Quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 2,550;
52.4% male;
53.9% White;
M(age) = 20.8, SD = 2.3		 Adults in the US aged 18–25 2 items:
1. How many times have you had vaginal or anal sex with someone age 16 or older and started using a condom, but then you took it off during sex without the other person knowing?
2. Since you turned 16, how many times has someone age 16 or older had vaginal or anal sex with you and started using a condom, but then they took it off during sex without you knowing it?
Czechowski et al. (2019) Quantitative cross-sectional survey;
qualitative interview		 N = 592;
73.4% cisgender women, 25.8% cisgender men, 0.7% transgender or non-binary;
M(age) = 19.6, SD = 2.6		 College students at the University of Ottowa in Canada 2 items:
1. Have you ever had sex with a male partner who, during (or before) sex, removed the condom without your consent?
2. Have you ever had sex with a male partner who, during (or before) sex, removed the condom without your knowledge?
Davis (2019) Quantitative cross-sectional survey  N = 626 men;
 67.0% White, 15.0% Multiracial, 9.0% Black, 7.0% Asian, 1.0% Native American, 7.0% Hispanic;
 M(age) = 25.5, SD = 3.5		 Men aged 21–30 who were non-problem drinkers and had intercourse with a woman without a condom in the past year 2 items from the Condom Use Resistance Tactics Scale (Davis et al., 2014):
1. Agreeing to use a condom but removing it before/during sex without telling her
Davis et al. (2014) Qualitative semi-structured focus group N = 60 men;
66.7% Caucasian, 10.0% Asian, 8.3% Black, 10.0% Multiracial/Other, 5.0% Unknown;
 M(age) = 25.3, SD = 3.5		 Men aged 21–35 who were sexually active with women in the past year with at least one episode of unprotected intercourse, and a moderate drinker Facilitator-guided discussion on topics such as condom use resistance
Davis et al. (2019) Quantitative cross-sectional survey  N = 503 women;
71.7% White, 12.9% Multiracial/Other, 8.3% Asian, 4.9% Black, 2.2% Native American;
M(age) = 25.0, SD = 2.7		 Women aged 21–30 who had condomless consensual sex with a man at least once in the past year; had at least one indicator of sexual risk; had sex at least twice and consumed alcohol at least twice in the past month 1 item from the Condom Use Resistance Tactics Scale (Davis et al., 2014):
Partner agreeing to use a condom but removing it before/during sex without telling you
Decker et al. (2021) Quantitative cross-sectional survey  N = 1,066 women from Nairobi (n = 332), Abidjan (n = 555), and Lagos (n = 179);
M(age) = 20.5, SD = 2.1 (Nairobi), M(age) = 19.8, SD = 2.5 (Abidjan), M(age) = 19.5, SD = 2.3 (Lagos)		 Adolescent girls and young women aged 15–24 with at least one year of local residence in Nairobi, Abidjan, or Lagos who had previous sexual experience and current partners 1 item:
Has a partner ever agreed to use a condom and then removed it during sex?
Dimenstein et al. (2021) Quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 39 men;
87.2% Black, 10.3% White, 2.6% Hispanic;
41.0% aged 15–19, 59.0% aged 20–24		 Men aged 15–24 recruited from primary care/STD clinics with a history of vaginal, oral, or anal sex with a female partner 2 items (adapted from Miller et al., 2010):
1. Take off condom during sex when your partner/you did not want to
2. Damage condom on purpose
Grace et al. (2020) Quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 482 women;
100.0% Hispanic;
M(age) = 30.5 (SD = 6.9)		 Women aged 15–45, who self-identified as Latina, Hispanic or Spanish, and had a dating or sexual partner in the past year 1 item (adapted from Miller et al., 2010):
1. Take off condom during sex when your partner/you did not want to
Katz & LaRose (2018) Quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 213 women;
81.3% White, 7.9% Asian, 4.7% Hispanic, 3.7% Black, 2.3% Other.
M(age) = 19.1, SD = 1.1		 Undergraduate women who had been previously involved in a sexual relationship of at least 1 month’s duration with a male partner 3 items (adapted from Miller et al., 2010):
1. Took off the
condom without your agreement while you were having sex
2. Put holes in the condom that you were going to use
3. Broke condoms on purpose while you were having sex
Katz et al. (2017) Quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 223 women.
80.3% White,
6.3% Asian, 5.8% Hispanic, 4.9% Black,
2.7% Other.
M(age)=19.1, SD=1.2		 Undergraduate women who reported past consensual vaginal sex with at least 1 male partner 3 items (adapted from Miller et al., 2010):
1. Took off the
condom without your agreement while you were having sex
2. Put holes in the condom that you were going to use
3. Broke condoms on purpose while you were having sex
Katz & McKinney (2018) Experiment using vignettes;
Quantitative cross-sectional survey		 N = 135 women;
100.0% White;
M(age) = 19.0, SD = 1.0		 Undergraduate students recruited from a voluntary psychology department pool Vignette describing a partner who “secretly removed the condom during sex”
Katz & Sutherland (2017) Quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 146 women;
83.4% White, 7.6% Asian, 3.4% Hispanic, 2.8% Black, 2.8% Other;
M(age) = 19.1, SD = 1.1		 Undergraduate women aged 18+ who had been previously involved in a sexual relationship with a male partner that had lasted at least 1 month 3 items (adapted from Miller et al., 2010):
1. Took off the
condom without your agreement while you were having sex
2. Put holes in the condom that you were going to use
3. Broke condoms on purpose while you were having sex
Latimer et al. (2018) Quantitative
cross-sectional survey		 N = 1,189 women,
1,063 MSM;
Women: Median(age) = 26
MSM: Median(age) = 30		 Women and MSM attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre
in Victoria, Australia		 1 item:
Have you ever had a condom removed during sex with or without permission and at what point did you notice?
Levesque & Rousseau (2021) Qualitative semi-structured interview N = 21 women;
71.0% White, 10.0% Caribbean, 10.0% North African, 5.0% Asian;
71.0% heterosexual, 14.0% bisexual, 10.0% queer, 5.0% asexual;
M(age) = 24.9, SD = 2.8		 Women in Canada aged 18–29 who had experienced reproductive coercion in the last 2 years by a male partner Semi-structured interview questions assessing participants’ representation of their intimate relationship; RC manifestations, chronicity, and crystallization over time; acknowledgment of RC; coping skills; and contacts with health professionals and/or community counselors
Levesque et al. (2021) Qualitative semi-structured interview N = 21 women;
71.0% White, 10.0% Caribbean, 10.0% North African, 5.0% Asian;
71.0% heterosexual, 14.0% bisexual, 10.0% queer, 5.0% asexual;
M(age) = 24.9, SD = 2.8		 Women in Canada aged 18–29 who had experienced reproductive coercion in the last 2 years by a male partner Semi-structured interview questions assessing participants’ representation of their intimate relationship; RC manifestations, chronicity, and crystallization over time; acknowledgment of RC; coping skills; and contacts with health professionals and/or community counselors
Moore et al. (2010) Qualitative semi-structured interview N = 71 women;
33.0% White, 53.0% Black, 1.0% American Indian, 11.0% Hispanic, 1.0% Other;
Range(age) = 18–49		 Women aged 18–49 with a history of intimate partner violence recruited from a family planning clinic, an abortion clinic and a domestic violence shelter Semi-structured open-ended questions asking participants to describe their relationship histories including contraceptive use, births, abortions and miscarriages
Nguyen et al. (2021) Experiment using scenarios and quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 822;
64.8% female;
74.2% White, 8.4% Black, 7.4% Asian, 6.4% Hispanic, 5.0% Middle Eastern, 3.0% Other;
M(age) = 36.1, SD = 13.1		 US men and women recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Scenario describing a male partner who “removed the condom at some point without [female partner]’s knowledge and continued until he ejaculated”
Nikolajski et al. (2015) Qualitative semi-structured interview N = 66 women;
55.0% Black, 45.0% White		 Low-income, African American and White women aged 18–45
recruited from reproductive health clinics in Western Pennsylvania		 Descriptions of male partners’ condom refusal, purposeful misuse/deception, and overt sabotage of women’s contraceptive efforts
Northridge et al. (2017) Quantitative
cross-sectional survey		 N = 149 girls;
M(age) = 16.1, SD = 1.0;
More than 75% Black or Hispanic		 Sexually active girls aged 14–17 living in high poverty neighborhoods who were seeking medical care in a pediatric emergency room,
inpatient service, school-and hospital-based clinics		 3 items (adapted from Miller et al., 2014):
1. Taken off the condom while you were having sex so that you would get pregnant
2. Put holes in the condom so you would get pregnant
3. Broken a condom on purpose while you were having sex so you would get pregnant
Orchowski et al. (2020) Quantitative
cross-sectional survey		 N = 212 women;
37.1% White,
18.5% Black, 2.8% American Indian,
1.7% Asian, 30.9% Other;
M(age) = 19.8, SD = 1.7		 Community college women aged 18–24 with a sexual history 3 items from the Condom Use Resistance Tactics Scale (Davis et al., 2014):
1. Agreeing to use a condom but removing it before/during sex without telling you
2. Agreeing to use a condom, but intentionally breaking it
3. Agreeing to use a condom but intentionally breaking it after the condom after it was on
Stappenbeck et al. (2019) Quantitative longitudinal (3 months) surveys N = 430 men;
67.0% White, 16.0% Multiracial/Other, 9.0% Black, 7.0% Asian American, 1.0% Native American, 9.0% Hispanic;
 M(age) = 24.6, SD = 2.7		 Men aged 21–30 who were non-problem drinkers, had intercourse with a woman without a condom in the past year, and had sex during the 3-month follow-up period 2 items from the Condom Use Resistance Tactics Scale (Davis et al., 2014):
1. Agreeing to use a condom but removing it before/during sex without telling her
2. Agreeing to use condom but intentionally breaking it when putting it on
Tarzia et al. (2020) Qualitative in-person or phone interview N = 14 women;
Predominantly White, educated, and employed;
Range(age) = 18–44		 Women recruited from a public hospital in Victoria, Australia as part of a broader project on reproductive coercion Unstructured interviews with the prompt:
Can you tell me about a situation where you felt pressured or forced by a partner to make a choice that affected your reproductive health? For example, pressure to end a pregnancy, to get pregnant, or to use or stop using birth control?
Teitelman et al. (2011) Quantitative cross-sectional survey and qualitative focus groups N = 64 girls;
M(age) = 16.0, SD = 1.0; 100.0% Black		 Adolescent girls aged 14–17 who were attending family planning clinics, were able to read and write English, had no mental health problems, and reported vaginal intercourse in the past 3 months Participants were asked whether they ever had vaginal and anal sex without a condom when they wanted their partner to use one
Wakeman & Worthington (2021) Experiment using vignettes and quantitative cross-sectional survey N = 273;
74.70% female;
M(age) = 22.4, SD=6.3		 Men and women aged 18+ recruited online via community pages on social media in the UK Scenario describing a male partner taking off a condom during sex without the female partner's consent
Open in a new tab

