California to Become First State to Ban Nonconsensual Condom Removal—or “Stealthing”

A new law would empower survivors to sue in civil court.

picture alliance/Contributor/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

California is on the cusp of becoming the first state to outlaw “stealthing,” the depressingly common practice of removing a condom during sex without verbal consent.

Earlier this week, lawmakers sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would add stealthing to California’s civil definition of sexual battery. That would give people a chance to sue perpetrators for damages in civil court, but it would not change the criminal code or allow them to go to prison. Lawmakers approved the measure unanimously.

Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, who sponsored the bill, said it would help hold assailants accountable for the deceitful practice. In addition to increasing the risk of sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies, stealthing is considered by many activists to be a form of rape, since victims never consented to having sex without protection. “It makes it clear that ‘stealthing’…isn’t just immoral, but it’s illegal,” Garcia wrote on Twitter about the bill.

The term stealthing has long been used within the gay community, often referring to HIV-positive men who purposefully try to infect someone else without their knowledge during sex. But stealthing became more widely recognized as a problem in 2017, after then-law student Alexandra Brodsky (author of the book Sexual Justice) published a Columbia Journal of Gender and Law paper about people who nonconsensually remove condoms during sex. It happens more often than you’d think: Subsequent studies in 2019 in the United States and Australia found that anywhere from 12 to 32 percent of women in a certain age range had experienced stealthing, along with 10 to 19 percent of men.

The 2020 HBO series I May Destroy You helped bring more attention to the issue with a plotline in which protagonist Arabella (Michaela Coel) realizes after-the-fact that a man she had sex with had removed the condom without telling her.

Assemblymember Garcia first tried to ban the practice in California back in 2017, introducing a bill that would have made stealthing a crime that was eligible for jail time, like it is in New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and some other countries. That California measure did not pass. Legal experts in the United States said prosecutions would be rare because of the difficulty in proving that a perpetrator acted intentionally.

Some activists and scholars believe empowering a survivor to sue in civil court, which the new bill allows, might be a better solution anyway. Survivors arguably have more power deciding whether to file a lawsuit than they do in the criminal process, where police choose whether to investigate and prosecutors choose whether to pursue a case.

And sometimes incarceration isn’t the best option. Civil lawsuits could at least get survivors some cash. As Brodsky, who wrote the 2017 study, told the New York Times: “There are many survivors who do not want to see the person who hurt them in prison and could really use help covering medical debt or could use help having the resources to see a therapist.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate