Stealthing is still flying dangerously under the radar

Sara Stewart is a film and culture writer who lives in western Pennsylvania. The views expressed here are solely the author’s own. Sien meer opinie artikels op CNN.

Verlede week, California passed a law that makes stealthing, or non-consensual condom removal during intercourse, a civil offense. Deur dit te doen, they’ve officially moved this act out of a gray area: Stealthing is illegal, full stop. The state joins several countries, insluitend die Verenigde Koninkryk, Duitsland, Switserland, Canada and New Zealand, that have already criminalized stealthing. New York and Wisconsin have made gestures at possibly following California’s lead, but so far have not. Hoekom nie?

It’s long past time for more widespread legislation and shifting of social norms on this issue. Stealthing has gotten more attention in the past few years, but the topic is still largely, dangerously flying under the radar.
That’s not entirely surprising, given the relatively subtle nature of the violation: It usually happens during sex that starts out as consensual. Yet the potential harm is substantial. There is the physical risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections resulting from unprotected sex. (Een 2019 studeer in the Pacific Northwest found that men who engaged in stealthing weresignificantly more likely to have had a sexually transmitted infection diagnosis or have had a partner who experienced an unplanned pregnancy.”) Then there is the enduring psychological trauma of having your trust violated by an intimate partner.
    Statistics on the frequency of stealthing are few and far between. A US study gevind dat 12% of women had experienced stealthing, while an Australian study found an alarming one in three female respondents, and one in five gay male respondents, gehad het.
      In 2017, then-Columbia law student Alexandra Brodsky drew attention to stealthing in a widely-cited academic paper in which she interviewed survivors about their experiences and proposed the implementation of a law specifically addressing stealthing. Brodsky, now the author of the bookSexual Justice,” het expressed happy surprise at California’s passage of the law, particularly making stealthing a civil offense rather than a criminal one: “A prosecution is brought to vindicate the state’s interest in law and order; a civil suit is brought to provide remedies to the person harmed,” she writes.
        Onvermydelik, there has been pushback to the California law by civil libertarians, including writer Judith Levine, who penned a ponderous essay arguing that passing such lawsorganizes the public’s often misplaced and hyperbolic fears of sexual predation into a typology of monsters, and codifies means of taming them that are often more symbolically satisfying than effective.To sum up, making stealthing illegal is an overreaction, but also might be ineffective, so why bother?
        Part of what makes stealthing a complex issue is the question of how to classify it. (Dit is nie, as one headline put it, a “sex trend.”) In Brodsky’s paper, she writes thatnone of the interviewed victims identified their experience as a rape. Many did, egter, identify a violation of agency of a kind with, if not identical to, rape.Some have gone further than that: Cristina Garcia, the California state assemblywoman who sponsored the bill that recently became law, gesê het of stealthing that, although Brodsky labels it rape-adjacent, “in my mind, it’s rape.
          Sex columnist Dan Savage cited Brodsky’s terminology when he wrote about stealthing in 2019. In his response to a question from a woman who’d been stealthed by a boyfriend and was wondering whether to stay with him, he writes: “Your brand new boyfriend revealed himself to be a selfish and uncaring ahole with no respect for your body or your boundaries. He was on his best behavior until your guard was down. Then he violated you, he sexually assaulted you, he rape-adjacent’d you.
          As popular culture so often does, it was a TV showMichaela Coel’s brilliant 2020 HBO seriesI May Destroy You” — that brought stealthing more fully into mainstream awareness, and made its own ruling on what, presies, it is. In die show’s fourth episode, Coel’s main character, writer Arabellawho is already dealing with the aftermath of being sexually assaultedsleeps with a fellow author who without her knowledge takes off the condom partway through sex.
          Michaela Coel is the creator and star of "I May Destroy You.&kwotasie;

          She’s initially shocked but quickly dials down her anger. It’s not until the next episode that she learns, via a podcast, how common the practice isand later calls him a rapist, on stage in front of a crowd, where they’re both doing a reading. “In the United States he’s ‘rape-adjacent,'” voeg sy by, echoing Brodsky. “In Australia he’s ‘a bit rapey.'
          Helaas, real life doesn’t often afford such neatly-scripted opportunities to hold someone publicly accountable. But there are clear measures that can help ensure stealthing stops happening so often. Other states need to follow California’s example and pass anti-stealthing bills, and we need to be talking about the subject a lot more, and more loudly.
          I’ll start: Years ago, it happened to me. Like Arabella, initially I was furiousand then minimized the event. In the absence of any points of reference for what had just happenedand encouraged by the guy to chalk it up to a harmless misunderstandingI decided it would be easier to just let it go than to lean into my gut feeling that it was wrong. Had I known then that there was a term for this act, that it was something that happened to lots of women, and that it was unlawfuleven just in one state, one countryI know I would have had more resources and support to process what had happened.
          Kry ons gratis weeklikse nuusbrief

          Teken in op CNN Opinion se nuwe nuusbrief.

          Sluit aan by ons op Twitter en Facebook

            Brodsky affirmed this as a common reaction in a recent onderhoud: “A lot of the people I talked to were deeply hurt by the experience but didn’t know if they were right to feel that way. They didn’t know if what they felt as bad was really bad. In my experience, part of the value of naming these things is to affirm for survivors that they have the right not to be treated this way.
            California has affirmed it. What’s the rest of the country waiting for?




            , , ,

            Kommentaar gesluit.