Jump to content

Course:CSIS200/2025/The Internal Condom - A Symbol of Failed Sexual Liberation?

From UBC Wiki

The Internal Condom - A Symbol of Failed Sexual Liberation?

Introduction

In discussions about sexual liberation for young women, the concept of protection is often placed at the center. Protection from men, their "desires", as well as protection from pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), becomes a dominant theme. Virginity is framed as an ideal and the patriarchy works actively to sustain this notion. For instance, The Purity Myth: The Virginity Movement's War Agains Women highlights how restriction on access to birth control pills and emergency contraception (Plan B) have been used as means to control women.[1]

An internal condom

Movements aiming to destigmatize sexuality and promote sexual liberation offer an important counterforce. However, sexual violence[2][3], along with the persistent risks of STIs and pregnancy, continue to pose real threats to women. Freedom from these fears is necessary in order to achieve genuine sexual liberation.[4] Although condoms can offer protection during penetrative sex, they are frequently described as uncomfortable, inconvenient or used incorrectly by people with penises.[5]

Providing women and people with vaginas with alternative forms of protection, especially methods that prevent STIs and not only pregnancy, could reduce dependence on partners with penises, as well as benefit men who have sex with men.[6] The internal condom has the potential to offer such protection. Yet its limited use raises important questions: Why is it not widely adopted, and what does this reveal about gendered power relations and the control of sexual agency in contemporary sexual culture?

What is an Internal Condom?

The Internal Condom is a contraceptive tool which can be used for both STI-protection and pregnancy protection. An instruction for use can be seen in the video from Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa that you have to watch on youtube due to age restrictions.

How the internal condom sits in a vagina (CDC)

The Internal Condom was previously referred to as the "female condom", but in 2017 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a name change[7] (finalized in 2018[8]), in order to reflect its intended use for both vaginal and anal intercourse. The change was noted as a move toward more inclusive language - as Planned Parenthood wrote on their Facebook-page: "anyone, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, can use the internal condom."[9] However, this explicit inclusivity of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals was not addressed in the FDA's proposed name change.

However, it is important to recognize the significance of this name change. Although this wiki page focuses primarily on women's sexual liberation, it does not exist in a vacuum. When the internal condom was first approved and made available, it was also distributed among MSM communities, with information on how it could be used for protection during anal sex.[10] Anal intercourse is found to be the route of HIV transmission associated with highest risk.[11] This means that the internal condom is equally central to discussions of sexual liberations around non-heteronormative sex, beyond gendered sexual norms which is the main focus of this page.

STIs, HIV & AIDS

Statistics about AIDS Cases diagnosed and AIDS deaths per year

To better understand the current context of the internal condom, it is necessary consider its historical significance, which is closely tied to the HIV epidemic and the AIDS crisis. The first internal condom (then marked as the "female condom") was approved by the FDA in 1993 for both contraceptive use and HIV/STI prevention, specifically intended for situations "in which a male latex was not accessible".[12] At this time, the HIV/AIDS crisis was at its height, and barrier methods played a central role in public health responses.

Although gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) were initially blamed for the epidemic and believed to be the only group affected, women were also significantly impacted. Today, more than half of all people living with HIV are women, which highlights the urgent need for women-controlled methods of safer sex.[13] In 2000, Wingood and DiClemente published their influential article Applications of the Theory of Gender and Power to Examine HIV-Related Exposures, Risk Factors, and Effective Interventions for Women, which argues that women's vulnerability to HIV cannot be reduced solely to biological factors, but must also be understood through socioeconomic conditions, gendered power dynamics and behavioral constraints[14].

From a feminist perspective, the development of the internal condom represent an important intervention in the struggle for women's sexual autonomy. Unlike many traditional contraceptive methods, which primarily target women's bodies while still leaving decision-making power in the hands of male partners, the internal condom offers protection that women can initiate, control and discontinue independently. This shift challenges longstanding gendered power dynamics in sexual encounters, where women are often expected to prioritize men's preferences or comfort over their own safety[6]. In this sense, the internal condom not only functions as a barrier methods but also as a political tool that confronts the structural inequalities that limit women's agency in negotiating safer sex. Its very existence exposes how reproductive technologies are situated within broader struggles for bodily autonomy, gender equity and the right to self-determination.

Sexual revolution, liberation and freedom

A news article from 1992, explaining the new "female" condom.

Despite its potential, the internal condom also exposes deeper tensions within narratives of sexual liberation. Although it appears to be a valuable tool that could have helt significant historical importance within the HIV/AIDS-framework, it reaminas neither widely accessible nor commonly used. This raises a broader question: what forms of liberation are actually prioritized within the sexual revolution, and who is that liberation truly for?

The sexual revolution is often framed around the advent of modern contraceptives, most notably the oral contraceptive pill. Like the internal condom, the pill is a woman-controlled method. Yet its introduction in the 1960s was accompanied by concerns that removing the fear of pregnancy would leave women with fewer socially acceptable reasons to refuse sex with their husbands, effectively reinforcing men's entitlement ot sex within marriage. In reality, married women rarely possessed a socially or legally protected right to say no, while unmarried women who became pregnant were stigmatized as morally deviant. Even within the rhetoric of liberation, women's sexual desires along with their autonomy, remained largely irrelevant. The sexual revolution promised freedom, but much of the freedom was structured around men's access to women's bodies, rather than women's self-determination.[15] This connects to the internal condom, which is often promoted primarily for its practicality, although situated a few decades after the pill was put on the market.[16] However, there are other stories from this time as well. Carol Short tells us in the newsarticle Female condoms is ‘weird-looking’ but works pretty well, women say, when asked about sexual pleasure with the “female” condom – “They’re thin enough. They’re very sensitive.”[17] We cannot be sure Mrs Short talked about her own sexual pleasure, but it suggests that it played a role in her experience.

March on Washington for LGB Equal Rights and Liberation in 1993, from the year after same time as the newsarticle is from

In many narratives of sexual liberation, pleasure occupies a surprisingly marginal position. In addition to contraception, legal reforms and the reduction of stigma around premarital sex has been the main focus. These developments are undeniably important, but they tend to treat sexual freedom primarily as the removal of barriers to sex, rather than the creation of conditions in which women's pleasure is valued, recognized or even considered. A perspective that highlights that genuine liberation cannot be understood solely as increased sexual availability or the ability to avoid pregnancy, it must also include the right to experience pleasure on one's own term, as pleasure can be used as a measure of freedom.[18] Pleasure becomes political when women's sexual desires are viewed as legitimate, when their bodies are not reduced to sites of risk management, and when technologies like the internal condom are evaluated not only for their protective qualities but also for how they enable pleasurable, consensual, and autonomous sexual encounters.

Understanding sexual liberation through the lens of pleasure reveals that freedom is not simply the absence of constraints but the presence of possibility - possibility to desire, to refuse, to explore, and to define sexual experiences outside patriarchal expectations. This reframing challenges the assumption that liberation is achieved once women gain access to contraceptives. Instead, it suggests that pleasure must be recognized as a central component of sexual autonomy, and that tools like the internal condom can be part of expanding this autonomy by offering forms of protection that do not require women to compromise either safety or enjoyment.

Conclusions

The story of the internal condom, from its approval in 1993 as the "female condom" to its renaming as "internal condom", to its marginal position in global sexual health, reveals much about the limitations of current narratives of sexual liberation. At first, it seems to embody the promise of true sexual autonomy - a woman-controlled, non-hormonal, multipurpose method that offers protection against both unwanted pregnancy and STIs, including HIV. When looking deeper into this, decades of underuse is revealed, as well as under-promotion and structural neglect show that access to contraception does not automatically equate to empowerment.

The limited uptake of the internal condom illustrates how sexual liberation has often been defined in narrow terms: freedom from pregnancy, stigma, or legal constraints, but rarely as the right to pleasure, autonomy and control over one's own body. The previous discussions about gendered power dynamics, stigma around female pleasure and the disempowering within heterosexual norms all point to a deeper truth - liberation must be holistic. This means that it must encompass safety, together with pleasure, consent and agency. Therefore, rather than seeing the internal condom as merely a "backup" or "alternative" method, we should view it as a symbol of what sexual liberation could have been, and still could become. To realize that potential requires more than products, it demands political will, cultural change and a redefinition of sexual freedom that centers on bodily autonomy, equity and desire.

In this light, I conclude that the internal condom serves less as a failure, and rather as a mirror, reflecting how far we've come, and how far we still need to go.

About the author

Emma Alkbrant is a one-term exchange student at UBC from Sweden, currently taking this course in Critical Studies in Sexuality alongside courses in psychology. In Sweden, she is studying to become a medical doctor with two years remaining in her training, which helps explain her particular interest in the intersections between contraception and sexuality. Her passion for medicine is paired with an upbringing that emphasized open discussions and a commitment to understanding others' perspectives, as well as advocating for people who may not be able to advocate for themselves. In her future professional life, she hopes to work toward greater inclusivity, both in everyday doctor-patient interactions and on a broader structural level within the healthcare system.

References

  1. ↑ Earp, Jeremy (2015). "The Purity Myth: The Virginity Movement's War Against Women". Media Education Foundation.
  2. ↑ Government of Canada (2024-05-03). "Infographic: Sexual violence". Government of Canada.
  3. ↑ Fetner, Tina (2024). "Conclusion: Sex in Canada". Sex in Canada: The Who, Why, When, and How of Getting Down Up North. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-7748-6952-2.
  4. ↑ Mancini, E. (2010). Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom : A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10426-6.
  5. ↑ Crosby, R.A.; Milhausen, R.R.; Mark, K.P; Yarber, W.L.; Sanders, S.A; Graham, C.A. (25 January 2013). "Understanding Problems with Condom Fit and Feel: An Important Opportunity for Improving Clinic-Based Safer Sex Programs". The Journal of Primary Prevention. 34: 109–115 – via Springer Nature Link.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Beutelspacher, Austreberta Nazar; Martelo, Emma Zapata; GarcÍa, VerÓnica Vázquez (2003). "DOES CONTRACEPTION BENEFIT WOMEN? STRUCTURE, AGENCY, AND WELL-BEING IN RURAL MEXICO". Feminist Economics. 9: 213–238 – via Taylor & Francis Library.
  7. ↑ Food and Drug Administration (November 28, 2017). "Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, To Be Renamed Single-Use Internal Condom". Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Register (Proposed order).
  8. ↑ Food and Drug Administration (September 21, 208). "Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Single-Use Female Condom, To Be Renamed Single-Use Internal Condom". Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Register (Final order).
  9. ↑ Planned Parenthood (February 15, 2019). "Previously called the female condom the internal condom finally has a new name". Facebook: Planned Parenthood – via Facebook.
  10. ↑ "Internal Condoms Distributed in San Francisco". Adelaide Gay Times. Mar. 15, 1996. Retrieved Dec 3, 2025. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ↑ Public Health Agency of Canada (2012). HIV TRANSMISSION RISK: A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE. pp. III. ISBN 978-1-100-21582-2.
  12. ↑ Tross, Susan; Exner, Theresa (10 March 2018). "Female Condoms". Encyclopedia of AIDS. New York: Springer. pp. 551–557. ISBN 978-1-4939-7101-5.
  13. ↑ Alexander, K.A.; Coleman, C.L.; Deatrick, J.A.; Jemmott, L.S. (23 November 2011). "Moving beyond safe sex to women-controlled safe sex: a concept analysis". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 68: 1858–1869 – via Wiley Online Library.
  14. ↑ Wingood, GM.; DiClemente, RJ. (October 2000). "Application of the Theory of Gender and Power to Examine HIV-Related Exposures, Risk Factors, and Effective Interventions for Women". Health Education & Behavior. 27 (5): 539–565 – via SageJournals.
  15. ↑ Cook, Hera (2005). "Introduction". The long sexual revolution: English women, sex, and contraception, 1800-1975. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199252183.
  16. ↑ Helmore, Kristin (July 1, 2010). "Empowering Women to Protect Themselves: Promoting the Female Condom in Zimbabwe". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved Dec 3, 2025.
  17. ↑ Alvarado, Donna (April 22, 1992). "Female condoms is 'weird-looking' but works pretty well, women say". San Jose Mercery News. Retrieved Dec 3, 2025.
  18. ↑ brown, a.m. (2019). "Introduction". Pleasure Activism : The Politics of Feeling Good. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-84935-326-7.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CSIS200/2025/The_Internal_Condom_-_A_Symbol_of_Failed_Sexual_Liberation%3F&oldid=880348"