Note. MSM = men who have sex with men, RC = reproductive coercion, STI = Sexually Transmitted Infection.

Then, relevant study information and results were extracted by four authors (JFH, WC, RS, and MK) to present prevalence, correlates, and perceptions of NCCR. The first author then reviewed the extracted information for accuracy; no disagreement was noted. Table 2 summarizes the prevalence of NCCR victimization (n = 17) and perpetration (n = 5). Table 3 presents correlates of NCCR victimization (n = 9) and perpetration (n = 1). Table 4 includes information on perceptions of NCCR (n = 10). Critical findings are summarized in Table 5; Implications of these findings are presented in Table 6.

Table 2.

Prevalence of Stealthing Victimization and Perpetration

Study Authors (Year) Prevalence Rates
Stealthing Victimization
Alam & Alldred (2021) 1 (11.1%) female participant discussed stealthing, as she had experienced it herself.
Boadle et al. (2021) 9.3% of the female participants reported experiencing stealthing.
Bonar et al. (2019) 5% of men and 18.9% of women reported a history of stealthing victimization.
Czechowski et al. (2019) 18.7% of participants (male and female) who had engaged in penetrative intercourse with a male partner reported that a partner had engaged in NCCR.
Davis et al. (2019) 12.0% of women had experienced stealthing from a partner.
2.6% of women had experienced intentional condom breakage from a partner (M = 0.7, SD = 0.6).
Dimenstein et al. (2021) 5.1% of men had a partner remove the condom during sex when they did not want to.
0.0% of men had a partner intentionally damage a condom.
Decker et al. (2021) 15.6% of women in Nairobi, 41.9% of women in Adidjan, and 26.7% of women in Lagos had experienced stealthing in their lifetime.
Grace et al. (2022) 38.2% of the women who experienced RC had a partner remove the condom during sex when they did not want to.
Katz & LaRose (2018) 10.2% of women reported that a male partner took off the condom without their agreement while they were having sex.
0.5% of women reported that a male partner broke condoms on purpose while having sex.
Katz & Sutherland (2017) 11.6% of women reported that a male partner took off the condom without their agreement while they were having sex.
0.6% of women reported that a male partner broke condoms on purpose while having sex.
Katz et al. (2017) 21.0% of women reported that a partner took off the condom while sex.
14.0 of women reported that a partner made them have sex without a condom.
1.0% of women reported that a partner broke a condom on purpose while having sex.
Latimer et al. (2018) 32.0% of women and 19.0% of MSM reported having ever experienced stealthing.
Moore et al. (2010) When men did consent to use condoms, many women said that their partners manipulated
the condoms to render them ineffective including taking them off surreptitiously before or during sex, biting holes in them, and not telling their partners when the condom came off or broke.
Nikolajski et al. (2015) Some women were led to believe that their partners were wearing condoms during intercourse only to find they had been deceived.
Northridge et al. (2017) 43.0% of girls had a partner take off the condom while having sex so that they would get pregnant.
0.0% of girls had a partner put holes in the condom so they would get pregnant.
14.0% had a partner break a condom on purpose while having sex so they would get pregnant.
Orchowski et al. (2020) 7.9% of women had experienced a partner remove a condom before/during sex without their consent/knowledge.
2.2% of women had experienced a partner intentionally break a condom.
1.7% of women had experienced a partner intentionally break a condom after it was on.
Teitelman et al. (2011) In 2 of 5 focus groups, girls described male partners surreptitiously removing the condom.
Stealthing Perpetration
Bonar et al. (2019) 6.1% of men reported a history of stealthing perpetration.
Davis (2019) 9.8% of men reported engaging in stealthing since the age of 14.
37% of men had stealthed one time; 19.7% had stealthed twice; 42.6% had stealthed three or more times, with an average of 3.6 times (SD = 3.9) among men who stealthed.
Davis et al. (2019) None of the women had engaged in stealthing.
0.01% of women had engaged in intentional condom breakage (M = 0.2, SD = 0.4; Range = 0–8).
Dimenstein et al. (2021) 5.1% of men had removed a condom during sex when their partner did not want them to.
0.0% of men had intentionally damaged condom.
Stappenbeck et al. (2019) 2.7% of men engaged in stealthing during the 3-month follow up period.
1.0% of men intentionally broke a condom during the 3-month follow-up period.
Open in a new tab

Note. NCCR = nonconsensual condom removal, RC = reproductive coercion, MSM = men who have sex with men, STI = Sexually Transmitted Infection.

Table 3.

Correlates of Stealthing Victimization and Perpetration

Study Authors (Year) Correlates
Stealthing Victimization
Boadle et al. (2021) Increased risk for stealthing was linked to nonheterosexuality, nonexclusive relationship status, and more sexual partners.
Women with NCCR histories reported less confidence to refuse unwanted sexual advances and felt less in control of themselves as sexual beings.
Bonar et al. (2019) Identifying as a racial or sexual minority and using substances more frequently was associated with victimization among men.
Older age and racial minority status were associated with victimization among women.
Czechowski et al. (2019) Nearly half of the participants who reported NCCR also reported experiencing sexual abuse.
Decker et al. (2021) Lifetime stealthing was significantly more common among women with a history of transactional sex outside the relationship.
Latimer et al. (2018) Women who had been stealthed were more likely to be a current sex worker. MSM who had been stealthed were more likely to report anxiety or depression.
Levesque & Rousseau (2021) Women who had experienced NCCR in an uncommitted relationship without IPV reported feeling guilty about having sex with a partner they did not know well and worried about having put themselves at risk for getting pregnant.
Levesque et al. (2021) NCCR occurred more often in uncommitted relationships without violence.
Nikolajski et al. (2015) Some respondents noted unintended pregnancies as a result of NCCR.
Tarzia et al. (2020) Stories about stealthing were characterized by disrespect and selfishness.
Women reported feeling disrespected and exploited, violated, upset, fearful, angry.
Stealthing Perpetration
Davis (2019) Men who had stealthed were more likely to have had a lifetime STI diagnosis and to have had a partner with an unplanned pregnancy.
Open in a new tab

Note. NCCR = nonconsensual condom removal, MSM = men who have sex with men, STI = Sexually Transmitted Infection.

Table 4.

Perceptions of Stealthing

Study Authors (Year) Key Findings
Ahmad et al. (2020) 5.2% of participants initially knew the term stealthing, 8.5% associated the word with a negative connotation, and the remaining participants were unfamiliar with the term.
Participants felt that stealthing was a violation of their privacy, trust, sexual consent, and their ability to make a health decision, and should be considered an assault.
82% of men 85% of women agreed that stealthing equals sexual assault.
Alam & Alldred (2021) 2 of the 3 male participants described stealthing as a prevailing practice amongst men they knew and identified it as a factor in unprotected sex.
Only 1 of the 3 female participants discussed stealthing.
Czechowski et al. (2019) Nearly all participants expressed that NCCR is wrong, citing reasons that included the lack of consent, betrayal of trust/deception, and the possibility of unwanted outcomes, such as STIs and unplanned pregnancy.
Davis et al. (2014) Several participants described tactics in which men surreptitiously either remove or break the condom without their partner’s knowledge.
Participants described the use of these tactics as normative behavior for men their age.
Katz & McKinney (2016) White participants judged the Black vignette adolescent as more responsible for pregnancy after (uncontrollable) contraceptive sabotage as compared to the adolescent of unspecified race.
The Black adolescent was seen as most trustworthy after a contraceptive accident, whereas the adolescent of unspecified race was seen as similarly trustworthy across different contraceptive problems.
Latimer et al. (2018) Both female and male participants who had been stealthed were three times less likely to consider it to be sexual assault than participants who had not experienced it.
Levesque et al. (2021) Participants stated that their male partners were unaware (or heedless) of the seriousness of the situation and the negative impacts.
Nguyen et al. (2020) No significant differences in terms of rape determination across the four scenarios by female participants.
When the justification for stealthing was men’s natural right or natural instinct, but not pleasure, males rated the determination of rape to be significantly lower than the control condition.
Tarzia et al. (2020) Stealthing was primarily identified as a form of sexual violence, lacking specific reproductive intent.
Wakeman & Worthington (2021) Participants were significantly more likely to perceive police intervention as a necessary when the perpetrator was male, regardless of the function of the behavior (i.e., sexual gratification vs pregnancy).
Participants attributed higher scores for blame to victims of BCS when the behavior was perpetrated for sexual gratification rather than pregnancy.
Participants deemed police intervention as significantly more necessary when the function of BCS was pregnancy.
Open in a new tab

Note. NCCR = Nonconsensual condom removal, STI = Sexually transmitted infection, BCS = Birth control sabotage.

Table 5.

Critical Findings

• Although a relatively new field, NCCR studies utilized a variety of methods, recruitment locations, and populations.
• Rates of NCCR victimization were found to be higher among women as compared to men, while rates of NCCR perpetration were higher among men as compared to women.
• Consistent with other forms of sexual aggression, the majority of men who had engaged in NCCR reported having perpetrated such acts multiple times.
• Potential risk factors for NCCR victimization included: Identifying as a racial or sexual minority; a history of prior sexual victimization; having sex in uncommitted relationships and having more sexual partners; and more frequent substance use.
• Research examining risk factors of NCCR perpetration is limited.
• Potential consequences of NCCR victimization and perpetration included: higher rates of STIs and unplanned pregnancies; negative psychological consequences of NCCR victimization.
Open in a new tab
Table 6.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

• Recent legislative efforts to codify and prosecute NCCR as a form of sexual assault support the need for continued NCCR research.
• Future research would benefit from the use of large-scale prevalence studies as well as increased use of longitudinal and event-level methods.
• The field currently lacks a gold-standard measure of NCCR perpetration and victimization, which should be the focus of future research.
• Little is known about NCCR perpetrators indicating a key knowledge gap meriting future research attention.
• Targeted risk reduction programs might focus their efforts on racial or sexual minority populations and individuals with a history of prior sexual victimization.
• Alcohol and drug use-focused interventions and sexual risk reduction programs for individuals who have sex in uncommitted relationships or with more sexual partners may be of benefit in lowering NCCR risk.
• NCCR prevention and intervention efforts must be developed, tested, and implemented, focusing their attention not just on reducing NCCR risk for victims, but also reducing NCCR perpetration among aggressors.
Open in a new tab

Results

The 27 research articles which examined stealthing victimization and perpetration were published between 2010 and 2022 (see Table 1). Moreover, 22 of the 27 articles (81.5%) were published between 2017 and 2021. Most of the articles (n = 17, 63.0%) utilized quantitative research methods. The remaining articles used qualitative methods (n = 7, 25.9%) or both quantitative and qualitative methods (n = 3, 11.1%). Three of the quantitative articles described experimental data and one used a longitudinal (3-mo follow-up) design; all others described the results of cross-sectional surveys. Of the ten articles that utilized qualitative research methods, seven collected data via interviews and three collected data via focus groups. The majority of articles used exclusively female samples (n = 17, 63.0%), followed by mixed male/female samples (n = 6, 22.2%), and exclusively male samples (n = 4, 14.8%). Studies primarily focused on young adult samples. Six studies (22.2%) assessed NCCR with items from the Reproductive Coercion Scale (Miller et al., 2010) and four studies (14.8%) assessed NCCR with items from the Condom Use Resistance Tactics Scale (Davis et al., 2014). The remaining studies utilized author generated-items and questions.

Prevalence of NCCR Victimization and Perpetration

Of the 27 articles included in this review, 17 (63.0%) provided prevalence statistics on experiences of stealthing victimization as reported by women and men who have sex with men (MSM), and five (18.5%) provided prevalence statistics on stealthing perpetration reported by men (n = 4) and women (n = 1; see Table 2). Quantitative findings showed that rates of NCCR victimization ranged from 5.0% to 19% for men and from 7.9% to 43% for women, while intentional condom breakage or damage occurred at much lower rates. Rates of lifetime NCCR perpetration ranged from 5.1% to 9.8% among men, with one longitudinal study reporting that 2.7% of men engaged in NCCR over a 3-month period. One study (Davis, 2019) further delineated NCCR perpetration prevalence reporting that of those men who engaged in NCCR (9.8% of total sample), 37% had stealthed one time, 19.7% had stealthed twice, and 42.6% had stealthed three or more times, with an average of 3.6 times (SD = 3.9). In the one study examining a female sample (Davis et al., 2019), no women reported having perpetrated NCCR.

Correlates of NCCR Victimization and Perpetration

Correlates of NCCR victimization were reported in nine (33.3%) of the 27 articles and correlates of NCCR perpetration were reported in one article (3.7%; see Table 3). Findings showed that individuals who identified as racial or sexual minorities (Boadle et al., 2021; Bonar et al., 2019) or were in non-exclusive, non-committed relationships (Boadle et al., 2021; Levesque et al., 2021) or transactional relationships (Decker et al., 2021) were at higher risk for NCCR victimization. Moreover, psychological challenges such as decreased confidence (Boadle et al., 2021), guilt and worry (Levesque & Rousseau, 2021), and fear and depression (Latimer et al., 2018; Tarzia et al., 2020) - as well as sexual abuse (Czechowski et al., 2019), STIs, and unintended pregnancies (Czechowski et al., 2019; Nikolajski et al., 2015) - were noted correlates of NCCR victimization. Similarly, Davis et al. (2019) reported that men who had perpetrated NCCR were more likely to have had a lifetime STI diagnosis and to have had a partner with an unplanned pregnancy.

Perceptions of NCCR

Finally, six (22.2%) of the 27 articles focused on perceptions of NCCR, largely assessed by presenting participants with scenarios that depicted NCCR and then eliciting participants’ responses about the scenario (see Table 4). Some studies showed that only a minority of participants were familiar with the concept of NCCR (e.g., 5.2% of participants in Ahmad et al.’s [2020] study knew the term “stealthing”) whereas other studies reported that participants perceived the practice of NCCR as “prevailing” and “normative” among individuals of their age (see Alam & Alldred, 2021; Davis et al., 2014). Articles described participants’ overall judgments of NCCR as negative, citing reasons such as violations of privacy, trust, and sexual consent (Ahmad et al., 2020). Participants in several studies perceived NCCR as a form of sexual violence, assault, or rape (Ahmad et al., 2020; Alam & Alldred, 2021; Nguyen et al., 2020). Lastly, studies demonstrated that the amount of blame participants attributed to individuals who experienced NCCR depended on factors such as recipients’ race. For example, participants were more likely to judge hypothetical Black adolescents as responsible for unintended pregnancies resulting from NCCR than adolescents of unspecified race (Katz et al., 2017). Additionally, participants were more likely to judge NCCR perpetration as rape when the justification focused on pleasure as compared to men’s natural right/instinct (Nguyen et al., 2020). Finally, participants were more likely to blame victims when the justification for NCCR focused on sexual gratification rather than pregnancy (Wakeman & Worthington, 2021).

Discussion

As demonstrated in this review, the research regarding NCCR is quite nascent, with the vast majority of articles having been published since 2017. Despite the recency of the research in this area, studies took place in a variety of countries (e.g., the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, Ivory Coast, and Nigeria) with participants recruited from the general community, undergraduate and community colleges, sexual and reproductive health clinical settings, and social media. Despite the breadth of these studies, to date no large-scale projects have examined the prevalence of NCCR using nationally representative samples; as such, the prevalence rates noted in the reviewed articles should be interpreted in light of the recruitment methods and eligibility criteria of each study. That noted, some consistencies emerged across the studies, and these trends are commensurate with other findings regarding rates of sexual violence. For example, in line with other types of sexual victimization (Smith et al., 2017), women report higher NCCR victimization rates than do men, while men report higher NCCR perpetration rates than do women. Moreover, the majority of men who had engaged in NCCR reported having perpetrated such acts multiple times (Davis, 2019), which is consistent with other forms of sexual aggression (Foubert et al., 2020). Interestingly, NCCR was more frequently reported than other acts of condom non-use (e.g., intentional condom breakage) for both victimization and perpetration, suggesting that NCCR should serve as the primary target for prevention and intervention efforts.

Several correlates of NCCR were identified across the reviewed studies. Sociodemographic risk factors for NCCR victimization included identifying as a racial or sexual minority, signifying that awareness and risk reduction programs might focus their efforts in these populations. As with other studies regarding sexual victimization (e.g., Walsh et al., 2020), a history of prior sexual victimization was associated with a greater likelihood of NCCR, highlighting another population that could benefit from targeted prevention and intervention programming. Some sex-related NCCR risk factors, such having sex in uncommitted relationships and having more sexual partners, could potentially be addressed through sexual risk reduction programs. Similar to other forms of sexual victimization (e.g., Abbey et al., 2014), more frequent substance use emerged as a correlate of NCCR victimization in one study, indicating that alcohol and drug use-focused interventions may be of benefit in lowering NCCR risk. Importantly, as with all sexual victimization, the onus of responsibility lies with the perpetrator, and prevention efforts must focus their attention not just on reducing risk for victims, but also reducing perpetration behavior among aggressors. To date, very little research has examined risk factors specific to NCCR perpetration; however, research regarding coercive condom use resistance more generally indicates that hostile masculinity factors, impersonal sex factors, and alcohol use (Davis & Logan-Greene, 2012; Wegner et al., 2017) may be key contributors to this behavior and merit additional empirical attention regarding NCCR in particular.

Research on the consequences of NCCR showed that both victimization and perpetration were associated with higher rates of STIs and unplanned pregnancies. Due to the cross-sectional nature of these findings, it cannot be determined if these are global or event-level associations. Although it is possible that STI transmission or unplanned pregnancies occurred as a result of the specific reported NCCR events, it is also possible that these associations are due to other factors. Similarly, studies demonstrating potential negative psychological consequences of NCCR victimization, such as anxiety, depression, and negative sexual self-perceptions, were also cross-sectional. As such, longitudinal, event-level studies are needed to determine the nature of these quantitative associations. That noted, qualitative data support the supposition that NCCR results in psychological harm. Women who experienced NCCR reported not only concerns about STI transmission, but also a host of negative emotions, including anger and fear (Tarzia et al., 2020). Overall, qualitative victim reports make it clear that NCCR is viewed as a violation of one’s sexual autonomy given its deceptive, nonconsensual nature, and as such, the vast majority of respondents view NCCR as “wrong” and believe there should be legal or other consequences for this type of behavior (Czechowski et al., 2019). In one study (Ahmad et al., 2020), over 80% of male and female participants described NCCR as a form of sexual assault.

Despite the overall negative perceptions of NCCR, some studies suggest that it is perceived as a relatively common behavior. Although the extent to which social norms specifically play a role in NCCR is unclear, research has demonstrated that condom use resistance more generally is predicted by perceived social norms (Davis et al., 2016). Several sexual aggression prevention programs, such as The Men’s Program (Foubert et al., 2010), The Men’s Workshop (Gidycz et al., 2011), and RealConsent (Salazar et al., 2104), incorporate social norms components into their programming by challenging men’s overestimates of other men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. To date, however, these programs have not parsed the specific effects of social norms content on sexual violence outcomes. Future research should investigate the role of perceived social norms in NCCR perpetration and, if implicated, should explore social norms-focused intervention approaches for reducing such behavior (Orchowski et al., 2020).

As with other types of sexual violence, perceptions of NCCR may play a role in attributing responsibility and/or blame for the event and its outcomes. For example, one study demonstrated that, compared to adolescents of an unspecified race, Black adolescents were viewed by White participants as more responsible for a pregnancy after NCCR (Katz & McKinney, 2016) – a finding that parallels other research regarding the racialized nature of rape myths and victim blame (Lewis et al., 2019). Interestingly, another study found that male participants were less likely to consider NCCR “rape” if the perpetrator justified his actions due to it being “his natural instinct [or right]” (Nguyen et al., 2020; p. 794). This finding is analogous to the rape myth that sexual aggression by men is an innate part of sexual relationships (Gerger et al., 2007) and suggests that dispelling rape myths may be a fruitful avenue for reducing perceptions of victim blame and increasing perceptions of perpetrator responsibility.

Limitations of the Review and Extant NCCR Research

We limited our review to peer-reviewed empirical articles archived in particular academic databases and written in English. As such, relevant research studies not catalogued in these specific databases or written in a language other than English are not represented in this review. Moreover, given our focus on peer-reviewed empirical evidence, we have not included potentially pertinent information from gray literature or other sources (i.e., dissertations, government reports), which bars our ability to synthesize that information in this review.

The current field of NCCR research also has several limitations that suggest areas for future investigation. One concern regarding the existing studies is the lack of generalizability across samples. Participants were primarily recruited from Western countries, with the bulk of those recruited being adolescents or young adults. Many – although not all - of the studies were comprised primarily of White participants. Future research could increase the geographic, age, and racial/ethnic diversity of included participants. Moreover, as this literature evolves, greater use of intersectional approaches (Crenshaw, 1990) that simultaneously consider multiple social positions and constructs (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability, socioeconomic status, and the like) would provide a significant advance to the consideration of diversity in this field. Finally, the bulk of the studies focused on NCCR victimization, resulting in samples primarily consisting of women who have sex with men (and to a much lesser extent, men who have sex with men). Although understanding NCCR victimization prevalence and correlates is imperative, there is also a critical need for more research focusing on NCCR perpetration across genders, sexual orientations, and other relevant identities.

Notably, measurement of NCCR varies across existing studies, making it difficult to make comparisons regarding NCCR prevalence and correlates. Critical measure differences include: 1) specification of an age after which the NCCR took place (e.g., age 14, age 16, or age not specified); 2) specification of partner sex (or not); 3) variations in wording pertaining to the victim’s perspective (e.g., without knowledge, without consent, without awareness, without agreement, without permission, etc.); and 4) stipulation of perpetrator motive (e.g., in order to get the victim pregnant, no motive stipulated). Such variation in measurement is common in the field of sexual violence, likely resulting in imprecise estimates of prevalence, incidence, and prevention efficacy (Anderson & Delahanty, 2020), which may be particularly relevant in understudied populations such as sexual and gender minorities (Anderson et al., 2021). In addition, 50% of the studies that received full-text review were excluded because they did not separate NCCR from other forms of reproductive coercion. Future research in this area should establish consistent, empirically-based, psychometrically sound measures of NCCR as well as analyze and report findings for NCCR prevalence and correlates separately from other forms of reproductive coercion or condom use resistance.

Finally, the bulk of the studies used cross-sectional survey approaches. Although cross-sectional research is appropriate given the nascency of this research field, such methods do not allow investigators to establish causal relationships regarding the predictors and outcomes of NCCR. Future research utilizing experimental methods could help researchers identify potential mechanisms underlying NCCR, while longitudinal approaches could provide information regarding the temporal ordering of NCCR variable associations.

Conclusions

Despite the nascency of NCCR research, a variety of methods, recruitment locations, and populations were represented in the extant literature. Future research would benefit from increased use of longitudinal and event-level methods and a greater focus on perpetrators. Moreover, this field currently lacks a gold-standard measure of NCCR perpetration and victimization; such assessment tools should be developed before the conduct of large-scale prevalence studies. Recent legislative efforts to codify and prosecute NCCR as a form of sexual assault underscore the gravity of NCCR and undergird the need for continued research that identifies NCCR risk factors, delineates NCCR outcomes, and develops, tests, and implements NCCR-focused prevention and interventions programs.

References

  1. Abbey A, Wegner R, Woerner J, Pegram SE, & Pierce J (2014). Review of survey and experimental research that examines the relationship between alcohol consumption and men’s sexual aggression perpetration. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(4), 265–282. 10.1177/1524838014521031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. *Ahmad M, Becerra B, Hernandez D, Okpala P, Olney A, & Becerra M (2020). “You do it without their knowledge.” Assessing knowledge and perception of stealthing among college students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), E3527. 10.3390/ijerph17103527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. *Alam N, & Alldred P (2021). Condoms, trust and stealthing: The meanings attributed to unprotected hetero-sex. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4257. 10.3390/ijerph18084257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson RAE, Carstens Namie EM & Goodman EL (2021). Valid for who? A preliminary investigation of the validity of two sexual victimization questionnaires in men and sexual minorities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 168–185. 10.1007/s12103-020-09589-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson RE, & Delahanty DL (2020). Discrepant responding across measures of college students’ sexual victimization experiences: Conceptual replication and extension. The Journal of Sex Research, 57, 585–596. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1669135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. *Boadle A, Gierer C, & Buzwell S (2020). Young women subjected to nonconsensual condom removal: Prevalence, risk factors, and sexual self-perceptions. Violence Against Women, 27, 1969–1715. 10.1177/1077801220947165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. *Bonar EE, Ngo QM, Philyaw-Kotov ML, Walton MA, & Kusunoki Y (2019). Stealthing perpetration and victimization: Prevalence and correlates among emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP11577–NP11592. 10.1177/0886260519888519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brodsky A (2017). Rape-adjacent: Imagining legal responses to nonconsensual condom removal. Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, 32, 183–210. [Google Scholar]
  9. Centers for Disease Control. (2022a). Condom Fact Sheet in Brief. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/docs/condomfactsheetinbrief.pdf
  10. Centers for Disease Control. (2022b). Contraception. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/
  11. Centers for Disease Control. (2021). Sexually Transmitted Infections Prevalence, Incidence, and Cost Estimates in the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/std/statistics/prevalence-incidence-cost-2020.htm
  12. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, ... & Moher D (2014). Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1291–1294. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crenshaw K (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. 10.4324/9780203060902-12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. *Czechowski K, Courtice EL, Samosh J, Davies J, & Shaughnessy K (2019). “That’s not what was originally agreed to”: Perceptions, outcomes, and legal contextualization of non-consensual condom removal in a Canadian sample. PLoS One, 14(7), e0219297. 10.1371/journal.pone.0219297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. *Davis KC (2019). “Stealthing”: Factors associated with young men’s nonconsensual condom removal. Health Psychology, 38(11), 997–1000. 10.1037/hea0000779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis KC, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Stappenbeck CA, Danube CL, Morrison DM, Norris J, & George WH (2016). Men’s condom use resistance: Alcohol effects on theory of planned behavior constructs. Health Psychology, 35, 178–186. doi: 10.1037/hea0000269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Davis KC & Logan-Greene PB (2012). Young men’s aggressive tactics to avoid condom use: A test of a theoretical model. Social Work Research, 36, 223–231. 10.1093/swr/svs027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis KC, Schraufnagel TJ, Kajumulo KF, Gilmore AK, Norris J, & George WH (2014). A qualitative examination of men’s condom use attitudes and resistance: “It’s just part of the game.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 631–643. 10.1007/s10508-013-0150-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Masters NT, & George WH (2019). Young women’s experiences with coercive and noncoercive condom use resistance: Examination of an understudied sexual risk behavior. Women’s Health Issues, 29(3), 231–237. 10.1016/j.whi.2019.01.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. *Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Norris J, George WH, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Schraufnagel TJ, & Kajumulo KF (2014). Young men’s condom use resistance tactics: A latent profile analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 51, 454–465. 10.1080/00224499.2013.776660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. *Decker MR, Wood SN, Byrne ME, Yao-N’dry N, Thiongo M, Gichangi P, M. OlaOlorun F, Koffi AK, Radloff S, Ahmed S, & O. Tsui A (2021). Gendered power dynamics and threats to sexual and reproductive autonomy among adolescent girls and young adult women: A cross-sectional survey in three urban settings. PLoS One, 16(11), e0257009. 10.1371/journal.pone.0257009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. *Dimenstein NB, Lindberg LD, Arrington-Sanders R, Jennings JM, Frohwirth LF, Dittus PJ, & Marcell AV (2021). Exploring experience of and engagement in coercive pregnancy behaviors among sexually active young men from five clinics in Baltimore, MD. Contraception, 104(4), 367–371. 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.05.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ebrahim S (2019). I’m not sure this is rape, but: An exposition of the stealthing trend. SAGE Open, 9 (2), 1–11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/215824401984220134290901 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fell A (2021, December 8). “Stealthing” bills across the nation prove legislation leads to education. The Scope. https://thescopeboston.org/7389/news/stealthing-bills-across-the-nation-prove-legislation-leads-to-education/ [Google Scholar]
  25. Foubert JD, Clark-Taylor A, & Wall AF (2020). Is campus rape primarily a serial or one-time problem? Evidence from a multicampus study. Violence against Women, 26(3–4), 296–311. 10.1177/1077801219833820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Foubert JD, Godin E, & Tatum J (2010). In their own words: Sophomore college men describe attitude and behavior change resulting from a rape prevention program 2 years after their participation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2237–2257. doi: 10.1177/0886260509354881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerger H, Kley H, Bohner G, & Siebler F (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 33(5), 422–440. 10.1002/ab.20195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, & Berkowitz AD (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720–742. 10.1177/1077801211409727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. *Grace KT, Decker MR, Alexander KA, Campbell J, Miller E, Perrin N, & Glass N (2020). Reproductive coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy among Latina women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1604–1636. 10.1177/0886260520922363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Guttmacher Institute. (2022). Unintended Pregnancy. Retrieved from: https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/pregnancy/unintended-pregnancy
  31. *Katz J, & LaRose J (2018). Male partner contraceptive interference: Associations with destructive conflict and women’s relational power. Violence Against Women, 25(10), 1262–1278. 10.1177/1077801218818372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. *Katz J, & McKinney M (2018). White female undergraduates’ perceptions of Black pregnant adolescents: Does control over pregnancy matter? Stigma and Health, 3(1), 69–76. 10.1037/sah0000074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. *Katz J, Poleshuck EL, Beach B, & Olin R (2017). Reproductive coercion by male sexual partners: Associations with partner violence and college women’s sexual health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3301–3320. 10.1177/0886260515597441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. *Katz J, & Sutherland MA (2020). College women’s experiences of male partner contraceptive interference: Associations with intimate partner violence and contraceptive outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21–22), 4350–4374. 10.1177/0886260517715600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. *Latimer RL, Vodstrcil LA, Fairley CK, Cornelisse VJ, Chow E, Read T, & Bradshaw CS (2018). Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia. PLoS One, 13(12), e0209779. 10.1371/journal.pone.0209779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. *Lévesque S, & Rousseau C (2021). Young women’s acknowledgment of reproductive coercion: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), NP8200–NP8223. 10.1177/0886260519842169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. *Lévesque S, Rousseau C, & Dumerchat M (2021). Influence of the relational context on reproductive coercion and the associated consequences. Violence Against Women, 27(6–7), 828–850. 10.1177/1077801220917454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lewis KR, Robillard A, Billings D, & White K (2019). Differential perceptions of a hypothetical sexual assault survivor based on race and ethnicity: Exploring victim responsibility, trauma, and need for social support. Journal of American College Health, 67(4), 308–317. 10.1080/07448481.2018.1472096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Levenson RR, Waldman J, Schoenwald P, & Silverman JG (2010). Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 81(4), 316–322. 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. *Moore AM, Frohwirth L, & Miller E (2010). Male reproductive control of women who have experienced intimate partner violence in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 70(11), 1737–1744. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, & Aromataris E (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 143. 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. *Nguyen KK, Weeks C, & Stenstrom D (2021). Investigating the effects of stealthing justifications on rape perceptions. Violence Against Women, 27(6–7), 790–805. 10.1177/1077801220930823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. *Nikolajski C, Miller E, McCauley HL, Akers A, Schwarz EB, Freedman L, Steinberg J, Ibrahim S, & Borrero S (2015). Race and reproductive coercion: a qualitative assessment. Women’s Health Issues, 25(3), 216–223. 10.1016/j.whi.2014.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. *Northridge JL, Silver EJ, Talib HJ, & Coupey SM (2017). Reproductive coercion in high school-aged girls: Associations with reproductive health risk and intimate partner violence. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 30(6), 603–608. 10.1016/j.jpag.2017.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Orchowski LM, Edwards KM, Hollander JA, Banyard VL, Senn CY, & Gidycz CA (2020). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 811–827. 10.1177/1524838018789153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. *Orchowski LM, Yusufov M, Oesterle D, Bogen KW, & Zlotnick C (2020). Intimate partner violence and coerced unprotected sex among young women attending community college. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 871–882. 10.1007/s10508-019-01537-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Salazar LF, Vivolo-Kantor A, Hardin J, & Berkowitz A (2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e203. 10.2196/jmir.3426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith SG, Chen J, Basile KC, Gilbert LK, Merrick MT, Patel N, Walling M, & Jain A (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Stealthing Act of 2022, H.R. 7920, 117th Cong. (2022). https://maloney.house.gov/sites/maloney.house.gov/files/Final%20Stealthing%20Bill.pdf [Google Scholar]
  50. *Stappenbeck CA, Gulati NK, & Davis KC (2019). A prospective examination of men’s condom use resistance: Event-level associations with sexual aggression, alcohol consumption, and trait anger. Journal of Sex Research, 56(8), 947–956. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1620162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. *Tarzia L, Srinivasan S, Marino J, & Hegarty K (2020). Exploring the gray areas between “stealthing” and reproductive coercion and abuse. Women & Health, 60(10), 1174–1184. 10.1080/03630242.2020.1804517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. *Teitelman AM, Tennille J, Bohinski JM, Jemmott LS, & Jemmott JB (2011). Unwanted unprotected sex: Condom coercion by male partners and self-silencing of condom negotiation among adolescent girls. Advances in Nursing Science, 34, 243–259. 10.1097/ans.0b013e31822723a3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. *Wakeman B, & Worthington R (2021). Evaluating perceptions of sexual coercion: The role of personality, gender, and motive in birth control sabotage. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 1–20. 10.1080/13552600.2021.1991499 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Walsh K, Choo TH, Wall M, Hirsch JS, Ford J, Santelli JS, ... & Mellins CA (2020). Repeat sexual victimization during college: Prevalence and psychosocial correlates. Psychology of Violence, 10(6), 676–686. 10.1037/vio0000339 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wegner R, Davis KC, Stappenbeck CA, Kajumulo KF, Norris J, & George WH (2017). The effects of men’s hostility toward women, acute alcohol intoxication, and women’s condom request style on men’s condom use resistance tactics. Psychology of Violence, 7, 593–601. doi: 10.1037/vio0000069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. White L (2021, December 28). Renewed proposal from democrats would penalize “stealthing” in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Radio. https://www.wpr.org/renewed-proposal-democrats-would-penalize-stealthing-wisconsin [Google Scholar]
  57. Wolters C (2021, October 26). Why we need to talk about “stealthing” now. Verywell Health. https://www.verywellhealth.com/stealthing-non-consensual-condom-removal-5207150 [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES