The Dildo as a Transformative Political Tool: Feminist and Queer Perspectives
- 861 Downloads
Censorship in patriarchal cultures runs deep in pushing dialogues and discussions on sexuality and sexual desires underground. The forbidden nature of these conversations is tighter around women and girls. With the inadequacy of affirmative and safe spaces to talk about sexual desire and pleasure, accessibility and availability of sex toys including dildos becomes significantly difficult, more so for women and other marginalized communities. Discussions about the dildo are further mired in debates between and among feminist and queer ideologies. In this paper, I look at how the dildo could be viewed simultaneously as a tool of oppression as well as of liberation and attempt to address the question: who does the dildo oppress and who does it liberate? I explore the multiple perspectives around the dildo within feminist thought and queer theory with special attention to points of convergence and divergence between them. While some predominant feminist perspectives understand the dildo as a symbol of the phallocentric order, there are others which view it as a tool for transformative politics. Queer theory also views the dildo as a device that can alter and shift traditional hierarchical relationships and be liberating not only for women but also for several marginalized identities including people with disabilities and people living with HIV. Unwrapping some of the ways in which the dildo is perceived, understood and experienced, I suggest that the dildo needs to be interpreted in complex and multi-layered ways.
KeywordsDildo Queer theory Feminist theory Sexuality Gender Women
The author would like to thank Dr. Hadley Z Renkin for his extensive inputs and encouragement in the initial stages of this paper, Alankaar Sharma for giving pertinent feedback especially on questions of (dis)privileges related to identity positions, and the anonymous reviewers for their words of motivation and useful feedback. Any errors are author’s own.
- Deka, K. (2005). Durex is fine but is India ready for sex toys? The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2005-11-24/news/27497533_1_toys-indians-durex.
- Ghai, A. (2007). The bigger picture: Sexuality and disability. In Plainspeak, Issue 4. Retrieved from http://tarshi.net/asiasrc/plspk/inplainspeak.asp.
- Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kapur, R. (2001). Postcolonial erotic disruptions: Legal narratives of culture, sex, and nation in India. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 10(2), 333–384.Google Scholar
- Phadke, S. (2005). Some notes towards understanding the construction of middle-class urban women’s sexuality in India. In G. Misra & R. Chandiramani (Eds.), Sexuality, gender and rights: Exploring theory and practice in South and Southeast Asia (pp. 67–81). New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
- Rich, A. (1984). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In T. Darty & S. Potter (Eds.), Women-identified women (pp. 119–148). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
- Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–318). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Smith, S. (2002). Bend over boyfriend 2: Feminist sexual representation and social change. (Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University). Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Smith%20Sarah%20Anne.pdf?osu1230662947.
- TARSHI. (2010). Sexuality and disability in the Indian context. New Delhi: Author.Google Scholar