IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“That’s not what was originally agreed to”: Perceptions, outcomes, and legal contextualization of non-consensual condom removal in a Canadian sample

Author

Listed:
  • Konrad Czechowski
  • Erin Leigh Courtice
  • Jonathan Samosh
  • Jared Davies
  • Krystelle Shaughnessy

Abstract

Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) is the removal of a condom before or during sexual intercourse without one’s partner's consent. Despite considerable news and media attention devoted to the trend (as stealthing), little empirical research to date has examined people’s views of the practice. The present study aimed to contribute toward generating empirical evidence to guide the discussion surrounding NCCR. We asked participants about whether or not they felt NCCR is wrong, whether there should be consequences for its perpetration, and contextualized responses within legal context. A total of 592 undergraduate students took part in an online survey inquiring about their experiences with and views of NCCR. We used descriptive statistics to determine sample prevalence and outcomes of NCCR and qualitatively analyzed responses to open-ended questions asking about perceptions of NCCR. Of participants who had engaged in penetrative sexual intercourse with a male partner using an external condom, 18.7%, 95% CI [14.4, 22.7] reported that they had NCCR perpetrated against them. The majority of these participants reported that they experienced NCCR negatively and encountered related consequences; several reported contracting an STI, experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, or both. Nearly all participants expressed that NCCR is wrong, citing reasons that included the lack of consent, possibility of unplanned or unwanted outcomes, and a betrayal of trust. In this study, we found that there was agreement that NCCR is wrong, but variability in responses regarding the circumstances under which there should be consequences for the action. These perceptions reflect the current uncertainty in law. We recommend researchers refer to the phenomenon as NCCR (rather than stealthing) and discuss related issues to encourage future research to adopt consistent and accurate labels and definitions for NCCR. We hope that our findings will guide future research and spur public and legal discussion on NCCR.

Suggested Citation

  • Konrad Czechowski & Erin Leigh Courtice & Jonathan Samosh & Jared Davies & Krystelle Shaughnessy, 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, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219297
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219297
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219297&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219297?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sumayya Ebrahim, 2019. "I’m Not Sure This Is Rape, But: An Exposition of the Stealthing Trend," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marwa Ahmad & Benjamin Becerra & Dyanna Hernandez & Paulchris Okpala & Amber Olney & Monideepa Becerra, 2020. "“You Do It without Their Knowledge.” Assessing Knowledge and Perception of Stealthing among College Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-11, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.