Advertisement

Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 688–703 | Cite as

The Dildo as a Transformative Political Tool: Feminist and Queer Perspectives

  • Arpita DasEmail author
Review

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Dildo Queer theory Feminist theory Sexuality Gender Women 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Bolso, A. (2007). Approaches to penetration: Theoretical difference in practice. Sexualities, 10(5), 559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. Fahs, B., & Swank, E. (2013). Adventures with the “plastic man”: Sex toys, compulsory heterosexuality, and the politics of women’s sexual pleasure. Sexuality and Culture, 17(4), 666–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Findlay, H. (1992). Freud’s “fetishism” and the lesbian dildo debates. Feminist Studies, 18(3), 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ghai, A. (2007). The bigger picture: Sexuality and disability. In Plainspeak, Issue 4. Retrieved from http://tarshi.net/asiasrc/plspk/inplainspeak.asp.
  6. Hamming, J. E. (2001). Dildonics, dykes and the detachable masculine. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(3), 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Lavie-Ajayi, M. (2009). Social representations of female orgasm. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(1), 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCaughey, M., & French, C. (2001). Women’s sex toy parties: Technology, orgasm and commodification. Sexuality and Culture, 5(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Minge, J., & Zimmerman, A. L. (2009). Power, pleasure and play: Screwing the dildo and rescripting sexual violence. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(2), 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. TARSHI. (2010). Sexuality and disability in the Indian context. New Delhi: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Walters, S. D. (1996). From here to queer: radical feminism, postmodernism, and the lesbian menace (or, why can’t a woman be more like a fag?). Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 21(4), 830–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations