A UK survey of young people’s views on condom removal during sex

Aim and Objectives

Aim: To explore young people’s views in the UK on the morality and criminality of non-consensual condom removal (NCCR).

Objectives:

1. To examine how different scenarios of NCCR affect young people’s views on its violation of consent to sex.

2. To explore how NCCR scenarios, varied by negative health outcomes for women and relationship status, affect young people’s views on the morality and criminality of NCCR.

3. To assess whether young people’s views on NCCR are associated with their socio-demographic characteristics.

Methodology

A quantitative approach was adopted to determine the prevailing views on NCCR among young people which can guide future awareness campaigns, support services, and legislation addressing NCCR. A survey was designed and delivered online using Qualtrics. There were two eligibility criteria for survey participation: age between 18-25 and residence in the UK.

Sampling and Recruitment

Convenience sampling was used as a time-efficient recruitment method. Participants were recruited via printed flyers distributed on the UCL campus and through social media channels. A post containing the survey link was shared on personal social media accounts. An Instagram account was set up for the study where the survey link was easily accessible to the public. A paid Instagram advertisement, funded by UCL, was launched to boost the survey reach.

Survey Design

This study explored young people’s views on several aspects of NCCR: violation of consent to sex, morality, and criminality. Criminality was further subdivided into criminal status – whether NCCR is a form of sexual assault or not – and penalty – whether NCCR perpetrators should face prison time or not. Views were the dependent variables investigated through two independent variables: post-NCCR negative health outcomes for women and relationship status. The survey questionnaire was divided into two sections: NCCR scenarios and socio-demographic questions.

NCCR Scenarios

The first section included two fictional scenarios adapted from Nguyen et al. [19]. Scenario A, or the Outcome scenario, focused on negative health outcomes for women. Scenario A1 described an unplanned pregnancy whereas scenario A2 described depression. Scenario B, or the Relationship status scenario, focused on the nature of the relationship between the male and female partners involved in NCCR. Scenario B1 described a casual hook-up whereas scenario B2 described a long-term dating relationship. Scenario variations were randomized and participants received one variation of each scenario (Table 1).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1:

NCCR scenarios and their variations

Each scenario was followed by four multiple choice questions:

1. Did X have Y’s agreement to sex after he removed the condom without asking her?

2. Did X do something wrong when he removed the condom without asking Y?

3. Did X sexually assault Y when he removed the condom without asking her?

4. Should X serve time in prison for removing the condom without asking Y?

Question 1 addressed violation of consent to sex. To avoid using language that could lead respondents, the words ‘consent’ and ‘consensual’ were not included in any part of the survey. Instead, the phrase ‘without asking’ was used in scenarios and questions as recommended by Czechowski et al. [6]. Question 2 addressed the morality of NCCR while questions 3 and 4 focused on the criminality of NCCR (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Operationalization of study variables

Respondents could choose ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Not sure’ for all questions. Due to the sensitive, sexual nature of the scenarios, all questions were voluntary and respondents could skip any questions they did not wish to answer and still be able to continue the survey.

Pre-testing

Prior to the online launch of the survey, a pre-testing process was undertaken to optimize question clarity and comprehension. Six pre-testing interviewees were recruited on the UCL campus on 24 and 25 May 2023. All interviewees found the survey easy to understand and straightforward. Survey comprehension was satisfactory and no changes were made to the questions.

Data Collection

The survey was conducted from 30 May to 4 July 2023, over a five-week period. Collected data was stored on a password-protected Qualtrics account accessible to the researchers only. After the survey was closed, the data were exported for analysis.

Data Analysis

Survey responses with at least one answered question were included in the data analysis. Some respondents typed ages outside the target range; these responses were classified as ‘Age unclear’ but were not excluded as all respondents checked the consent tick box confirming they are aged 18-25, thus their responses were attributed to possible typing errors.

Chi-square tests were used to identify significant associations between scenario variations and participant views. Where the Outcome scenario was found to significantly affect views, a stratified Chi-square test was used to explore whether there was a framing effect of the Outcome scenario on the corresponding view in the Relationship status scenario.

Using STATA, unadjusted odds ratios of the dependent variables by socio-demographic characteristics were calculated and logistic regression modelling was performed to calculate adjusted odds ratios. Adjusted proportions are also presented. Due to the overwhelming agreement on questions 1 and 2, logistic regression modelling focused on questions 3 and 4 where meaningful associations could be identified. The dependent variable was coded 1 (yes) and 0 (no and no sure).

As a potential framing effect of the Outcome scenario on the penalty question in the Relationship status scenario had been identified, it was explored formally with an interaction term (S1 Table). Informed by this, we used a composite variable of received scenario combinations, i.e. A1+B1, A1+B2, etc in the final model (penalty views in the Relationship status scenario).

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee, ethics project ID: 24257/002. All participants in the study (pre-testing interviewees and survey participants) were fully informed of the aims and conditions of the study via Participant Information Sheets. The pre-testing interviewees completed and signed written consent forms in the presence of FE. Online survey participants were anonymous. As approved by the research ethics committee, survey participants were required to check four statements in order to continue to the survey questions. The four statements were: “I am aged 18-25”, “I live in the UK”, “I understand there will be questions about examples of sexual behaviour and condom use”, and “I understand that my answers will be anonymous”. The answering of survey questions implied consent, as is usual practice in the UK and as was approved by the research ethics committee.

Sample

There were 1818 survey responses to the online survey. Of those, 89 respondents checked the consent tick boxes without answering any survey questions; these responses were excluded from data analysis. The remaining 1729 responses were included in data analysis as they contained at least one answered question. The sample was predominantly female, cisgender, non-heterosexual, White, non-religious, and born in the UK (Table 2).

Survey Findings

Consent: It’s Complicated

Regardless of outcome or relationship status, the overwhelming majority of respondents believed that NCCR is a violation of consent to sex and morally wrong. This finding is consistent with Czechowski et al. [6] where almost all survey respondents believed NCCR is wrong, over half of whom cited lack of consent as the reason for their view.

Aligning with previous research [15], most respondents in our study viewed NCCR as sexual assault. Although almost all of our respondents confirmed that the male partner no longer had the female partner’s agreement to sex after NCCR, not as many viewed it as sexual assault. The gap between identifying violation of consent to sex and viewing NCCR as sexual assault could reflect a mismatch in young people’s understanding of consent, which has been previously observed [15].

Several UK-based efforts, such as the #Consentiseverything campaign [21], focus on explicit consent as the main criterion for sexual literacy. While obtaining verbal consent is deemed important, UK university students often find it awkward to openly discuss consent, preferring to negotiate it using non-verbal cues [22]. However, non-verbal consent can be unclear, and ambiguous consent has been linked to higher odds of sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students [23]. Therefore, current consent-centric campaigns are misaligned with the reality of sexual dynamics among young people and better sexual health awareness focused on context-specific and conditional consent is needed.

Constructing Criminality

In agreement with previous research [6,15], female respondents in our study were more likely to view NCCR as sexual assault. One possible explanation for this finding may be that more women experience NCCR compared to men and are in turn more negatively affected by it [6,7,16]. Similarly, respondents who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were more likely to view NCCR as sexual assault compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Such increased awareness could be due to the fact that, not unlike women, sexual minorities are disproportionately affected by sexual assault [24–26].

Despite this, experiencing NCCR does not always correspond to acknowledging sexual assault. Research shows that, compared to those who have not experienced NCCR, victims are less likely to view NCCR as sexual assault [16]. Aversion to acknowledge victimization [27], concerns about the negative impact of the sexual assault label [28], and emotional attachment to sexual partners [4,29] can act as barriers for victims to acknowledge sexual assault.

Respondents born in the UK were more likely to view NCCR as sexual assault which could be attributed to the rise of UK sexual assault awareness campaigns targeting young people. For example, the 2014 ‘I Heart Consent’ campaign [30] entailed the delivery of consent workshops in 20 UK universities where attendees were able to better discuss sexual consent.

Consequences and Conundrums

This study was the first of its kind to investigate views on prison as a penalty for NCCR. Previous research on mandating consequences for NCCR show a supportive majority [6]. Ambivalent or oppositional views were significantly higher in our study which could be attributed to the specificity and severity of prison time as well as cultural differences between study populations.

Over half of the respondents supported prison time if the female partner got pregnant but that support dropped by almost 10% if she became depressed. This difference shows that pregnancy is perceived as a more serious consequence warranting legal penalty. Conditional support for consequences based on outcome, usually pregnancy, has been previously noted [6]. In Britain, unplanned pregnancy is most common among young people [31] and 40% of women who use emergency contraception cite condom failure as their main reason to do so [32]. This further emphasizes NCCR as a women’s health issue. In cases where victims do not discover they have been stealthed, their reproductive health is compromised as they are unable to procure emergency contraception and are therefore at a higher risk of unplanned pregnancy.

Respondents were less likely to support prison if the partners were part of a long-term dating relationship compared to a casual hook-up. This is echoed by some participants in Czechowski et al. [6] whose views on legal consequences for NCCR were influenced by relationship status. Current research shows that NCCR often occurs in casual or short-term relationships [9,10,14], however the surreptitious nature of NCCR and existing trust between couples may lead to underreporting in stable relationships. Sexual crime scenarios where victim and perpetrator know each other are perceived as less severe, resulting in lower rates of crime reporting and punishment severity [33,34], thus impeding sexual justice for women in long-term relationships. On the other hand, women outside stable relationships are also at high risk. Women who have multiple sexual partners and those in short-term relationships are more likely to experience both unplanned pregnancy [31] and NCCR [9,10,14], consequently they are particularly vulnerable to reproductive health problems and sexual assault victimization.

Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to support prison as a penalty. This gendered effect is a novel finding as previous research had not shown differences in such views [6], although female jurors are more likely to convict defendants in sexual assault and rape cases [35,36]. Non-heterosexual respondents were also more likely to support prison time which aligns with this population’s higher tendency to recognize sexual assault as discussed earlier.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. The use of a non-random convenience sample, dominated by university students and Instagram users, limits the generalizability of the results to the general population of young people aged 18-25. Additionally, the majority of the study population was White and cisgender, further reducing result generalizability to ethnic and gender minorities who are understudied in NCCR research. Nevertheless, this was the first UK study to cover views on NCCR. Its quantitative approach and large sample size offer valuable insight to begin to address research gaps in this area.