Your search

Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of violence perpetuated against women. It occurs when male partners adopt behaviors meant to control a woman’s birth control or pregnancy despite her wishes. This amounts to interference with a woman’s autonomy in reproductive decisions. The three main forms of RC are birth control sabotage (including nonconsensual condom removal), pregnancy coercion, and controlling the outcome of a pregnancy. This qualitative exploratory study examines issues in the acknowledgment of RC. Participants were 21 young women in Québec (Canada), who had experienced this form of violence. Results of individual semi-directed interviews reveal that RC can be difficult to acknowledge. A thematic analysis demonstrates that awareness is modulated by the manifestations of RC and by the emotional bond with the perpetrator. Acknowledgment of RC behavior varies according to the form that is experienced: Nonconsensual condom removal is the most readily identified, whereas acknowledgment of pregnancy pressure and pregnancy coercion takes longer, requiring repeated incidents before it is identified as a form of violence. In addition, acknowledgment is facilitated when relationships are casual and uncommitted compared with romantic and committed. Moreover, reading about the issue, confiding in a friend or acquaintance, and finding a new partner who respects one’s reproductive rights facilitate RC acknowledgment. In contrast, not self-identifying as a victim, assuming responsibility for the incident, having a limited understanding of sexual violence, and experiencing other forms of violence with an intimate partner contribute to impede RC acknowledgment. Results are discussed in terms of practical implications for young adults and health care professionals.

Background Non-consensual removal of condoms, colloquially referred to as ‘stealthing’, is the removal of a condom during sex by a sexual partner when consent has been given for sex with a condom only. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey to determine how commonly women and men who have sex with men (MSM) attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre had experienced stealthing, and analysed situational factors associated with the event. Responses were linked to demographic information extracted from patient files. Results 1189 of 2883 women (41.2%), and 1063 of 3439 MSM (30.9%) attending the clinic during the study period completed the survey. Thirty-two percent of women (95% CI: 29%,35%) and 19% of MSM (95% CI: 17%,22%) reported having ever experienced stealthing. Women who had been stealthed were more likely to be a current sex worker (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 2.87, 95% CI: 2.01,4.11, p <0.001). MSM who had experienced stealthing were more likely to report anxiety or depression (AOR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.25,3.60, p = 0.005). Both female and male participants who had experienced stealthing were three times less likely to consider it to be sexual assault than participants who had not experienced it (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.22,0.4 and OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21,0.45 respectively). Conclusions A high proportion of women and MSM attending a sexual health service reported having experienced stealthing. While further investigation is needed into the prevalence of stealthing in the general community, clinicians should be aware of this practice and consider integrating this question into their sexual health consultation. Understanding situational factors would assist in the development of preventive strategies, particularly female sex workers and MSM.

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.

Abstract Over the past decade, abolitionist feminist and evangelical Christian activists have directed increasing attention toward the “traffic in women” as a dangerous manifestation of global gender inequalities. Despite renowned disagreements around the politics of sex and gender, these groups have come together to advocate for harsher penalties against traffickers, prostitutes’ customers, and nations deemed to be taking insufficient steps to stem the flow of trafficked women. In this essay, I argue that what has served to unite this coalition of “strange bedfellows” is not simply an underlying commitment to conservative ideals of sexuality, as previous commentators have offered, but an equally significant commitment to carceral paradigms of justice and to militarized humanitarianism as the preeminent mode of engagement by the state. I draw upon my ongoing ethnographic research with feminist and evangelical antitrafficking movement leaders to argue that the alliance that has been so efficacious in framing contemporary antitrafficking politics is the product of two historically unique and intersecting trends: a rightward shift on the part of many mainstream feminists and other secular liberals away from a redistributive model of justice and toward a politics of incarceration, coincident with a leftward sweep on the part of many younger evangelicals toward a globally oriented social justice theology. In the final section of this essay, I consider the resilience of these trends given a newly installed and more progressive Obama administration, positing that they are likely to continue even as the terrain of militarized humanitarian action shifts in accordance with new sets of geopolitical interests.

In recent years, the act of nonconsensual condom removal, termed stealthing, has become commonly discussed on social and print media; yet, little to n...

Lee Stuesser, 2002 29-2 Manitoba Law Journal 149, 2002 CanLIIDocs 65

The confessions rule—the requirement that the Crown prove the voluntariness of the accused’s statements to persons in authority—is a well-established rule of criminal evidence and is closely connected with the constitutional principle against self-incrimination that it structures. The confessions rule is thus a natural candidate for recognition as a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, there are two distinct routes by which the confessions rule might be constitutionalized. Under the “rule of evidence” approach, the confessions rule would be recognized as an aspect of the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Under the “rights violation” approach, the conduct of the state in obtaining an involuntary statement would be treated as a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.