Abstract
The boundaries of sexual offences and the many facets of consent have provided somewhat of a legal conundrum, especially in the 21st century. Correctly identifying and labelling the various offences, alongside discussions around consent and deception, has had particular significance. The focal research question this article will consider is the concept of stealthing – a term used to describe non-consensual condom removal during sexual intercourse, how the criminal law should deal with such behaviour and the legal ramifications of this. We examine the utility of the current statutory frameworks and suggest avenues that extend beyond the criminalisation of this behaviour, focussing on both the UK and Australian territories in comparative analysis. An ideal and novel legal approach to addressing this non-consensual form of sexual behaviour is suggested.
Introduction
What constitutes harmful sexual activity depends greatly on the norms shaped by cultural and historical context. As perceptions regarding sexual conduct have evolved, society has responded by ensuring the law codifies and reflects these changing standards. 1 A focus on bodily autonomy and deception rather than force and violence has been a welcomed change in many jurisdictions. Conversations around the parameters and limits of consent have been of particular interest, as academics rarely agree on the issue. 2 The distinction between material deceptions which are deemed to negate true consent and those which do not vitiate consent has been widely debated.
Notable features which have historically delineated sexual harm from acceptable sexual acts include personal vice, coercion and bodily harm, consent, and equality between genders, gender identities and sexualities. Where categories of sexual violence are not recognised by our legal system, and where a victim's account deviates from the stereotypical incidence of sexual assault, victims often blame themselves for the assault. 3 Accordingly, it is imperative that laws are inclusive and clear on modern sex crimes, such as stealthing, to provide legal clarity, to aid victims in their recovery, to apply fair labelling and to ensure perpetrators are held to account. 4
The quest to achieve a clear and transparent legal path in this area is by no means straightforward. Firstly, it must be questioned if the act of stealthing falls within the ambit of current legislation and definitions of consent. If it does not, or there is room for ambiguity, we must ask if it should. Lastly, consideration of the benefits of making this a standalone sexual offence must be made. This article provides analysis of jurisdictions within Australia and the UK, including current approaches to stealthing, highlighting the problematic concept of conditional consent, and considers avenues for reform.
Consent and Harm
It was not until the mid-19th century that the notion of ‘consent’ developed as the distinguishing factor between lawful and unlawful sexual activity. 5 In most jurisdictions, the law now recognises that rape and other sexual offences are grounded on a lack of consent, with points of divergence still existing surrounding the specifications of the definition of consent, for example, the need for positive resistance or the level of the perpetrator's knowledge of the victim's lack of consent. 6 Reasonable belief in consent has also been a dominant feature in some legislative changes to update the law, an approach that is preferrable to an legislation that mandated that only ‘honestly held belief’ of consent is necessary. 7 In England and Wales, an addendum to the definition of rape was included in section 1(2), instructing ‘Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents’. 8
Historically, the crime of rape was regarded not as a crime against a person but as a crime against property. In medieval times, ‘rape’ was regarded as ‘ravishment or abduction of unmarried women without paternal consent’. 9 In this context, a woman's reproductive capacity was regarded as property and was fundamental to establishing ‘patriarchal inheritance rights’. 10 Generally, property ownership of a woman's sexuality belonged to her father, which then transferred to her husband, usually pursuant to an arranged marriage. 11 The woman's untouched sexuality was the key asset in this transaction, and rape of an unmarried virgin was considered theft of this chattel. Accordingly, the offence was purely designed to protect the economic interest of the men facilitating these transactions. 12
This understanding of rape was reinforced by the development of the marital rape immunity and the common law characterisation of rape as ‘carnal knowledge’ which persisted well into the 20th century.
13
In the UK, the recognition of marital rape and the dissolution of such immunity only appeared in 1991, when the House of Lords overturned the matrimonial exception
14
, the following is statement by Lord Keith on the abolishment of the marital immunity: It may be taken that the proposition was generally regarded as an accurate statement of the common law of England. The common law is, however, capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments.
