Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘You Do You’ Feminism: Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Women’s Perspectives on the Dildo

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Sexuality & Culture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Historically, feminists have engaged in a contentious debate about the dildo. Some assert that it is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy whereas others proclaim that it is a practical means of expressing lesbian, bisexual, and queer women’s sexuality. To gain some perspective into the current status of this debate, seven non-heterosexual women were interviewed about their attitudes toward dildos. Interviews were examined using inductive thematic analysis, and viewed through the lens of social constructionism. Rather than taking sides in the dildo debates, participants embraced a you do you ideology (i.e., there is no “right” or “wrong” answer when it comes to choosing whether to use or not use dildos). Three themes clustered around this overarching ideology: dildos are optional (à la carte dildo), meanings of dildos are contextually and phenomenologically determined (contextuality of the dildo), and dildos have theoretical implications (critically conscious queers). Participants’ eschewal of the binarized debate about the dildo may be entwined with changing understandings of feminist, gender, and queer theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We acknowledge that the number of participants we recruited for this study is small. However, Filiault, Drummond, and Smith (2008) note: “it is important to consider that qualitative research focuses on the depth of information provided by informants, rather than attaining a large sample size” (p. 328). Further, in relation to the lesbian, bisexual, and queer women in our research, a small N does not attenuate the “power of their experiences, and the value of their perspectives” (p. 329).

  2. Saskatchewan is a (primarily rural) prairie province, with an estimated population of 1,168,057 (Statistics Canada 2017). It should be noted that scant empirical attention has been directed at sexual minorities living in regions, such as Saskatchewan, that are far removed from the gay “meccas” of Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto.

  3. To situate ourselves in relation to this topic and the participants, the reader should be aware of the following points. The interviewer and first author of this paper is a genderqueer bisexual who is female in appearance, and has lived in Saskatchewan their entire life. The second author has lived in Saskatoon for approximately 7 years. She is cis-gendered, female in appearance, and has been a longstanding ally of LGBT communities. The final author is a gay, cisgendered man. He has conducted research on gay and lesbian persons since the late 1990s. Given the lived experiences of these authors, it is likely that a queer sensibility suffuses this research study.

  4. No participants reported being transgender themselves (a question that was not asked). While all participants identified as women, only one explicitly reported being cisgender.

References

  • Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73(7–8), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolsø, A. (2007). Approaches to penetration: Theoretical difference in practice. Sexualities, 10(5), 559–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, C. (1975). Not for lesbians only. In W. K. Kolmar & F. Bartkowski (Eds.), Feminist theory: A reader (4th ed., pp. 220–224). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callis, A. S. (2014). Bisexual, pansexual, queer: Non-binary identities and the sexual borderlands. Sexualities, 17(1/2), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics, 49(1), 56–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998). Constructionism: The making of meaning. In M. Crotty (Ed.), The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process (pp. 42–65). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, A. (2014). The dildo as a transformative political tool: Feminist and queer perspectives. Sexuality and Culture, 18, 688–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 666–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filiault, S. M., Drummond, M. J., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Gay men and prostate cancer: Voicing the concerns of a hidden population. Journal of Men’s Health, 5(4), 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzanka, P. R., Mann, E. S., & Elliott, S. (2016). The neoliberalism wars, or notes on the persistence of neoliberalism. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(4), 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamming, J. E. (2001). Dildonics, dykes and the detachable masculine. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(3), 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hird, M. J. (2000). Gender’s nature intersexuality, transsexualism and the ‘sex’/’gender’ binary. Feminist theory, 1(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaian, L., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Third wave feminisms. In N. Mandell (Ed.), Feminist issues: Race, class, and sexuality (5th ed., pp. 40–62). Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedt, A. (1970). The myth of the vaginal orgasm. In W. K. Kolmar & F. Bartkowski (Eds.), Feminist theory: A reader (4th ed., pp. 196–200). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, H. (2016). Intimate transactions: Sex toys and the discourse of second-wave feminism. Sexuality and Culture, 1(21), 96–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loe, M. (1998/1999). “Dildos in our toolboxes”: The production of sexuality at a pro-sex feminist sex toy store. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 43, 97–136.

  • Minge, J., & Zimmerman, A. L. (2009). Power, pleasure, and play: Screwing the dildo and rescripting sexual violence. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(2), 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, J. L. (1999). Genderfuck: The law of the dildo. Discourse, 15(1), 254–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In W. K. Kolmar & F. Bartkowski (Eds.), Feminist theory: A reader (4th ed., pp. 298–307). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (2002). A cock of one’s own: Getting a firm grip on feminist power. In M. L. Johnson (Ed.), Jane sexes it up: True confessions of feminist desire (pp. 293–309). New York: Avalon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2017). Saskatchewan quarterly population report [Data file]. Retrieved from http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/15/102077-QPR%202017%20Q3.pdf.

  • Wittig, M. (1978). The straight mind. In W. K. Kolmar & F. Bartkowski (Eds.), Feminist theory: A reader (4th ed., pp. 294–298). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N5A5, Canada

    Michaela Madraga, Elly-Jean Nielsen & Todd G. Morrison

Authors
  1. Michaela Madraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elly-Jean Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Todd G. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd G. Morrison.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animals Rights

Further, all data were collected in accordance with ethical stipulations for research involving human participants, as detailed in the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS 2, 2014).

Appendix

Appendix

We are interested in LBQ women’s perceptions of, and attitudes toward, the dildo. We will not directly ask any questions regarding your experience. This research is focused on attitudes and not behaviours, you are not required to mention any personal experiences you may have had with dildos. With this being said, you are more than welcome to bring in personal experience at any time, if you wish.

  1. 1.

    What are your general understandings of LBQ women and dildo use?

  2. 2.

    How would you describe the ways LBQ women use dildos?

  3. 3.

    What potential functions might the dildo serve for LBQ women?

  4. 4.

    Does using a dildo have benefits for LBQ women?

  5. 5.

    Does using a dildo have risks for LBQ women?

  6. 6.

    Does the dildo challenge norms based on gender (i.e., what it’s like to be male/female)?

  7. 7.

    Does the dildo challenge norms based on sexuality (i.e., what it’s like to be straight)?

  8. 8.

    Are there any reasons LBQ women would embrace using a dildo?

    • Probes: Are there sexual reasons for LBQ to embrace using a dildo?

    • Are there political reasons for LBQ to embrace using a dildo?

    • Are there social reasons for LBQ to embrace using a dildo?

  9. 9.

    Are there any reasons LBQ women would reject using a dildo?

    • Probes: Are there sexual reasons for LBQ to reject using a dildo?

    • Are there political reasons for LBQ to reject using a dildo?

    • Are there social reasons for LBQ to reject using a dildo?

  10. 10.

    Does the appearance of a dildo matter?

    • Probes: Does the colour of a dildo matter?

    • Does the shape of a dildo matter?

    • Does the texture of a dildo matter?

  11. 11.

    Does the placement of a dildo matter?

    • Probes: What does it mean if a dildo is held in the hand ?

    • What does it mean if a dildo is worn attached to the groin ?

    • What does it mean is a dildo is worn strapped to the thigh ?

  12. 12.

    I think I’ve asked you everything I intended to, is there anything else you’d like to add, or any final thoughts?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madraga, M., Nielsen, EJ. & Morrison, T.G. ‘You Do You’ Feminism: Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Women’s Perspectives on the Dildo. Sexuality & Culture 22, 1000–1018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9507-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9507-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation