In recent years, the phenomenon known as “stealthing”—the nonconsensual removal of a condom during sexual intercourse by an intimate partner—has emerged from the shadows as a deeply traumatic and complex form of sexual violation. New research conducted by Shaimaa Khanam, a communication doctoral student and trained crisis counselor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, delves into the nuanced experiences of survivors navigating a societal landscape that often renders their trauma invisible. This emerging body of work reveals stealthing as a layered violation that transcends mere breach of consent, encompassing emotional turmoil and exposing victims to significant health risks without adequate systemic support.
Despite growing awareness, stealthing persists in a legally and socially ambiguous gray zone. While it exposes individuals to potential sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancies, survivors routinely find themselves grappling alone with the aftermath, lacking clear pathways for medical intervention or legal redress. Khanam’s in-depth interviews with 15 women who have survived stealthing bring forward raw, firsthand narratives that illuminate the emotional and physical consequences often minimized by society’s failure to categorize or recognize the offense fully.
Published in Communication Monographs, the research contributes critical insight into how stealthing aligns with other recognized forms of sexual violence, yet remains marginalized in public discourse and legal frameworks. A pertinent 2025 study cited by Khanam estimates that as many as 43% of women and 19% of men report experiences where a condom was removed without consent, underscoring the pervasiveness of the issue across demographic categories. Survivors, much like those of sexual assault, struggle not only with the violation itself but with the absence of language, validation, and support systems necessary for healing.
A prominent theme in the study is the cultural environment often described as a “rape culture,” wherein sexual violations become normalized or discounted, rendering survivors uncertain about what constitutes a violent encounter. Khanam notes the insidious consequence of this cultural inertia: survivors’ intense emotional responses are frequently met with indifference or disbelief, leading to self-doubt and internalization of guilt. Such societal dynamics perpetuate a cycle of silence and self-management, reinforcing the notion that these experiences are not “big deals” but rather discrete incidents survivors must navigate privately.
Physiological and psychological responses to stealthing further affirm the seriousness of the violation. Participants recounted feelings of shock, fear, and a primal urge to escape—responses rooted in the body’s neurological and emotional systems registering the breach of consent. These reactions challenge cultural tendencies to downplay stealthing, positioning it within the realm of recognized sexual violence and emphasizing the critical need for acknowledgment and intervention.
The emotional terrain following the violation is marked by contradictory feelings; initial shock often gives way to anger, which survivors commonly suppress or redirect due to social expectations. This internal conflict mirrors broader societal discomfort around addressing stealthing explicitly, as survivors face the daunting challenge of framing their experience within acceptable narratives. Khanam’s concept of “social calibration” captures how survivors carefully gauge their own bodily reactions alongside the responses of those they confide in, negotiating meaning in a context lacking clear validation guidelines.
Communication strategies among survivors tend to reflect attempts at emotional self-protection. The interviewed women predominantly used factual, detached language when discussing the incident, as if testing whether their audience would recognize the severity of the violation without precipitating vulnerability. This linguistic distancing serves as a pragmatic method to maintain control while probing for empathetic engagement or denial from their confidants, highlighting the social complexity surrounding disclosure and support.
Compounding survivors’ struggles are the responses of medical personnel to stealthing disclosures. Many reported interactions characterized by detachment, impatience, or dismissiveness, which not only fail to address potential health consequences but also contribute to secondary victimization. The lack of institutional acknowledgment amplifies survivors’ isolation and undermines trust in healthcare systems designed to assist them. This gap in appropriate clinical response underscores the urgent need for revised protocols and enhanced training.
The reluctance to employ the label “rape” in describing stealthing experiences emerges as a significant psychological barrier. While the term carries undeniable weight and legal implications, it simultaneously threatens to disrupt survivors’ relational dynamics and self-conceptions by casting trusted partners as perpetrators. Participants therefore gravitated towards terms like “violations,” which both recognize the breach of autonomy and preserve interpretive flexibility. Khanam argues that this linguistic nuance should inform both clinical practice and advocacy efforts to better accommodate survivors’ complex realities.
Building on these findings, the research advocates for the adoption of the broader term “sexual violations” to encompass stealthing and similar ambiguous experiences. This reframing promises to expand access to tailored physical and mental health services without necessitating immediate engagement with the criminal justice system, which can be retraumatizing. Such an inclusive terminology aligns service provision with survivors’ linguistic preferences and lived experiences, fostering pathways for healing and risk mitigation.
The study further recommends that healthcare providers and peers receiving disclosures cultivate communication techniques emphasizing autonomy, validation, and openness to ambivalence. Survivors indicated that expressions of genuine concern for their emotional and physical safety, without pressing for definitive labels, create a supportive environment conducive to processing trauma. These findings hold particular significance for developing peer support frameworks, clinical guidelines, and public health interventions sensitive to the subtle dynamics of sexual violations often overlooked.
Expert commentary from Cabral Bigman-Galimore, an Illinois communication professor and Khanam’s doctoral advisor, accentuates the study’s timely contribution to health communication scholarship. The research not only advances an understudied domain within sexual violence discourse but also signals meaningful implications for healthcare, public policy, and societal attitudes surrounding bodily autonomy and consent. As stealthing gains legislative recognition—including California’s 2021 statute classifying it as civil sexual battery and proposed federal legislation—the study’s communication-focused insights become increasingly vital.
Legislative moves reflect an evolving understanding of stealthing’s significance. California’s law facilitates civil claims against perpetrators, while the 2025 Stealthing Act introduced in Congress aims to enable federal lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. These legal developments underscore shifting norms that prioritize survivor rights and accountability but also highlight the ongoing need for multidisciplinary approaches integrating legal, medical, and communicative strategies to address the multifaceted challenges stealthing poses.
Khanam’s pioneering work emerges as a clarion call to recognize stealthing as a distinct sexual violation warranting dedicated attention across societal domains. By unpacking the cognitive, emotional, and communicative processes survivors undergo, the research exposes the intricate interplay between personal trauma and broader cultural frameworks. Ultimately, it champions a survivor-centered praxis embracing complexity, linguistic sensitivity, and robust support mechanisms—imperatives critical for transforming stealthing from a hidden hazard into a publicly acknowledged and effectively addressed violation.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Between consent and coercion: A grounded theory of meaning-making and communication after ambiguous sexual violations
News Publication Date: 16-Mar-2026
Web References:
- DOI link
- 2025 study on stealthing prevalence
- California stealthing law
- The Stealthing Act of 2025 – H.R.3084
Keywords: sexual violations, stealthing, consent, sexual violence, communication, survivor support, health risks, legal reform, emotional trauma, bodily autonomy, health communication, interpersonal communication
