Talk:Non-consensual condom removal

Merge
I've undone a merge of this article with reproductive coercion. As I understand it from reading the sources, the motive for this is generally pure selfishness, with reckless disregard for the consequences, rather than a deliberate attempt at reproductive coercion. In particular, this act can happen between two male sex partners, in which case pregnancy is not possible. A narrow distinction perhaps, but one we should make. -- The Anome (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Neologism
Google Trends suggests this term was first published on the Internet circa April 24, 2017. Before, the term didn't exist. Wikipedia's policy on neologism should apply to this article. --Saledomo (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the source, it seems like this paper is the source of the term: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726, which was posed Apr 20, 2017. --Saledomo (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is an earlier example of use of the term within the gay community in 2012. -- The Anome (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a WP:NEO case. I don't think it needs its own article. It can be merged with an existing article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope - it is not a Neologism - it is a scientific term being used for different things in different fields (in computer science, chemistry and - as far as I can tell - in the medical fields . What might be needed is a differentiation.
 * Here a few examples from scientific publications
 * * Generationing, Stealthing, and Gift Giving: The Intentional Transmission of HIV by HIV-Positive Men to their HIV-Negative Sex Partners | Health Psychol Res. 2014 Nov 6;
 * *  Sexual Practise and HIV in Uganda: The Search For “Live Sex” BMJ Journals | Published in print 1 July 2013. --ChristopheT (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a neologism. Neologisms are new (or relatively new) and (relatively) isolated terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you are defining "new." But any word that is only a few or several years old is new. And it's clear that this term is an isolated term in addition to being new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said it is new : "Detecting subtle system changes using digital signatures C Hosmer, M Duren" - Information Technology Conference, 1998 | "Progress in development of herpes simplex virus gene vectors for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis" JC Glorioso, D Krisky, P Marconi, 1997 and so on. I also don't see any form of "isolation". -- ChristopheT (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've argued that it's new. And "isolated" in this context means that it is not in widespread or common use. As for the latest source you cited, what does it state? If it's not using the term the way the Wikipedia article uses it, it's not the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * not using the term the way the Wikipedia article uses it I agree - as mentioned above - the term is being used for different things depending on the context / field. I believe something like a disambiguation page would be appropriate (military, information technology, chemistry ect.) I am happy to contribute to stealthing in information technology - but I am afraid I lack the necessary knowledge for the other areas. I also do not have any experience creating WP:DAB pages and rather leave that to someone with more experience. --ChristopheT (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NEO says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that articles on neologisms frequently are about the term, not the idea. Further it says that such articles are often meant to make the term more popular. Last it says we should demonstrate that the term is used by secondary sources and make sure the article is about the idea, not the term.
 * While this is a neologism, this article does not appear to run afoul of NEO. The sources used are about the concept, not just uses of the term. Further, the article is about the concept and not just a definition of the term. The article needs work, though, to expand its content.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I pointed to WP:NEO and to the Neologism article to get my point across, which is that the term is indeed a neologism and that Wikipedia generally discourages articles on neologisms. I additionally argued that I do not see that this topic needs its own article. You know, WP:No page and all that. But I see that you have been working on the article, and this includes expanding it. I currently have less of an issue with the article being a standalone article, but I'm still not convinced that it needs to be its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm done for tonight but will try to add to it tomorrow. I think if we focus on the phenomenon, we can get the article to a decent state. I'm thinking we might want to move it to Non-consensual condom removal as a broader term as Brodsky suggests.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Practice?
Note that there is some concern on calling this a "practice". Can we use some neutral word, like "act"? --Nemo 19:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a better description anyway. Would support change.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this is a moral panic, but can't find any articles that point out that it's stupidly uncommon. Just a bunch of articles all released around the same time condemning it. Yes it's awful behavior, if it's actually happening, but like rainbow parties I think the articles about it are causing it to happen more often than it actually did before the panic. 75.168.152.43 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, condoms do occasionally fall off by accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.152.43 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move
I reverted ChocolateRabbit's move of this page, per discussion above. If ChocolateRabbit wants the page moved, ChocolateRabbit should start a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Page protection
I've semi-protected this page for a month, following what seem to be repeated attempts by an IP-hopping editor to re-insert the same uncited material, in spite of references elsewhere in the article that do not support it. -- The Anome (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Attributing this crime to women
Here and here, Patient Zero claimed that I was being unconstructive. I was merely returning the article to its sourced version. I didn't commit vandalism or remove any sourced content. On my talk page, the editor claimed I'd violated MOS:GENDER. This is incorrect. MOS:GENDER doesn't mean we undermine sources and say both men and women engage in this act. To date, there is no proof that women engage in this act. All of the research and media reports are about men doing this. Presumably, that's why Crossroads made this edit. MOS:GENDER says to use gender-neutral language "where this can be done with clarity and precision" and this does not apply to "wording about one-gender contexts." Implying that non-consensual condom removal is a gender-equal/gender-neutral phenomenon is not clarity and precision. It's just plain false. What Patient Zero and others who support gender-neutral language for this act are doing is like going to the rape page and insisting that we can't say that it's overwhelmingly committed by men. Although the rape page doesn't say that only men rape, there's proof that women also rape. There is literally no proof that women engage in non-consensual condom removal. It's speculation only.

Patient Zero's edit also removed my grammar fixes, and the editor has let the errors stay. 103.77.192.228 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Even saying this act is primarily committed by men, like the rape page does about rape, would be better than what's here now. But "primarily" would give the false impression that there's evidence that women commit this crime. 103.77.192.228 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like tendentious editing to me, especially given the IP's comments on rape? Patient Zerotalk 01:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you're also wrong about tendentious editing. Staying on course with the sources and giving an example of another article applying appropriate balance is tendentious editing? Why don't you argue my points with sources? Why did an editor, on February 18, 2021, say that the reliable sources only confirm male perpetrators so far if I'm wrong? 103.77.192.235 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr. IP, tendentiously edit warring is being unconstructive. As to your argument on the talk page, this is a strawman argument. The use of a few gender neutral words in the lead does not undermine any sources or generate the false equivalencies you're suggesting. If you have sources that report on the gender split of offenders, please do cite them though, that would be a worthy addition.- MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a strawman argument. The sources support what I've said. It is you who needs to provide sources for the wishful gender-neutral wording. It is disingenuous to say you aren't undermining the sources when the gender-neutral language gives the false impression that women also commit this crime and when the introduction doesn't even attempt to be a reflection of the sourced body that is all about men as perpetrators with only speculation about women as perpetrators. Looks like we're going to WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 103.77.192.235 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, you are more than welcome to take this to WP:ANI if you so wish. Be sure to notify myself and MrOllie should you do so, as per the requirement. Patient Zerotalk 01:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but this doesn't require WP:ANI. It requires me waiting for other watchers to comment, reporting and comparing sources, and applying a WP:Due introduction. It requires a WP:RFC if you two keep insisting that we be gender-neutral about this when the sources are not. Will wait now. 103.77.192.235 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stats on women have since been added by MrOllie. Hopefully this resolves the issue, and you will cease to edit in violation of WP:TE. Patient Zerotalk 02:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You said stats on women have since been added by MrOllie. What MrOllie added is this. Non-consensual condom removal isn't the same thing as condom sabotage. "Condom sabotage" is a broader term. This is why the source before the line he put in says "young men reported having engaged in condom sabotage, which included non-consensual condom removal." It wouldn't need to say "which included non-consensual condom removal" if it was the same thing as condom  sabotage. That's also why this source says "Men, like women, sometimes commit contraceptive fraud, such as agreeing to wear a condom but later sabotaging the condom or removing it . For men, the act is commonly referred to as 'birth control sabotage' or 'stealthing' (the latter referring to nonconsensual condom removal)." It says what the act is called for men, but here MrOllie has conflated contraceptive fraud, or condom sabotage,  in general with non-consensual condom removal. His edit is also relying on a primary source when he should do better than that.


 * MrOllie's addition doesn't fix the WP:Undue issues on the page implying a false equality, and I would appreciate it if you stop unjustly saying I'm in violation of WP:TE for staying on course with the sources . All I've done is refer to the sources, and all you've done is insist on violating WP:Due. Was LuK3 engaging in WP:TE when he made this edit? Was Crossroads engaging in WP:TE when he made this edit? 103.77.192.235 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can be very clear about it, I have experienced it first hand of a woman removing a condom during the sex without my knowledge and approval. It happened long ago but she removed the condom during changing of position. So we can literally drop the Gendered bias that only man do it. Women can and HAVE done this in the real world. It is just not very likely that man speak up about it. It is often also seen as Sperm theft, Reproductive coercion, birthcontrol sabotage, etc. It happens. Util you can prove it never happens it should be gender neautral and sexist bias should be left out of it, even if 1 million man do it for ever single woman, there is no need to put in misandry on Wikipedia. There are other places for that, Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased. Zanquis (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it didn't happen to me (a male) by a woman, where She removed the condom during sex without my knowledge or consent. The simple question should be: Can a woman technically remove a condom without their partner knowing about it? Yes they can, it is very easily possible especially with good quality condoms. The next question is there any valid reason to included gendered language? Answer is simple: No there is no good reason. Zanquis (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I see I should have been paying closer attention to this article. The IP has good points, and "man" is the status quo before recent attempts to change it. Also, people need to be paying closer attention to the specificity of the article title. MOS:GENDER does not apply to things where the genders or sexes have to be noted per the sources. Crossroads -talk- 04:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The broader topic is Reproductive coercion. This page isn't about the broader topic. It's about non-consensual condom removal, which sources typically attribute to men. The idea that women do it is speculation only. I've not seen one source saying a woman reaches on up and pulls the condom off a man and the man doesn't notice it. 103.77.192.235 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure why you removed the source I added - it uses the same terminology as the 2014 study, shares some of the same authorship, and is published in the same journal. If one statistic is worth mentioning in the article both would be. - MrOllie (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your text sourced to that paper speaks of "condom sabotage", which is distinct from the topic of this article, as explained above by the IP. Please supply a quote from it that addresses the claim that women have engaged in the specific practice of somehow non-consensually removing a condom from their male partner. Crossroads -talk- 21:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm still not sure how this is distinct from the 2014 source, which also gives stats for 'condom sabotage'. Can you explain the distinction, or should we remove that one as well? I'm also not sure how this can be off topic when the definition we're giving in the lead includes 'purposefully damaging it', which is clearly a reference to condom sabotage. Should that be removed? MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's this study right? That one is about men and does specifically mention removal as a subtype of sabotage, which is represented in our article text accurately. The study you added is about women instead and nothing has been presented showing it mentions removal. It appears that both men and women can engage in sabotage, but that only men engage in the specific form of sabotage called non-consensual removal, and therefore a study about men mentioning that belongs here, and one about women not mentioning it does not.
 * Regarding the phrase in the lead, that may need to be removed. IP, any thoughts on that? Crossroads -talk- 23:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a chance to go over the 2018 source again. Quote: "condom sabotage (three items, e.g., “Agreeing to use a condom but removing it before or during sex without telling him” Also "The Davis et al. (2014) Condom Use Resistance Tactics Survey was used" - both of these studies used the same survey - the methodology is basically the same. - MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, regardless of how much we're willing to get into semantics re. whether a woman removing a condom is sabotage or stealthing, surely the other reason to keep "person" and "their" is because not everybody with a penis identifies as male? That's not even a question of politics, violating NPOV/being "woke" or whatever - it is a literal fact that some people don't identify with the sex that was assigned at birth. Therefore, "he" is not always accurate. Patient Zerotalk 00:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's wrong. If the sources don't say they're studying or reporting on people who don't identify with the sex they were assigned at birth, we shouldn't assume the sources are about those people. Indeed, the sources say they're about men and a subculture of men who think they're entitled to women's bodies and how women use their bodies. That's the basis for discussion in the sources, and you're trying to impose gender neutrality on that. It's not gender neutral.


 * "Condom sabotage" is a broader term. It includes condom removal, but also stuff like poking holes in the condom. "Birth control sabotage" is also sometimes a broader term (per this source at Reproductive coercion), while "non-consensual condom removal" is specific.


 * The introduction says non-consensual condom removal "is the practice of a person covertly removing a condom during sexual intercourse, or purposefully damaging it before sexual intercourse." But "or purposefully damaging it" should be removed from the first sentence because that's not how sources typically define or categorize non-consensual condom removal/stealthing. Instead, the second sentence can say something like "damaging the condom may occasionally be referred to as stealthing" or "is a form of birth control sabotage."


 * No productivity will happen here as long as there is someone who won't listen and ignores what most of the sources are telling you. Preferring to focus on any of the rare sources talking about teenage girls or women who have engaged in birth control sabotage or the possibility that they could engage in non-consensual condom removal is looking on the outskirts. Real talk: Even sources that use the terms "condom sabotage" and "birth control sabotage" are only or almost exclusively about men as perpetrators. They say stuff like "Reproductive coercion is defined as behavior that interferes with the autonomous decision-making of a woman" or "Birth control sabotage is a planned interference with the woman's contraceptive efforts in an attempt to promote pregnancy in the female partner.". Sources on non-consensual condom removal say that many of these female victims feel they were raped and that some parts of the world have prosecuted non-consensual condom removal as rape, which makes my earlier comment about rape very relevant rather than tendentious editing (as claimed by MrOllie and Patient Zero). It's great if Patient Zero will no longer wholesale revert, changing the article so that it doesn't even mention male perpetrators in the introduction and unduly has the "A 2013 article in The Week" paragraph higher than it should be (rather than lower with the "Brianna Chesser and April Zahra" 2019 paragraph) and grammar errors. If you want to change the introduction or add a study, it can be done without wholesale reverting. Imagine if the Incel article neglected to mention in the introduction the almost exclusive male subculture it is. 103.77.192.83 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I already told you that wider consensus is against rewriting articles for rare exceptions in that way, based on this discussion. You may deny it, but doing so is in fact WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW because that is not how most sources write or how people speak. And that's on top of the fact that, as the IP mentioned, the sources say "men" anyway, so bringing up gender identity is simply original research. Crossroads -talk- 00:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, uninvolved editor here. Since I am not responding to anybody in particular, I have indented this reply separately from the rest.
 * I have compiled here a list of definitions given for the terms "non-consensual condom removal" and "stealthing" in the English-language sources provided in the article (I didn't include it here to avoid making this reply longer than it is). Here are my observations:
 * Only three definitions explicitly note that NCCR/stealthing is an act performed by men (from CNN, Klein, and Czechowski et al.), with Klein's definition of "stealthing" being somewhat irrelevant since it seems to describe criminal transmission of HIV instead of non-consensual condom removal.
 * Davis, Stappenbeck et al. states that condom sabotage "includes nonconsensual condom removal".
 * None of the definitions talk about damaging condoms.


 * Per my first observation, I would argue that since most definitions of NCCR or stealthing are not gendered, the article's definition of the concept should not be gendered either. The fact that "there is no proof that women engage in this act" or that "even sources that use the terms 'condom sabotage' and 'birth control sabotage' are [...] about men as perpetrators" are irrelevant in my opinion since the first sentence of a Wikipedia article about a definable topic should be a definition (per MOS:FIRST), and doesn't need to state who actually commits the act unless doing so is somehow essential to properly define it (and given the many non-gendered definitions of the act in the list, it definitely isn't).  Note that 's first sentence provide a non-gendered definition of the topic as well, and so does.
 * Per my second observation, I believe that "condom sabotage" is a distinct concept that is out of scope in this article.
 * Per my third observation, I believe that NCCR doesn't include the case where "a man [...] purposefully [damages a condom] before sexual intercourse"; that part should be removed. --Kzkzb (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You say only three definitions define it as an act committed by men. How are you defining these as the three definitions? I've looked at all the sources in the the article and they're all gendered with an emphasis on men as perpetrators. So is every other source out there about this topic. The sources show that gender is essential to properly defining this act. None of the sources define it as an act committed by women. None of the sources, except for the Chesser and Zahara source in the article, say women commit this act. And even that source is talking about the possibility, not the reality, of a woman doing it. Even if we don't gender the first sentence, which is false balance in this case, because, unlike the rape and incel articles, there are literally no stats on women removing men's condoms during sex to control reproduction/to stealth, there should be an emphasis on men as perpetrators and the male subculture in the introduction. The rape article does its job by noting in the introduction that rapists are overwhelmingly male, and the incel article does its job by noting in the introduction that incels are overwhelmingly male. WP:Due isn't irrelevant. 103.77.192.83 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You keep saying 'there are literally no stats on women' - I just added that. We're discussing the source above. It is at least as good (nearly identical, in fact) to a source we're currently using to cite statistics on men. MrOllie (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder why I said that. Could it be because, as has been said to you (and now by a third, peculiar account), condom sabotage means more than condom removal? Why can't you accept that it's a broader term? It may or may not refer to condom removal. In terms of condom removal, the sources are about men as perpetrators. 103.77.192.83 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you would support removing the 2014 source / 9.0% sentence, then? - MrOllie (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not disagreeing with you that most sources talk about the act as something done by a man, and this should probably be mentioned somewhere in the lead.  I disagree however that this is of any importance in defining what the act is.
 * "You say only three definitions define it as an act committed by men. How are you defining these as the three definitions? I've looked at all the sources in the the article and they're all gendered with an emphasis on men as perpetrators." Notice that  we are not talking about the same thing here.  You are saying that the sources are gendered (this is true, but this is off-topic in defining "stealthing"; if all sources on the article about "rape" mentioned rape as something exclusively done by men, that fact would be equally irrelevant in determining whether the definition of rape should be gendered).  I am saying that when the sources provide a definition for the act, they do not mention gender, because again, gender is not essential in determining what the act of "stealthing" actually is.
 * "And even that source is talking about the possibility, not the reality, of a woman doing it." But a definition is about determining criteria for what consititutes as "stealthing"; the possibility that women could do it is enough to prove that the definition is non-gendered shouldn't be gendered.
 * "The rape article does its job by noting in the introduction that rapists are overwhelmingly male, and the incel article does its job by noting in the introduction that incels are overwhelmingly male." If so, then surely you would agree that the article could do its job by mentioning that the act is done by men in a later sentence in the lead?
 * I will conclude my reply by making explicit what I believe the whole nature of our disagreement is. I argue that the sentence should not be gendered because in theory, a woman could commit this act.  If I understand, you seem to believe that the first sentence should be gendered because in practice, women don't.  But to define something, what happens in practice isn't relevant, because ultimately absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --Kzkzb (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a misunderstanding about what we disagree on and why. You said that when sources provide a definition for the act, they do not mention gender. This is proven false by reading some sources in the article and overall. I also provided a book source above which says what the terms commonly are when referencing male perpetrators. Gender is irrelevant to you when defining this topic. It isn't for many of the sources. When they say stealthing is a subculture, they're speaking of men. Not about possibilities that women could also be perpetrators. 103.77.192.83 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick question before I start reading deeper into your book; do you believe that we should define "stealthing" as a subculture? Because my understanding from reading the sources is that "stealthing" is an act.  And even if it is a subculture, this is an article about "non-consensual condom removal", which is an act, not a subculture. --Kzkzb (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * provides some very valid points. It would make sense to include in the article’s introduction (or in the “history and practice” section) that the act is mainly performed by males. But the act itself is not a “gendered” one, as such. Also, it is not a subculture. Patient Zerotalk 05:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Patient Zero, you continue to only inject your beliefs on this page. No sources to support what you say. The sources indicate or say the opposite of what you say, and it's pretty easy to use a search bar and see "subculture" associated with non-consensual condom removal/stealthing, like in this CBS News piece. Kzkzb, I don't know about you, but I feel like some cold cheese pizza right about now. Anyway, I don't care if the first sentence says "is a practice and subculture", but "subculture" should probably be somewhere in the introduction after adding something to the lower body of the article about it. I didn't click on your research link because I don't trust the link, but I've researched the topic. In my reading of the research, I've seen multiple sources give a gendered definition that places men as the perpetrators. That's one reason I asked you how you came about your "only three definitions implicating men" belief. Even if it was just three definitions out there implicating men as the perpetrators, it stands that those three are about men and no definition says anything like "the practice of a woman removing a condom during sexual intercourse without her partner’s consent." Here are some definitions I've seen:


 * A Konrad Czechowski academic source says non-consensual condom removal (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]." It cites two academic sources for that definition.


 * A Sumayya Ebrahim academic source says "Stealthing is the practice of a man nonconsensually and covertly removing a condom, after his partner explicitly expressed that intercourse is subject only to use of a condom." The source also says "Through both a conceptual scrutiny of the construct and through online narratives of stealthing, this article not only establishes stealthing as a distinctive form of gender-based sexual violence, it also establishes it as a practice that deviously subjugates female sexuality and reproduction under the guise of sexual autonomy and sexual consent." So, not unlike other sources about this act, it puts forth the argument that stealthing is wholly gendered.
 * A Joyce Wu academic source says "Likewise, 'stealthing', in which men would secretly remove a condom during intercourse without the partner's consent, is slowly being recognised as sexual assault."


 * A Dov Fox academic source defines stealthing as "when, during intercourse, a man removes his condom without consent or goes back on his promise to withdraw before ejaculating."


 * An Alexandra Fanghanel academic source says stealthing "involves a man agreeing to use a condom and then nonconsensually removing the condom without the knowledge of their partner." It's discussed more in Chapter 14. All about men committing the act.


 * A Susan B. Sorenson academic source says stealthing "in which a couple agrees to intercourse with a condom and the guy removes it without his partner's knowledge, is a troubling appearance on campuses."


 * A John Kaplan academic source says stealthing is when "the man removes the condom after the woman has consented to intercourse only on the condition that a condom is used."


 * A CNN source says it's "a practice where men secretly remove or damage condoms without their partners’ knowledge. Others call it sexual assault."


 * A BBC source says "It's a term that describes when a man removes a condom during sex."


 * A Newsweek source says "a practice called 'stealthing,' in which men stealthily remove their condoms while they are having intercourse, a removal that they carry out without their partners' knowledge or consent."


 * A psmag.com (Pacific Standard) source says "'stealthed'—the term referring to when a man secretly removes a condom during sex."


 * A wcnc.com source says "There’s a disturbing new trend with dangerous consequences. Men are taking off their condoms during consensual sex, then bragging about it online. It’s called ‘stealthing.’" The news reporter in the video also defines it as when a man removes his condom after agreeing to wear one.


 * A health.com source says "Stealthing is the act of non-consensual condom removal ... In basic terms, it’s when a male partner removes or purposely damages the condom during sex without their partner’s clear consent."


 * A flo.health source says "Stealthing ... is an act in which a man removes his condom during sex without telling his partner."


 * A Judges' Journal source source says "It is 'stealthing' when a man agrees to use a condom but during sex removes or deliberately damages it without telling his partner."


 * La Rivista trimestrale (The Quarterly Review of Italy) says "The term Stealthing, now used in criminal law scholarship too, refers to that practice in which, in the context of a consensual sexual intercourse, a male partner, secretly and contrary to what was agreed upon - that is, the partner being unaware - takes off his condom, before or during the intercourse."


 * I saw more than those. And on top of all that are the sources I cited defining birth control sabotage, in which condom removal is a form of, as a male practice (like this one). There's mainly news sources in this Wikipedia article, so you can't disregard the news sources as "news sources."


 * If we were to use a non-gendered first sentence because consensus dictates it, I'd only support it if singular they isn't used either, so to avoid the implication that there's stats on women or people who identify with some other gender committing this act. The perpetrators are men. Also, when the introduction mentions men after a non-gendered first sentence, it shouldn't say anything like "most perpetrators are men" or "the vast majority of perpetrators are men." This also implies that there's stats on women/other gender-identified people committing this crime. So something like "Non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) is the removal of a condom before or during sexual intercourse without one’s partner's consent" from the Czechowski source, or "is the non-consensual removal of a condom during sex" from this abc.net.au source, might be acceptable for the first sentence. 103.77.192.6 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for gathering this. This fully establishes that WP:Due weight means referring to this as a male phenomenon. Crossroads -talk- 00:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this research. I was merely basing my assumption that "most sources provide a non-gendered definitions" off the sources present in the article and I didn't go looking elsewhere (something you could have noticed if you actually clicked the link I provided, which could have saved both of us some time); but if so many sources provide a gendered definition when most sources currently present in the article do not, that might indicate a lack of balance in the selection of the sources in the article, and the sources you've presented probably have content that should be included in the article.  Either way, I am now okay with keeping the gendered definition, while still supporting the removal of the "purposefully damaging it" part.
 * PS: That "cold cheese pizza" comment was uncalled for. --Kzkzb (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would the "cold cheese pizza" comment be uncalled for? In what way did I offend?
 * Anyway, if I'd clicked on your link, I still would have needed to do my part to show what I meant about how gender plays an essential role in this topic, including to the extent that having a gendered first sentence makes the most sense. I'd think people would understand that from the sources and content in the article. It's not merely that men are the perpetrators (with no existing research reports to show that women are also the perpetrators), it's also how this connects to their views and treatment of women, especially with respect to their own pleasure. As you know, and as is talked about in the article, some sources do mention that some men do this to other men (and some sources are specifically about that), but the research on that is rarer and is also usually about the men prioritizing their own pleasure (and sometimes about how they see the other man as feminine/weaker). The sources in the article aren't unbalanced simply because they don't all provide a gendered definition as soon as the reference begins. It appears that a non-gendered definition is given for ease of explaining the topic (since saying "is non-consensual removal of a condom during sex" is simpler). Right after that, the sources always get into focusing on men as the perpetrators. The Czechowski source begins with a non-gendered definition, but, for context, it soon gives the gendered definition as it gets further into the topic.
 * Although I imagine someone will try to remove the gendered definition again, I'm pleased this is settled for now. I think a couple of the academic sources using a gendered definition should be used to replace the two sources (especially the news reference) for the first sentence and the hidden note (cited in LuK3's and Crossroads's reverts) that used to be there should maybe be added back. Or one of the academic sources should replace the news source (leaving the "Rape-Adjacent" source where it is since it's cited in other research and sources) and the news reference can be used for information lower on the page if it has something to offer that isn't already there. Some sources (and these also include ones I gathered) indicate that my suggestion to have the second sentence say something like "damaging the condom may occasionally be referred to as stealthing" or "is a form of birth control sabotage" is warranted. I think you and Crossroads can handle the details from this point. 103.77.192.11 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just made an edit based off IP's suggestion. To try to prevent this debate from happening again, I plan on adding a footnote next to the word "man" saying that most sources use a gendered definition, if this is okay with IP,,  and . --Kzkzb (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would look better as a WP:Hidden note, not a footnote. Our analysis of prevalence of sourced descriptions is not a part of the article but something to keep people from trying to change it. Crossroads -talk- 23:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a valid reason to use the gendered term, while woman also do this.
 * At this point not a single valid reason has been presented, all those studies and research papers are not a reason because they have not even done any research if it is done by woman. I know woman sometimes also remove the condom during sex without permission or knowledge. It should be gender neautral until you can prove that my experience never happened. Zanquis (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice woman do this also. I know this because I have first hand experience on it. I have had experience with a woman removing it during sex. For that reason alone your entire argument of woman don't do this, is gone. It is actually very common in African countries especially between African woman and foreign males. Where the woman will try to trap the male with a baby. The reason why it isn't a big thing is because most males will not come forward about it. There is generally zero support for them. And researchers find them uninteresting because it involves foreing males having sex with poor woman. So drop the misandry cause that is what it is and make it gender neautral as it should be. Even if for every 1.000.000 guys there is only 1 woman who has done this, that is enough reason to make it gender neutral. Your logic is all backwards. It should be gender neutral until proven otherwise. Not gender biased until otherwise. Zanquis (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I now included an reference of a woman who literally has been sentenced for this crime in Germany. Let me be very clear, A woman has been sentenced to jail for stealthing If you want to debate this, first get the woman out of jail by convincing the judge before reverting the article. Zanquis (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a more general term
redirects here following a page move.

But both men and women can be both perpetrators and victims of similar crimes. It's not just something that men do to women. So is there a gender-neutral term for the practice?

Pinging MrOllie, Patient Zero and Crossroads. Who else should be invited to comment? I recognise that this has been to some extent touched on already, but if that specific issue has been discussed I have missed it (it is possible). TIA! Andrewa (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Completely occur. This, in my mind, is akin to saying a woman can't rape a man. Disgusting as it is wrong.
 * It is outrageous that the article is only attributing this to men; it should be clearly said that this can be perpetrated by males and females, even if the former is more common. One of the arguments I've heard is that "a man would notice if the condom was removed", but this makes a lot of assumptions. What if the man is drunk or otherwise too incapacitated to notice the removal? What if the man is blindfolded? What if the woman assumes a position (such as on top) that allows her to surreptitiously remove the condom without the man knowing? What if the woman uses her pelvic floor muscles to wrench the condom out? There are actually a disconcertingly high number of ways a woman can do this on the sly, and the motivation to do so is clearly there. See sperm theft to see how alarmingly common this act is.
 * Electricmaster (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting article at sperm theft to which you linked. I note that the VAW article starts out Violence against women (VAW), also known as gender-based violence... implicitly and falsely denying that men can be victims of gender-based violence too. It's not all bad news... there is an article Violence against men to which the VAW article does link, which states (and I was surprised to learn) that some authorities at least consider it more common than VAW. But currently redirects to VAW, again implicitly denying that violence against men occurs too.
 * There are obviously some strong POVs at work both here and in sources. We can't fix the sources and should not even think of trying to do that here!
 * But it would I think improve Wikipedia if we could find and source a gender-neutral term for stealthing and sperm theft and other activities (genocide by war rape for example) by which either partner contrives to tries to create or risk a non-consensual pregnancy. Maybe non-consensual pregnancy could be an article, or at least a redirect, in its own right? Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The gendered language needs to be fixed. In the legal terminology "stealthing" is an act by any gender of partner towards any other gender. Editorpurplepotato (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Woman have been proven to also be guilty of this behavior
Consensus found previously was based on the false assumption this was a male only behavior. Based on personal experience I knew this was wrong. But outside my own anecdotal evidence, in 2022 a legal case has been presented where a judge ruled a woman guilty of sexual assault for stealthing. In science if new evidence is presented that over turns previously held believes, the believe needs to change, and it is unscientific to keep reverting to, a consensus was achieved in the past. Make and keep the language gender neutral. If you want to debate it, it needs to be done now from point of view it is all genders and not just males unless a valid reason can be presented to not, which I highly doubt is possible given the evidence. Zanquis (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As a tertiary source, we only reflect what reliable sources say about a topic. We do not use personal anecdotal evidence. We need secondary sources that say this for it to be considered. Individual court cases would be a primary source and not appropriate for this article. For this reason, Wikipedia is always behind the cutting edge on things.
 * Even if it's obvious to you, you must show that reliable sources support a change.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An article about the legal case with what it all entails is a secondary source am I not correct here? Even the fast that a primary source as a legal courtcase might not be valid for you to be included in the wikipedia, it proves beyond a doubt that BOTH man and female can participate in stealthing and that the arguments on which the consensus was achieved is demonstrated to be wrong, it needs to be reviewed and fast because for years this article has been vandalized under false pretenses by making it genger specific without a justifyable reason given before but pushed through by contributers with what seems to be a misandric agenda. Zanquis (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for creating the section.
 * If the previous discussion, the main argument for using gendered language wasn't that women don't do it, but that since almost every definition of the topic use gendered language, we should use gendered language in the definition as well. Do you have anything to say that would refute this argument?
 * Also, the article you mention is a case of condom sabotage, not non-consensual condom removal, since no condom is actually removed. Therefore it is out of the scope of the article.
 * However, I believe that the crux of many disagreements here is that we keep mixing up the terms "non-consensual condom removal" and "stealthing". The "Is there a more general term" discussion was insightful in revealing that there could be a gender-neutral term to use. It is my understanding, based on what the research made by IP in the previous discussion that "stealthing" refers to men doing acts of sabotage, while non-consensual condom removal is an non-gendered term which refers to people removing a condom against their sex partner's consent.
 * I think that a reasonable way to resolve this dispute is to use non-gendered language in the article and to remove mentions of "stealthing", possibly creating a new article specifically about "stealthing".
 * Pinging Andrewa, Electricmaster, Crossroads, MrOllie, and Patient Zero so we can get their point of view on the topic. -- Kzkzb (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all: no the definition of stealthing does not include the male part at any place I can find except on sources that can be considered primary sources, aka woman who have experienced a male partner doing it. It ignored the first dozen of defintions you will find online outside this article. Basically saying the definition it is a man's action can only be achieved by cherry picking the definition. Cambridge is the only noteworthy one that uses the male genger, every other dictionary and definition that imho is relevant uses genger neautral terms.
 * Second of all, Purposefully damaging a condom before or during intercourse may also be referred to as stealthing is part of the article. Legally there is no distinction between sabotage and removal. If anything it warrents deletion of the article and merging it with a more general article. The judge ruled it as stealthing also.
 * Thrid of all: The article is indeed called "non-consensual condom removal", so even if stealthing would be considered a male activity the article should be genger neutral with maybe a reference to stealthing being a specific slang version. Slang should not determine the base of the entire article. It is reversed logic that you guys been messing up for years.
 * So either maybe add a tiny subsection as a slang word for it near the end, but it definetly should not be the foundation the article that only man do the practice.
 * As soon as the evidence was presented that woman also participate in such practices people should have woken up that the consensus was wrong, and if both woman and man have been found guilty of the practice of condom sabotage by holes it isn't a long stretch to just realize removal is very likely also done by woman (I know 100% for certain they do so) Zanquis (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read . IP has provided a comprehensive list of sources (including academic ones) which explicitly define "stealthing" as an act committed by men.
 * This is irrelevant, the article is still about "non-consensual condom removal", so anything that doesn't pertain to that specifically is out of scope. Not to mention the fact that legislation differs for each jurisdiction, and most don't even recognize the act of condom sabotage.
 * I agree, this is essentially what I said, although we should wait for more editors to weigh in to make the change, since as you state elsewhere you can't reach consensus with just 3 or 4 people. Kzkzb (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of edits to this talk page in the past seven days, I will boldly edit the article to use gender-neutral wording. If someone puts back the gendered definition into the article (or my edit gets reverted), I'll consider starting a request for comment so that the issue can be settled once and for all. Kzkzb (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is essentially what I said, although we should wait for more editors to weigh in to make the change, since as you state elsewhere you can't reach consensus with just 3 or 4 people. Kzkzb (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of edits to this talk page in the past seven days, I will boldly edit the article to use gender-neutral wording. If someone puts back the gendered definition into the article (or my edit gets reverted), I'll consider starting a request for comment so that the issue can be settled once and for all. Kzkzb (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of edits to this talk page in the past seven days, I will boldly edit the article to use gender-neutral wording. If someone puts back the gendered definition into the article (or my edit gets reverted), I'll consider starting a request for comment so that the issue can be settled once and for all. Kzkzb (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Found that the articles on the Wikipedia page nr 17 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10345329.2019.1604474?journalCode=rcic20 also says that woman can also do it. So to my knowledge that qualifies already as a secondary source. Again, those that tried to enforce the male specific gender language have been wrong for years to keep trying to enforce it for no justifiable good reason Honestly it doesn't matter if there are a 100 articles that define it as done by male, especially if almost everyone of them was written by a woman, based on research fully focused on only the males and not even bothering to do research in the female side of it. That smells like biased research to me. So while IP managed to found some, who says it has not been cherry picked as it seems to be not hard to find articles that don't define it as male only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanquis (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC) In addition, only the english version uses the male gender language, the definition in every other language, and the articles are gender neutral as they should be. This shows international consensus is that it is NOT gender specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanquis (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

When a third party damages the condom
I had heard of incidence where a family member (such as grandpa or grandma) who is not directly a partner, who had certain social expectation to have grandchilden, therefore secretly pierced all the condoms kept in a drawyer. Which later resulted into unplanned pregnancy. I am not sure if this is a true story or rumor, but this is a very rationally possible situation. In that case, is there any legal term when a third party (who is not directly engaged in the sexual act), does such kind stealth?

2409:40E1:106A:2A12:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)