Australia’s New Stealthing Laws

What You Need to Know to Protect Your Loved Ones

Warning: This article discusses sexualised violence, which some readers may find distressing.

It has been an extraordinary and challenging journey since I first published this 'controversial' article on my SubStack a month ago. I've learned a great deal along the way - particularly the pitfalls of writing for an audience or seeking approval; at my age, I should know better, but despite my best efforts, I remain a fallible human. I've also realised that while conservatives often decry trigger warnings, language sensitivity, and the nanny state, they, too, have their vulnerabilities. For instance, merely mentioning Australia's colonial past, First Nations Peoples, or the #metoo movement can lead to a swift rejection or silence. Meanwhile, the so-called liberal professional-managerial class urges us to 'live our truth' and share our 'lived experience' and 'mental health' struggles, but only if presented with a light touch: 'objective', 'gentle,' 'sanitised,' and limited to 'acceptable' traumas. When middle-class Australians encounter stories of actual violence and complex struggles, it's often deemed impolite and inappropriate. This reaction is particularly pronounced when the victim is male; evidently, in 2024, the empathy gap toward men persists.

For the first time, I've also experienced what it feels like to face rejection at every turn in the publishing world. This confirmed two longstanding suspicions: I remain politically and ideologically 'homeless,' and discussions around uncomfortable sexual issues are still largely taboo in Australian society. Meanwhile, men are already being imprisoned under these new laws - laws they likely didn't even know existed - while the corporate media remains silent. I refuse to step back or give up. Instead, I'm doubling down! Rather than sitting on my hands and feeling sorry for myself, I have rewritten this article as I originally intended. Enough about me; let's get into the issues that matter.

Key Takeaways

Contrary to portrayals in mainstream media and alarmist political rhetoric, no authoritative data exists on the prevalence of stealthing in Australia or any other population globally.

In a recent survey on the criminalisation of stealthing in Australia, 85% of respondents could not correctly define the term.

No documented link exists between stealthing and domestic violence or intimate partner homicide.

The available research, though limited, suggests that stealthing is often an impulsive, opportunistic act, more common in casual sex encounters and characterised by selfishness and disrespect rather than premeditation.

Media coverage and government reports frequently exaggerate or misrepresent the prevalence and intent of stealthing.  Additionally, these sources often distort its impact, as victims themselves rarely describe the act as rape or report severe trauma.

Thus, the evidence used to justify Australia's harsh penalties for stealthing is, at best, tenuous.

Under the cover of the pandemic, most Australian states and territories quietly passed legislation classifying stealthing as rape. In doing so, they have imposed a maximum sentence of 25 years to life, the harshest penalty for this act globally and comparable to sentences for the worst offences, including violent rape, paedophilia, and murder.

Traditionally, stealthing referred to the act of removing or tampering with a condom during sex without consent. However, with the introduction of new affirmative consent laws, this definition has broadened; now, simply not wearing a condom could legally be classified as stealthing.

The lack of public discussion and awareness around these new laws and expanded legal definitions is concerning, raising valid questions about the transparency of the legislative process.

Although I consider stealthing a disrespectful act that deserves condemnation, I do not believe it equates to rape or warrants such severe prison sentences.

These new stealthing laws are part of a broader suite of highly subjective, complex, and opaque legal reforms being implemented across Australia. Collectively, they undermine fundamental principles of the Western legal system, such as the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Across Europe and the U.S., legal systems generally treat stealthing as a civil offence or impose penalties like community service or prison terms measured in months, not years.  

Yet women's advocacy groups in Australia have celebrated these punitive measures. Nadia Bromley, CEO of the Women’s Legal Service Queensland, called the legislation encompassing stealthing a “significant milestone" while noting, "There is much work left to do..." One cannot help but wonder if figures like Bromley will only feel 'safe' once all straight men are behind bars. 

Indeed, amidst continuous accusations of patriarchy, misogyny, toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and even stochastic terrorism, heterosexual men in Australia find themselves increasingly silenced in public discourse, often too intimidated to question or even defend themselves against laws such as these.

They have become convenient scapegoats for lazy and vindictive politicians who, rather than engaging in difficult, adult conversations with constituents, pursue what increasingly resembles a modern-day witch hunt. It took me a while to see this dynamic, but now that I have, it's impossible to ignore.

This targeting of men is having measurable impacts, as reflected in Australia's incarceration statistics. The overall adult incarceration rate has nearly doubled since 1967, and First Nations men are imprisoned at ten times the rate of the general population, with both figures climbing each year.

These alarming statistics are hardly surprising when weak, ideologically driven politicians in 2024 continue to operate under the simplistic assumption that, regardless of the offence, the solution is to "throw the book at them." This approach becomes especially concerning when paired with the mantra to "believe all women," arguably one of the most dangerous and oversimplified propaganda narratives ever promoted.

Australian politicians' preoccupation with imprisoning men while simultaneously ignoring the bad behaviour of women may explain why they opted against using the more neutral academic terms "Nonconsensual Condom Removal (NCCR)" or "Reproductive Coercion" to describe stealthing.

No doubt stealthing was chosen as the term du jour because of the implications of the word itself, i.e., sneaky, covert, and underhanded. Still, it's a curious move for Australian legislators and courts to adopt street slang more associated with the Urban Dictionary and gay sex apps than from the language of legal or academic discourse. 

Suppose the bar for discourse in government and the courts has now descended to the level of smut. In that case, this opens the door for equally offensive terms like "Sperm Thief", where a woman lies about her birth control status or "Pregnancy Trap", wherein a woman gets herself pregnant by poking holes in a condom or using expelled sperm.

If these pejorative terms make you uneasy, why is stealthing suddenly socially acceptable? It's arguably because the term targets male deception exclusively, neatly avoiding any potential for implicating female perpetrators.

This entire endeavour recks of a 'pet project' for a handful of spiteful but motivated politicians, academics, lobbyists and their sock puppets in the corporate media.

While the practice of stealthing likely dates back to the broader adoption of condoms in the 1950s, its emergence as a "practice of concern" began on American Ivy League campuses around 7-8 years ago, toward the tail end of the #MeToo movement^[1].

This reframing of stealthing is perhaps best exemplified by Alexandra Brodsky's widely cited 2016 article "Rape Adjacent," published in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Indeed, much of today's academic and policy discourse surrounding the criminalisation of stealthing traces back to the arguments introduced in this article.

Despite its 'seminal' status, it's worth noting that Brodsky was still a student at the time of its publication. As a result, the paper reads more like a tabloid exposé, a smutty piece of sexual gossip, than a rigorously researched, peer-reviewed study.

The evidence presented in this article is wafer-thin. By Brodsky's own admission, it relies on "...a handful of interviews with women about their experiences." I counted just four female participants, a sample size far too small to support reliable conclusions.

Beyond these interviews, Brodsky conducted an online textual analysis of anonymous internet forums and chatrooms. This means sifting through the internet, cherry-picking quotes from conversations people naively assume are private, and shaping them to 'fit' a particular agenda or narrative.

Indeed, many researchers understand that online environments often serve as spaces where individuals act out fantasies, whether that be 'bullying for power' or 'pulling for pleasure'. Consequently, such unverified content is handled with extreme caution, and many institutions question the ethics of using it as legitimate evidence.

Yet, Brodsky presents quotes from these forums as if they substantively prove the alleged prevalence and severity of stealthing. Brodsky waxes lyrically in this article and a subsequent CNN interview about "dark corners of the internet", where perpetrators brag about stealthing and share tips on how to get away with it.

One example is Brodsky's use of the following quote as evidence of a disturbing stealthing culture: "...how are you going to breed [and] spread one's seed?". Along with others, this quote is cited to illustrate the depravity of stealthing perpetrators. Yet one crucial detail overlooked by the media is that this particular "online sub-community of perpetrators" consisted entirely of gay men.

Yes, that's right, some of the most famous lines from arguably the most renowned article on stealthing are men talking about stealthing other men. Brodsky also quotes "online writers" whose comments are so vile I won't repeat them here, and this time, the authors are women advocating for men's right not to use condoms.

This article is a complete car crash riddled with unsupported generalisation and scant hard evidence. For example, one of the first claims Brodsky makes is that stealthing is a "common practice" amongst young, sexually active people. However, when pressed for evidence of this claim in the CNN interview, Brodskyadmitted she "could not determine how often it happens".

Perhaps most damaging to the narrative is that none of the stealthing victims interviewed by Brodsky saw "the condom removal as equivalent to sexual assault".

Remarkedly, each of these women had previously experienced rape yet did not equate stealthing with sexual violence. Thus, as Brodsky concludes in the article and later reiterated on CNN, a civil rather than criminal approach is preferable for addressing stealthing cases,

There are survivors who find meaning in the criminal justice system...but I think that for many, the chance to have control over a case, to stand up in court, to receive financial restitution from the person who wronged them can be very meaningful to them.

In other words, the victims wanted money rather than criminal prosecution. 

In summary, this highly cited paper was authored by a student who interviewed a handful of women, most of whom had been previously raped and did not believe stealthing was sexual assault.

These women, along with Brodsky, argued against criminalisation and instead favoured civil avenues for compensation. The so-called online "sub-communities of perpetrators" cited by the media, politicians and lobbyists include predominantly women and homosexual men.

It is inconceivable that this article continues to be referenced as the seminal work that ignited efforts to criminalise stealthing across the Western world and, now in Australia, may lead to men facing prison sentences of 25 years to life.

This article isn't academic research; it's advocacy journalism.

The misrepresentation of evidence does not end with the Brodsky article. The second piece of evidence cited to portray stealthing as a major societal evil warranting immediate criminalisation and lengthy prison sentences comes from a study conducted by Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

This 2018 study is the source of the oft-cited figures claiming that one in three women and one in five men who have sex with men in Australia have been victims of stealthing.

So, how did the authors arrive at these extraordinary figures? The answer becomes clear upon reading the article's abstract, which reveals that the study was conducted in a sexual health clinic located in central Melbourne, frequented by men who have sex with men and female sex workers. Right...

Also, when calculating the total number of people who had been stealthed, this 'landmark' study included victims who "discontinued sex once the condom had been removed".

So, to clarify, individuals who had not actually been stealthed were included in the number of people who had been stealthed because, somehow, the potential of being stealthed is close enough, or should I say 'adjacent', to actually being stealthed?!

Additionally, the entire dataset relied on subjective victim accounts, a method of data collection that only makes sense in an environment where the so-called 'lived experience' of the survivor is prioritised above all else.

The study also found that women who had experienced stealthing were more likely to be current sex workers. Therefore, the claim that one in three women have been stealthed in Australia may more accurately reflect that one in three female sex workers in Melbourne's CBD have experienced this, representing a much more niche population than we have been led to believe. 

Moreover, both male and female participants who reported experiencing stealthing were three times less likely to consider it sexual assault than those who had not been stealthed. 

These findings led the researchers to conclude that "... further investigation is needed into the prevalence of stealthing in the general population," while also supporting one of my overarching contentions: "Although increasingly discussed in international media, there is little scientific research on non-consensual removal of condoms, popularly termed ‘stealthing’."

So, similar to the Brodsky study, this research identifies a cohort of 'victims' who broadly do not recognise themselves as victims. The authors also emphasise the need for further research on the prevalence of stealthing in the general population. Also, like Brodsky, they refrain from making recommendations regarding criminalisation, citing a lack of scientific research in this area.

Finally, again, just as in Brodsky's findings, this article notes that gay men, particularly those with anxiety and depression, are more likely to experience stealthing. Yet, this fact is largely ignored by the various parties that have cited these papers to justify their calls for criminalisation.

A third piece of evidence repeatedly used to justify the criminalisation of stealthing is a poll conducted by RMIT University in conjunction with the political lobby group The Australia Institute, indicating that 4 in 5 Australians agree that stealthing should be a crime.

On the surface, this statistic appears to reflect strong community support for criminalisation. However, when you dig a little deeper, you discover that 65% of respondents admitted they were unfamiliar with the term. Further, of the 35% who claimed familiarity, only 15% correctly identified its definition.

It was reported that once 85% of participants unfamiliar with the term were informed of its definition, 81% supported making it illegal. Unfortunately for the pollsters, this research is a textbook example of participant bias.

Given the disrespectful nature and high 'icky' factor associated with stealthing, participants likely responded affirmatively to criminalisation based on their perception of what the researchers wanted to hear.

Moreover, the pollsters conveniently omitted a critical follow-up question:

Do you believe a sentence of 25 years to life is appropriate for this practice?

They were at least smart enough to avoid posing a question that could contradict their official narrative. Ultimately, a participant group of just 996 can hardly be regarded as representative of the Australian population.

The fourth most cited justification for the urgent need for these laws is the argument that Australia must catch up with the rest of the world, as similar laws have been in place in countries like Germany, America, Switzerland, and The Netherlands for years.

I've never understood Australia's desperate desire to blindly and obediently follow the rest of the western world. Time and again, we witness this craven need to 'fit in' on the international stage.

Unfortunately, this desire to impress and 'be seen' often results in excessive measures that adversely affect citizens, as we witnessed during the pandemic, and it is happening again here.

However, what politicians and the media do not want the public to know is that prison sentences and punishments overseas are nowhere near as severe as those in Australia.

For example, in a landmark trial in The Netherlands in 2023, a Dutch man became the first person convicted of stealthing, but not of rape, as the judge ruled that the sex was consensual. The man received a three-month suspended sentence.

In Germany's first stealthing trial in 2018, another man was similarly cleared of rape and given an eight-month suspended sentence.

In Switzerland in 2017, a man became the first to be found guilty of rape for removing a condom during sex without consent; however, upon appeal, the charge was downgraded to defilement, and he received a 12-month suspended sentence.

In 2021, California became the first state in America to outlaw stealthing. However, the state amended the civil code to allow individuals to sue rather than adding it to the criminal code. The legislators responsible for this amendment cited Brodsky's article as their inspiration. It never ends.

Keep in mind that the penalty for stealthing is 25 years to life in most jurisdictions across Australia. Much like the country's response to COVID-19, Australia once again finds itself completely out of step with the rest of the western world.

Finally, the most frequently cited evidence for the new Queensland stealthing laws comes from the four reports and associated publications produced by the Women's Safety and Justice Taskforce, established by the Queensland State Labor Government, which operated from 2021 to early 2024.

These reports, totalling over 1000 pages, provide an incredibly dense read. They were written based on first-person submissions from 250 victims and survivors of sexual assault.

Additionally, 79 consultations were conducted with 'stakeholder groups,' meaning they spoke with lobbyists and activist organisations whose livelihoods and incomes, often in the mid-to-high six-figure range, are perversely dependent on women's ongoing suffering.

Interestingly, stealthing was not mentioned in the first or second reports, despite the first report's focus on coercive control. This omission is significant because the stealthing legislation is part of broader coercive control measures in Queensland.

While there is a brief mention of stealthing in one of the discussion papers, it is mainly definitional. However, it also includes an acknowledgement from The Queensland Law Reform Council (QLRC) that stealthing is a "concerning practice."

Despite this, the QLRC did not recommend amending the Criminal Code to address:

...specific circumstances where the defendant sabotages or removes a condom without consent.

Instead, they concluded that:

...the moral culpability of an offender who obtains sexual consent by fraud or misrepresentation is different to the moral culpability of an offender who forces another person to participate in sexual activity against their free will...

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the final nail in the coffin.

The QLRC argues that stealthing is not rape. Further, if it is to become an offence, they recommend including it in the existing legislation under procuring sex by coercion, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. While still excessive, this is much more appropriate than the proposed 25 years to life, which is utterly preposterous. The perniciousness of these new laws becomes even more apparent when combined with the introduction of new affirmative consent legislation.

New consent laws require a discussion about condom use every single time; it is not a one-off conversation. Even if one party changes their mind just once, that can now be classified as rape.

This change arises from a subtle modification in the legal definition of consent that was quietly implemented during the pandemic. Previously, consent was broadly understood as "...being freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to give it". However, it is now generally defined as "...a free, voluntary, and informed agreement between people to participate in a sexual act".

Note that 'given' has been replaced with 'informed agreement,' indicating that consent now requires discussion and affirmative agreement before engaging in anything constituting sexual activity.

Yes, that implies that if you change positions, you need to obtain consent, as these laws explicitly state that "sexual consent can never be assumed and involves ongoing and mutual communication and decision-making between each person involved".

These laws appear to have been enacted by individuals who have never experienced true passion, as nothing kills the mood quite like having to ask, "Can I please kiss you?", "Can I please hold your hand?" "Can we remove our clothes?" "Can we please change positions?"

The ambiguity of this definition of consent, combined with the harsh prison terms for men accused under these new laws, has antidotally led some to take the extraordinary step of having potential sexual partners sign contracts of agreement prior to any intimacy or even filming all sexual encounters as proof of consent.

Given that these laws apply to every sexual encounter, whether it’s a one-night stand or a married couple of over 25 years, the maliciousness of these regulations becomes painfully clear.

Every divorce lawyer across the land must be positively licking their lips at the myriad possibilities these new laws present.

Of course, condoms are also prone to ripping and breaking. Indeed, the act of removing a condom from its packet and placing it on is subject to human fallibility, especially in situations that are often characterised as rushed, heated and, for many men, high-pressure. Yet, these human and product-related issues fall neatly within the provision of "...interfering with a condom".

Worse still, legislation already in place in the ACT has broadened the definition of stealthing to include anyone not wearing a condom. The law states, "The Act makes it illegal to remove a condom during sex or not wear a condom unless it was previously agreed upon".

Thus, not wearing a condom is considered stealthing, even if your partner never requested you to put one on. Unless you explicitly request permission NOT to wear a condom, it is deemed stealthing and, in most states of Australia, can now be classified as rape. It is no accident that the responsibility for all these actions falls solely on men.

Ironically, in the age of the 'girl boss', these new laws suggest that women in Australia are virginal damsels in distress, devoid of agency or accountability, and so weak, confused, and vulnerable that they require state protection.

But at what cost?

When introducing the legislation that incorporated the stealthing law, Yvette D'ath, former Minister for Women and the Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence remarked that interfering with or tampering with a condom without someone's knowledge or consent "...strikes at the heart of a person's right to bodily autonomy and their right to choose...".

However, D'Ath showed little regard for bodily autonomy or a woman's right to choose when she supported Queensland's COVID-19 vaccine mandates, resulting in the dismissal of thousands of nurses, health care workers, and aged care workers.

Furthermore, her government implemented a "disciplinary penalty" that docked the pay of Queensland teachers who refrained from getting the COVID-19 vaccine by $25-$90 a week for 18 weeks.

Since approximately 93% of nurses, 86% of health and aged care workers, and 72% of teachers in Queensland are female, women were disproportionately affected by D'Ath's coercive control measures.

Given that a lack of financial independence is a significant factor contributing to why women remain in households where weak men commit appalling acts of domestic violence, I would argue that politicians like D'ath have done more to harm the women across Queensland than stealthing ever will.

Thus, the notion that politicians like Yvette D'ath are fighting for women is profoundly misguided and evil.

Moreover, feminists often point their fingers of blame at men and so-called patriarchal institutions for ignoring their suffering for years. Yet, Queensland had a female premier from 2015 to 2023, who at one point led Australia's first female majority government and leadership team.

As Queensland is the only state parliament in Australia without an upper house, this female majority could have passed any legislation necessary to protect all women.

Instead, they governed precisely like their predecessors, making decisions based on maximising their power and financial position.

As the crimes for which we lock men up become increasingly punitive, politicians seeking to appear tough on crime are stupidly sending thousands of new potential recruits into the hands of crime networks and syndicates. As outlined in a 2020 report by the Australia Institute of Criminology,

recruitment in organised criminal groups... often involves imprisonment, which can favour the establishment of contacts, social relations and opportunities for recruitment into organised criminal groups.

Having a criminal record or facing an accusation can severely restrict a man's ability to interact with his children, travel and access credit and government services, including Centrelink and Medicare. These repercussions can persist for a lifetime, compounding the reputational damage experienced by anyone accused or convicted.

The truth is that when you are publicly labelled a rapist and placed on the sexual offenders register as a result of these laws, many men will be left with few options other than relying on family support, suicide, or turning to organised crime.

This is illustrated by the case of a young 21-year-old chef from Wollongong, who was sentenced to two years in prison for removing a condom while engaging in sex with a BDSM sex worker. In media reportsabout this incident, he was repeatedly referred to as a rapist. This sets a troubling precedent.

While his actions were undoubtedly disrespectful, I believe they do not equate to rape. As highlighted in the international cases mentioned earlier, consent for penetration was given.

What we are addressing here is an unplanned, opportunistic act, marked by the young man's admission that he did it because he was struggling to maintain an erection inside the condom. Now, he will be forever branded a rapist and most likely placed on the sexual offenders list for the rest of his life. 

I hesitated to include the following section because I prefer not to discuss my personal life in my writing. However, in this instance, I believe it is necessary to explain why this issue has triggered me so acutely. After wrestling with this decision for over six months, I've realised that sharing this context strengthens my argument.

As a naive, trusting 18-year-old, I attended my first-ever job interview. Understandably, I was incredibly nervous, as this would be my first 'real' job, and I desperately needed it. At that time, I was living in a different state from my family; I was broke and trying to sustain myself on a pack of rice cakes each day.

The two men interviewing me seemed nice and asked a lot of questions, a few of which, in hindsight, were quite personal, but overall, I thought it went well. So, well, they invited me to dinner afterwards.

I naively assumed it was to celebrate my getting the job. It was late when we finished, and since I lived an hour away, I accepted their offer of a bed in their spare room. Though something felt a bit 'off,' I was exhausted and wanted them to like me enough to hire me.

Words can scarcely capture the brutality of what unfolded the following day. I awoke to find myself trapped in their house. I frantically searched every room, desperate to find a way out. However, all the windows and doors were key-locked shut. I was shaking so violently I could barely stand.

At that moment, it dawned on me that I had no idea who these men were, why they were doing this, what they wanted from me, or if I would ever be free again.

I will never forget how calm they remained. They were simply eating breakfast and drinking coffee, as though holding someone captive in their home was the most ordinary thing in the world. They remained utterly unmoved by my suffering, pleas, and bargaining.

I was completely defenceless; I didn't know if I would survive, and that was when something shifted (or snapped) in my psyche. I lost something at that moment, something I still can't fully articulate.

There I stood, terrified, crying, pleading to be set free, and yet, these men were somehow sexually aroused. I was then picked up, stripped, pinned down and raped repeatedly. I had never had sex before, so I could barely comprehend what was happening to me.

Strangely, I felt nothing; it was as though I was a silent spectator in the corner, watching events unfold rather than experiencing the horrors firsthand. I understand this response is relatively common.

This law has impacted me deeply because politicians and activists are categorising the behaviour of men, like the young man in NSW who, in a split second, made a poor decision, in the same category as the monsters I just described.

To equate stealthing with rape, to label it 'rape adjacent,' to treat it as if it's the same or even close to the violence of rape, is to spit in my face; it belittles my lifetime of suffering and loneliness, as well as the suffering of many other men, women and trans people who have endured similar horrors, often at a younger age.

This isn't me shrugging and saying, 'Boys will be boys'; it's an acknowledgement that, with laws like this, politicians, lobbyists and other self-interested parties have overreached.

As outlined repeatedly above, there is no solid empirical evidence supporting the introduction of these stealthing laws, nor is there justification for the disproportionate sentencing they entail.

The discomfort surrounding the subject matter and the deliberately foreboding name, drawn from street slang rather than established academia or legal frameworks, have allowed a handful of nasty activists and weak politicians to pass this dangerous law with little media attention, professional consultation, or public discussion.

Alternative approaches exist for addressing behaviours like stealthing, but they require the political will to move beyond the basic instinct to 'lock them up and throw away the key'.

I'm not holding my breath.

If this article has raised any issues for you, don't hesitate to get in touch with one of the following:

Mensline Australia: 1300 78 99 78

Lifeline (24 Hour): 13 11 14

Suicide Call Back Service: 1300 659 467

Beyond Blue:        1300 22 46 36

In an emergency, please call:

000-Australia   I   999-United Kingdom   I   911-United States   I   112-Europe

---

^[1] The #MeToo movement initially began as a grassroots effort to advocate for the millions of women in America and worldwide who experience sexual harassment, abuse, and assault in the workplace due to financial vulnerability. This mission differs significantly from Hollywood's later, more self-serving appropriations, which have come to define the movement in the public eye. For an authentic and harrowing account of the original #MeToo mission, listen to Jewel's appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, where she recounts how, before achieving fame, one of her bosses withheld her paycheck from her minimum-wage job, demanding sexual favours in exchange.