Conditional Consent and Purposeful Deception

Abstract

The edia has e e tl gi e u h atte tio of the stealthi g t e d; u dis losed o do removal during sex, and how this may affect consent to sexual activity. This paper seeks to discuss where situations like this sit within the Sexual Offenses Act 2003, and how it may compare to other instances of consent gained in deceitful circumstances.

Exploring Definitions and Prevalence of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Its Relationship to Consent to Unwanted Sex: Implications for Affirmative Consent Standards on College Campuses

“…Non-consent ranges from the victim’s state of mind—“against her will” [ 112 , 113 , 114 ] to behavioral—saying no, fighting, crying, pleading for him to stop, or as silence [ 113 , 114 ]. On the other hand, consent is often thought to refer to shared and freely given agreement of entering into sexual activity [ 84 , 115 , 116 , 117 ]. This is also endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as they define sexual violence as something that occurs without freely given consent and includes incidences of intimidation or pressure that resulted in an inability for the victim to refuse [ 118 ].…”

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

“…The phenomenon of non-consensual condom removal (NCCR), often referred to as “stealthing,” generated a considerable amount of attention from the popular media [1–2]. NCCR has been defined as the practice of a male removing an external male condom during sexual intercourse, without their partner’s consent [3, 4]. Some reporters have labelled NCCR as “a dangerous new trend” [5]; others, such as a reporter from the BBC, have described the practice as “on the rise” [6].…”

“…Given the lack of empirical research on NCCR, the goal of this study was to examine perceptions of, and experiences with, NCCR in a sample of undergraduate students at a Canadian university. We also examined the Canadian legal context as it relates to NCCR, to supplement existing discussions of American and British legal contexts [3, 4].…”

“…The legal implications of NCCR are unclear at present, both in Canada–where the current study was conducted–and more broadly around the world. There are few laws or legal commentaries specific to NCCR, although articles by Brodsky [3] and Clough [4] are two notable exceptions.…”

“…Clough [4] considered NCCR within the context of criminal law in the United Kingdom. Primarily focused on the issue of consent, Clough contemplated:…”