The Agreement Was Only for Sex with a Condom: Insights from Stealthing Research

The act of removing a condom during intercourse without the partner's consent has been referred to as "stealthing" in English-speaking regions. However, many find this term unsettlingly light, as it is neither a mere breach of etiquette, a contraceptive failure, nor a sexual maneuver. It is an act that transforms a consensual sexual encounter, agreed upon under the condition of condom use, into something else entirely.

A research team from Australia's Sunshine Coast University has addressed this act as "Non-Consensual Condom Removal," examining the psychological traits associated with the risk of perpetration. The study involved over 100 men and, while exploratory, provides crucial insights into why some individuals might choose to violate consent.

The most striking finding is the link to cognitive patterns known as "entitlement" or "grandiosity." According to the research, men with a strong sense that rules do not apply to them and that their desires take precedence over others' boundaries were more than three times as likely to express excitement about or intent to engage in stealthing.

Importantly, the issue extends beyond those who are indifferent to contraception or make impulsive decisions. The research highlights a deeper cognitive problem: viewing a partner's consent not as an equal expression of will but as an obstacle to personal gratification. Such self-centered perspectives may be linked to the risk of sexual violence.

The research team also focused on another trait: "punitive tendencies." This refers to a tendency to want to punish or teach a lesson to a partner who does not comply with one's wishes. The researchers suggest that for some perpetrators, stealthing may serve as a means of retaliation or control, rather than mere pleasure-seeking.

This observation is significant. Viewing stealthing as merely "removing a contraceptive" misses the core issue. In reality, it involves ignoring the conditions set by a partner and imposing physical risks and psychological harm unilaterally. The consequences include sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, anxiety, fear, and feelings of betrayal, affecting not just the body but also trust and the sense of autonomy.

This point has resonated on social media as well. On Reddit's psychology community, following the sharing of the article, several comments emphasized that this should be discussed as sexual violence rather than using the euphemism "stealthing." One commenter argued that if a partner consented under the condition of condom use, removing it voids the consent. Another user responded that it should be treated not just as "rude" or "dishonest," but as sexual violence or assault.

Meanwhile, the discussion also turned to the wide range of victimization rates. The research introduction noted that past evidence suggests 8-32% of women and 5-19% of men may have experienced it. On social media, questions arose about why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers. Factors like survey methods, differences in question wording, awareness of victimization, and reporting difficulties might influence this. Particularly with stealthing, victims may not realize it at the time, making it challenging to grasp the full scope.

Discussions also arose about how to address male victimization. While the numbers indicate that men also experience a certain level of victimization, there were voices on social media pointing out that male sexual victimization tends to be overlooked. Others noted that cases involving men might include those within male-to-male sexual encounters. In any case, non-consensual condom removal is a serious violation regardless of the victim's gender.

However, this research does not claim that "all men are dangerous." Instead, it aims to clarify which cognitive and attitudinal factors increase risk, to inform prevention and education efforts. The study also found that men with high confidence in condom use were less likely to engage in non-consensual condom removal, suggesting that practical sex education and communication training could reduce risks beyond mere knowledge provision.

Consent education often explains that "if someone says no, stop." However, the issue of stealthing teaches us that this is not enough. Consent is not a blanket approval valid until the end. If conditions change, they must be re-confirmed. Consent given under the premise of condom use does not equate to consent for sex without a condom.

In recent years, Australia has been moving to explicitly criminalize stealthing. In Queensland, a law amendment treating non-consensual condom removal or alteration as non-consensual sex came into effect in September 2024. In the UK and Wales, support groups describe stealthing as rape, addressing it as an issue of conditional consent. In the United States, California introduced a system in 2021 allowing civil liability for removing a condom without consent.

Such legal measures serve not only to protect victims but also to send a message to society that "changing the terms of consent unilaterally is unacceptable." Consent in sexual activities is not merely a binary choice of "yes/no." It is a cumulative agreement on when, with whom, and under what conditions. Unilaterally breaking one of those conditions equates to stripping the other person of their bodily autonomy.

The strong reaction on social media likely stems from an intuitive understanding of this point. The term "stealthing" might seem like a neutral expression for covert actions, but in reality, it involves deliberately crossing boundaries set by the other person. As one user pointed out, when the term is light, there is a danger that the harm is also perceived lightly.

Of course, the research has its limitations. This exploratory study involved over 100 men and cannot be generalized to all regions and cultures. Additionally, acts like stealthing are difficult to measure accurately through self-reporting. Some may not answer honestly about their intentions, while others may not recognize their actions as harmful. This is why further research is necessary.

Nevertheless, this study points to important directions for considering the prevention of sexual violence. It suggests viewing perpetration risk not merely as "impulses" or "sexual desire," but as cognitive patterns like entitlement, punitiveness, lack of empathy, and disregard for the autonomy of others. This highlights specific challenges that should be addressed in treatment programs and educational settings.

Sex education needs to encompass more than just how to use contraceptives. It should cover how to confirm a partner's consent, how to behave when personal desires clash with a partner's boundaries, and how to recognize and stop the urge to punish when rejected. The potential protective effect of "confidence in condom use" highlighted by this study underscores the importance of practical education.

Stealthing is hard to detect because it occurs behind closed doors. Victims may realize it only later, and proving it can be difficult. Therefore, it is crucial for society to clearly articulate that "this exceeds the bounds of consent." While reactions on social media can be harsh and emotional, they share a common concern: this issue should not be taken lightly.

The questions raised by this study extend beyond the characteristics of perpetrators. They challenge us to reconsider how concretely we understand consent and how much we respect the bodies and choices of others. Those who agree to sex under the condition of condom use have not consented to sex without a condom. Establishing this basic demarcation as a societal norm is the first step in reducing victimization.

Source URL

Refer to Phys.org for the research overview, key findings, and researcher comments.
https://phys.org/news/2026-05-key-traits-condom-stealthers.html

Refer to the official news release from the University of the Sunshine Coast for researcher comments, study overview, and details on the criminalization in Queensland.
https://www.unisc.edu.au/about/unisc-news/news-archive/2026/may/study-finds-key-traits-of-condom-stealthers

Refer to the university announcement on EurekAlert! for research methods, DOI, paper title, and publication date.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1128912

Refer to the paper published by Taylor & Francis for the DOI and bibliographic information of the research paper "The relationship between early maladaptive schemas and non-consensual condom removal in an Australian sample."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2026.2640594

Refer to the Reddit r/psychology post for social media reactions, including calls to treat it as sexual violence, questions about victimization rates, and discussions on male victimization.
https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/1tikndf/men_with_a_strong_sense_of_entitlement_are_3/

Refer to the Reddit r/science post for the sharing status of the research on social media and reactions including doubts about research methods.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1tikn30/men_with_a_strong_sense_of_entitlement_are_3/

Refer to the Queensland Government's consent law explanation page for the consent law amendment effective September 23, 2024, the explicit criminalization of stealthing, and the handling of conditional consent.
https://www.qld.gov.au/community/getting-support-health-social-issue/support-victims-abuse/sexual-abuse-assault/understanding-sexual-consent/consent-laws-in-queensland

Refer to the Rape Crisis England & Wales explanation page for the treatment of stealthing as rape in the UK and Wales and the explanation of conditional consent.
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-stealthing/

Refer to reports on stealthing regulations in California for the context of legalization in the United States.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-makes-it-illegal-to-stealth-or-remove-condom-without-consent