15
Common law reflections and precedent, as utilised in the above case, are unlikely to be the best way to proceed. In particular, a statutory definition of what constitutes legally valid consent has been a much-needed clarification. Though any inclusion at all of consent may appear progressive against jurisdictions that have traditionally not included consent within sexual offence law, such as Japan's requirement of intimidation or violence making a victim incapable of resisting (though this is currently subject to Penal Code Reform), 17 legislative clarity is to be preferred over common law obiter and ratio.
The Behaviour of Stealthing
Stealthing occurs when an individual removes a condom during sexual intercourse without the other person's knowledge or consent. 18 The non-consensual removal of a condom during sex, often falls outside a stereotypical understanding of sexual assault. In a stealthing scenario, an individual has consented to ‘protected’ sex and typically only becomes aware of the condom's removal after intercourse has ended. 19 By changing the conditions of sexual intercourse without a partner's knowledge, stealthing negates any previously given consent and we understand that any sexual contact without consent is tantamount to sexual assault.
The concept of stealthing received media attention in 2017 after a Yale Journal article by Brodsky began trending on social media, which addressed the then little known and ‘obscure’ form of sexual violation. 20 News outlets began publishing articles on the topic, defining this type of sexual encounter as a form of sexual assault. 21 It is now a widely accepted term, with a Wikipedia page and a dedicated section on the rape crisis website in the UK. 22 In 2018, the academic literature on stealthing was advanced when an article was published on stealthing in the UK, 23 acknowledging the verdict in the widely publicised case of Julian Assange. In recent years this was expanded when Australian scholars entered the discussion. 24
Whilst not a novel concept, media coverage has revealed the widespread occurrence of stealthing internationally. 25 A 2022 poll conducted by the Australia Institute and RMIT University, found that two in three Australians are unfamiliar with the term stealthing 26 although 81% agree that it should be criminalised.
A recent study has shown that habitual condom-removers are often men with a history or sexual aggression and hostility towards women. 27 However, it is important to note that not all offenders are men and not all survivors are women, nor is the occurrence of stealthing exclusive to heterosexual intercourse. Whilst the majority of survivor accounts indicate that this crime is perpetrated by men, it is also possible for a female to ‘stealth’ her partner and remove the condom without her partner's consent, although such a scenario is reportedly less common. 28 A Monash University study found that most women had been stealthed met the perpetrators through friends (29%) or sex work (23%). 29 In contrast, male survivors of stealthing usually met their partners (also mostly male) through dating apps or online. 30
Perpetrators of stealthing are said to view their victims as possessions, rather than individuals with the capacity to make their own consensual decisions about how they choose to have sex. Online communities exist which are dedicated to teaching men how to secretly remove a condom during sex and praising those who do so successfully without being ‘caught’. 31 Reasons cited by perpetrators on these online forums include that it ‘feels better without a condom’, for the ‘thrill of degradation’ and the exercise of a man's right to ‘spread his seed’. 32 Here it seems that part of the thrill is the deception of the other person.
Academics have likened deception to gain agreement to acts of sex, to the use of violence, in that it ‘manipulates the victim into acting against their will be restricting the viable options available’. 33 Though small lies, exaggerations and deceptions are part of the art of seduction and persuasion in the 21st century, 34 when a lie changes the level of intimacy involved it becomes legally problematic. Indeed, the English Court held in the case of Assange, under section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the accused's conduct in removing the condom during intercourse was deceptive, but not deceptive as to ‘the nature or quality of the act’ which was a requirement of pre-existing common law. If a person uses deception that is then relied upon by a victim when choosing a course of conduct, it is not a stretch to imagine this is a violation of bodily autonomy and thus should be viewed as a crime.
In Australia, 31% of people who took part in a study conducted by Monash University in 2018 of sexual health clinic patients said they had been stealthed. 35 Whilst this statistic is not representative of the general population it indicated the widespread practice of stealthing in the community. Despite its prevalence, stealthing largely remains unreported. Only 1% of the respondents in the Monash University Study who had been stealthed reported the incident to the police. 36 The low incidences of reporting are partly attributable to the legal ambiguity surrounding the legality of stealthing and the lack of community education about this sexual practice.
Awareness has slowly been raised about stealthing, aided in part by a storyline from the prominent TV show ‘I May Destroy you’ which first aired in 2020 (BBC (UK) or HBO (US).
Other jurisdictions worldwide are now choosing to specifically criminalise stealthing through criminal sanction or to create civil redress for survivors. For example, in 2021, the California State Legislature approved the addition of stealthing to the civil penal code without opposition. Though this does not make stealthing criminal activity, it does allow for civil redress. 37 California was championed by many news outlets as being the first US state to acknowledge this non-consensual sexual behaviour. 38 In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R v Kirkpatrick 39 acknowledged that removing failing to use a condom without consent is capable of constituting sexual assault. In April 2023, the US state of Texas outlawed stealthing and it is likely that other US states will follow.
Internationally, there appears to be two distinct approaches; firstly to rely on pre-existing legislation and common law for the criminalisation (or not) of stealthing; or to specifically criminalise stealthing in Crimes Legislation (either by expanding the list of circumstances that vitiate consent or creating a standalone offence). Either strategy has legal merit, but it remains to be seen whether either approach will result in a meaningful reduction in this concerning behaviour or conversely whether more cases involving stealthing will be brought before the Courts.
UK Approach
European jurisdictions began this discussion more than a decade ago, when the Supreme court in the UK was considering the case of Julian Assange. 40 Whilst this was a case involving extradition and questioning judicial authority, it gave judicial consideration of whether there was a case that justified the prosecution of Mr Assange for the offences in respect of which his extradition was sought, one of which included an act of stealthing. Ten years later, it remains a hot topic, with Scheidegger referring to the act in the German Law Journal as a violation of who touches a victim's body and how, therefore a violation of human rights. 41
In Ireland, Heron has identified stealthing as a ‘novel variation of an existing criminal offence’, with the purpose of such deception being the prevention of consent being withdrawn. 42 Of course, it is impossible to give consent to conditions of which a victim is unaware. Recent changes in Irish law in 2017 43 may now mean stealthing is covered, with s48(2)(e) referring to being mistaken as to the nature or purpose of the act. Additionally, s48 (4) makes specific reference to intercourse being a continuing act during which consent can be withdrawn. This is also a valid principle and English law. 44 If condom use is a precondition of consent, and it is removed during sex, it can be assumed that consent is also removed at this point; that is the continuation of the act without a condom requires fresh consent.
Heron has considered, much as other academics have, 45 if perhaps stealthing may be another form of sexual assault rather than rape. 46 Equally, he gives consideration to the route taken by California; using a civil approach to address such issues and the merits of doing so, 47 but suggests a new offence of stealthing as the optimal solution. 48 Notably, the risks of such sexual behaviour are disease, pregnancy and personal violation. With a stand-alone offence, they could be taken into consideration.
Such risks were discussed in the English case of Lawrance,
49
where it was held that deception about a vasectomy was not enough to vitiate consent, even if the victim would not have consented to unprotected sex otherwise. The Court of Appeal said such deception was not closely related enough to the nature and purpose of the act, nor did it remove freedom to choose. The victim in this case was told by the defendant that he had undergone a vasectomy, therefore removing any risk of pregnancy during unprotected sex. After the act, he confessed to her that this was a lie, and she subsequently was subjected to pregnancy and termination. The Court of Appeal distinguished this from cases of stealthing. Though they were convinced that fraud accompanied by pressure was capable of vitiating consent,
50
it must be closely connected to the nature or purpose of the act in order to do this. Rather than stealthing, this case was likened to that of Monica,
51
where deception over identity and employment (in this case, an undercover police officer) would not negate consent. As Laird has observed: The importance of this case lies in confirming that, for the purposes of sexual offences, there are some deceptions that are incapable of negating consent.
52
a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
However, this preoccupation with whether or not the agreement allows ejaculate to enter the victim's vagina seems to have dominated the view of the courts in this area. In Lawrance, Assange was distinguished because removal of condom allows this to happen, where as a disagreement over the quality of semen does not. 56 The Court of Appeal stated that physical restrictions on the act of sex itself, such as use of a condom, are different to discussion over the nature and quality of ejaculate. 57 This would suggest that the associated risks, such as pregnancy, are less of a consideration or prerequisite.
This is a welcomed precedent, as reliance on such ‘risks’ in order to convict is not coherent with legislation and the principles of consent. For example, a legal loophole preventing conviction in a stealthing situation because a woman was infertile would be absurd. 58 It is the act itself, rather than the consequences, which must be questioned. Sexual intercourse without a condom denotes an additional level of contact and an additional level of intimacy. Should a separate offence of stealthing be created in the UK, avoiding such loopholes will be of paramount importance.
The UK of course does have the opportunity to add stealthing to their current list of rebuttable presumptions, currently contained within s75 Sexual Offences Act 2003:
If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—
that the defendant did the relevant act, that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed, the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. The circumstances are that—
any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him; any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person; the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act; the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act; because of the complainant's physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented; any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant's consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act. It is vital that the law is as clear as possible about what consent means in order to prevent miscarriages of justice that result in an innocent party being convicted or the guilty walking free. Juries must decide that they are sure, beyond reasonable doubt, whether the complainant was consenting or not. This is an important and often difficult role.
60
This framework could easily accommodate a new rebuttable presumption of not adhering to pre-agreed condom use through removal/tampering/non-use, whilst still allowing the defendant opportunity to dispute. It also adequately covers the grey area around knowledge – did the defendant know that the condom has torn, for example. This would put the onus on the defendant to then communicate this with their sexual partner, and either replace or gain new consent to the new conditions, in order to remain with the realm of acceptable sexual behaviour. In addition, as Laird has noted, the jury's perception of what rape is may not fit with their preconceived notion around something such as condom removal, so this clear addition would be welcomed.
59
As the home office have said, a clear transparent law and path to legally valid consent in this arena is vital:
The Australian Response: National Legislative Review
The reliance on legislative change in Australia and the move towards criminalisation is no surprise considering that ‘strengthening criminal justice responses and legislative frameworks on sexual assault laws’ was made a National Legislative Priority on the 2022–2027 National Agenda for Australian Attorney Generals. 61 This review is slated to include a comparative analysis of sexual assault legislation in Australia to check for consistency in the criminalisation of sexual harms including stealthing and sexual choking. One of the primary considerations in all Australian jurisdictions, as with many jurisdictions internationally, is whether or not to introduce an ‘affirmative consent’ standard, where consent cannot be assumed and an accused person would need to prove that they sought and were given consent to the sexual act or acts. The concept of consent under the ‘affirmative consent’ model cannot be assumed and involves ongoing, mutual communication with active decision making by each party. This model attempts to shift the legal scrutiny from the victim-survivor and onto the perpetrator who would need to be able to prove that they had a reasonable belief in the consent and even if that minimum standard is met they would still be required to prove that their belief in that consent was reasonable in all the circumstances: for example taking into consideration if the conversation about consent went far enough, or if there were physical cues such as pushing away the accused's hand or facial reactions that would indicate that the consent (if it existed) had been withdrawn. Using an affirmative consent model where consent was not actively affirmed it cannot and will not be assumed by law.
Each Australian State/Territory is responsible for the writing and implementation of its own criminal laws (as stipulated by the Australian Constitution) so there are some key differences between the approaches taken to criminalisation of stealthing. Australia's approach to legislative change has been varied but largely involved one of two options: the first is to create a stand-alone offence of stealthing, the second is to add stealthing to the list of circumstances that would vitiate consent.
In October 2021, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was the first jurisdiction in Australia to criminalise stealthing. The initial iteration of this legislation, the Crimes (Stealthing) Amendment Act 2021 made it illegal to fail to use a condom or to remove a condom during sex in circumstances when condom use was previously agreed upon. In May 2022, the ACT legislature brought in wholesale changes to the existing consent provisions which saw the abolition of the stealthing offence and the inclusion of stealthing within the new affirmative consent provisions. Section 67 (1)(j) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) adds ‘misrepresentation about the use of a condom use’ to the list of circumstances that vitiate consent. The language used in this section is reminiscent of the wording of Papadimitropoulos 62 where misrepresentation regarding the identity or nature of the act was first introduced 63 in Australia.
New South Wales (NSW) was the first Australian jurisdiction to introduce the affirmative consent model which requires explicit, informed, and voluntary agreement to participate in a sexual act. This model in NSW makes it clear that consent should be clearly communicated and cannot/should not be presumed. Section 61HI (5) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) states that ‘A person who consents to a particular sexual activity is not, by reason of only that fact, to be taken to consent to any other sexual act’, an example relating to stealthing then follows ‘A person who consents to a particular sexual activity using a condom is not, by reason of only that fact, to be taken to consent to any other sexual act’.
NSW also added five new Jury Directions seeking to address common misconceptions about the circumstances of the sexual assault, complainant evidence and about consent itself. 64 The legislative reforms were accompanied by what is arguably, one of the most comprehensive community sex education campaigns in Australia, the ‘Make No Doubt’ 65 campaign. This education campaign used social and commercial media to represent scenes of affirmative consent. 66
Queensland 67 , Victoria and the Northern Territory have followed the affirmative consent approach taken in NSW and introduced legislative amendments throughout 2022 and 2023 that added the removal/non-use or tampering with a condom to the list of circumstances that vitiate consent to a sexual act. The states of South Australia and Tasmania have both passed legislation that added stealthing to the list of circumstances that negate consent. With both jurisdictions referring to the deception element of stealthing, see for example the South Australian section 46(3) (ga) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), refers to a misrepresentation made by the offender about the use of a condom, implying that where a condom is removed without consent that this is an intentional act of deception and that the vitiating of any previously given consent would follow.
The last remaining Australian State to consider such reforms is Western Australia. The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia has recently conducted a review of the state's sexual assault laws and legal definition of consent. The report advocated for the adoption of an affirmative model of consent, and suggested that other factors that vitiate consent (including stealthing) should be added. 68 To date no Bills have been introduced to Parliament to codify any of the suggestions made by the report.
Overview of Australian Approach
Jurisdictions in Australia have consistently chosen to add stealthing to the list of circumstances that vitiate consent rather than to include a stealthing specific offence. This approach is in line with the possible approaches suggested by key scholars 69 and legal stakeholders. 70 Non-consensual condom removal is a sex offence which has the potential to create ongoing physical, psychological and emotional harm to victim/survivors. The legal status of such an act is becoming clearer in Australia due to the reform of consent definitions and the inclusion of stealthing as a discrete offence. Without such legal clarity any case involving stealthing would require the interpretation of any pre-existing legislative/common law definition of rape/sexual assault and of consent.
Given the recency of the Australian legislative reform any changes in reporting statistics, prosecution rates and the number of convictions, are not yet possible to measure. In any case, it seems clear that criminalisation of stealthing behaviour without context or widespread understanding is arguably an ineffective and purely theoretical mechanism.
Beyond Criminalisation
Prosecuting rape by fraud, as opposed to rape by force, has often been described as a ‘contentious’ issue. 71 Whilst more obvious active deceptions can be quite readily dealt with, passive deceptions around non-disclosure remain more difficult. Since the Assange case in 2012 there has been greater global interest in stealthing; there have been multiple public consultations, parliamentary enquiries, law reform reports, media attention, depictions in commercial television as well as legislative change. However, criminalisation is merely one step towards increasing community recognition of a particular behaviour and with stealthing, this form of awareness is necessary as many survivors do not immediately identify this behaviour as criminal. There continues to be a number of significant barriers to addressing stealthing as a sex crime including, inconsistency in laws between and within jurisdictions, evidentiary limitations that are present in any prosecution for a sexual offence, a lack of police training, a lack of community awareness and victim-blaming attitudes that contribute to significant under-reporting.
Victim-blaming attitudes exist among perpetrators or potential perpetrators; ‘sowing a man's seed is his right’ 72 ; among members of the community ‘but they agreed to have sex, didn't they?’ and by those affected by stealthing, who may not even be aware that stealthing is now a crime, ‘I felt violated and disappointed because I invited someone into my bedroom to share this personal moment’. 73 When survivors of stealthing hold self-blaming attitudes, they may be less likely to seek assistance and support. When community members hold similar attitudes, they may be ineffective as ‘first responders’ and inadvertently cause further harm to someone who discloses their victimisation.
What is clear is that there is a need for widespread community education that extends beyond any current approaches. States in Australia that have criminalised stealthing will include stealthing on the National Education Curriculum for secondary school students which is a good start for that age group. However, recent research suggests that only around 15% Adult Australians are familiar with the term stealthing and that this knowledge decreases by age group; from 64% for 18–29 year old's, to 49% for 30–39 year old's, 38% for 40–49 years old's, 12% for 50–59 year old's and back up to 15% for those aged 60+. 74 The survey findings indicate there is a clear need for community education campaigns targeting all adult age groups. There is also a distinct need for any information resources to challenge the culture of victim-blaming that both excuses perpetrator behaviour and prevents victims from seeking assistance. Such campaigns should focus on consent and respectful relationships, raise awareness of stealthing, and provide general education about stealthing and also about where survivors can go for assistance.
Another interesting option, raised in part by the Californian Civil Law's treatment of stealthing, is to consider the introduction of a civil penalty scheme as redress under the tort of trespass to person for stealthing behaviour. This of course would depend on the legal status of stealthing in the individual jurisdiction and should be in addition to any criminal penalties that might apply. However, care should be taken to ensure that any civil penalty does not diminish our understanding of the impact of sexual offending on the survivor, it is important to remember that some behaviours (such as assault) already exist under to co-classification of crime and tort.
Introducing specific criminal offences in all jurisdictions, considering the potential for the use of civil law penalty/redress schemes and increased community awareness campaigns are important steps in addressing sexual offences like stealthing, but further attention ought also to be given to resources and training. Training for a variety of relevant stakeholder groups who currently respond to victims, including victim support agencies and criminal justice authorities, is vital. This follows the recommendations of other key academics for in addressing other types of sexual offending. 75 Any training should be tailored to the needs of the specific jurisdiction/population but should be widely available to criminal justice authorities and victim advocacy/support agencies.
Conclusion
The UK and Australia are shown to have very different approaches to the criminalisation of stealthing behaviour. The UK are attempting to fit stealthing into a pre-existing legislative framework, with the courts accepting that the act of stealthing is capable of vitiating consent based on the conditional consent given by the victim to the nature of the sexual behaviour they will engage in. Alternatively, Australian territories are choosing to create discrete stealthing offences in legislation, adding this to the list of situations in which consent will be negated. There is good argument that a specific offence of stealthing is likely to be preferrable for a number of reasons. Firstly, a stand-alone offence will fairly and clearly label stealthy as a criminal activity. Much like the offence of ‘assault by penetration’ in the UK, designed to criminalise penetrative activity which falls short of rape without merely deeming this sexual assault, the label would be indicative of the behaviours involved. 76 In turn, this might also assist juries in convicting where rape might seem like a severe label when sex was agreed to, but on certain conditions which were not met. Additionally, such an offence could also consider the consequences of condom removal, including transmission of infection and pregnancy. In such cases the specific penalty for stealthing would need to be carefully considered, so as not to categorise stealthing as a ‘less serious’ sexual offence. Mitigating and aggravating factors should also be considered so that the consequences of such an act can be taken into account by the Court.
An ideal version of a discrete offence of stealthing would take advantage of the progress made in Australian territories and English courts. Perhaps set out as follows: A person (A) commits an offence if they a) Have an agreement with their sexual partner, B, that a condom will be worn by A during penile penetration. b) Without the knowledge of B, A does not use, removes or tampers with the condom, or does not communicate to B that a condom has become defective, and continues penile penetration.
We note that it is unlikely that the creation of a specific offence will deter the worst offenders, when studies have shown perpetrators to cite reasons such as the ‘thrill of degradation’ as their reason for stealthing. However, an unknown proportion of offenders that are committing this offence could be unaware the legal status of stealthing and criminalisation. Any specific mention of stealthing behaviour in legislation would provide a clear message about the legality of stealthing behaviour. It remains to be seen whether the approach taken in the UK or the approaches of the various Australian States and Territories will result in an increase in reporting or prosecution rates for the crime of stealthing. However, with adequate education and widespread awareness, it is hoped that members of the community will be able to identify this behaviour and will understand that stealthing is a violation of a sexual agreement and that it ultimately amounts to criminal activity.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.