Monthly Archives: May 2012

This Vibrator Wants to Replace Your Boyfriend

LadyHug Vibrator

Introducing Your Vagina’s New Best Friend: The LadyHug Vibrator
Image from

Women’s sex toys are capable of terrifying the most secure man in the world. They’re  candy-colored, hairless devices that vibrate and pulsate with an intensity that no man can achieve with any part of his body. The human penis looks wildly unimaginative in comparison. Sex toys are proof  that intelligent design does not exist. If we really had an intelligent designer, men’s penises would wiggle in five million directions, their testicles would vibrate, and they’d ejaculate White Mystery Airheads candy. And, yes, with that sentence I’ve just put an end to all theological debate. You’re welcome.

So along comes men’s biggest nightmare: the LadyHug, the empathetic vibrator that not only improves upon the penis but also gives the vagina emotional fulfillment. Fortunately for men, the LadyHug can’t quite pull off this persona. It’s marketed as a sex toy that “hugs” and “embraces,” but never “fucks.” A bright red palm-sized device that looks like a bargain-basement robot’s flying vagina, the LadyHug has tiny “paddled arms” that are designed to grasp the labia and clitoris and multiple downloadable vibration patterns so that a woman’s vagina never gets bored.The LadyHug “snuggles up as close as it can get while it vibrates.” And it’s also designed to bolster your self-esteem. “LadyHug is as intuitive and ever-changing as the female it satisfies,” the company proudly declares. Meanwhile, the vibrator itself looks like an alien weapon from BattleshipI can imagine it developing “intuition” and tearing off the clitorises of all human females in an attempt to build the universe’s most powerful pleasure device.

The problem with the LadyHug’s marketing campaign is that it miscalculates in its use of female stereotypes. I don’t want my vibrators to compassionately copulate with me. If I wanted to be made love to, I’d become a feminist juggler in a Marxist clown troop, since they’re the only demographic who makes love anymore. Women don’t want to be friends with their vibrators. They don’t want their vibrators to compliment them or tell them that they look skinny in their new outfit. They don’t want their vibrators to be gentle or cuddly. They want them to be sexy and edgy and give them the best orgasms of their lives. The LadyHug assumes that every woman’s clitoris is a timid organ that needs to be gently coaxed into orgasm. But the clitoris doesn’t need platitudes. It needs to be dominated. And the poorly named LadyHug isn’t up to the task.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Vibrate Your Clitoris Like It’s 1895

Jimmyjane uses vibrator history to sell its products

Jimmyjane uses vibrator history to sell its products.
Image from Jimmyjane’s website.

With a jar of Speculoos cookie butter in one hand and a Pink Lady apple in the other, I sat down and read Andy Isaacson’s Atlantic Monthly article on vibrator design, expecting to be disappointed. Instead, I was elated. It renewed my hope that within the next five years, we will be living in a dildo-themed utopia, similar to the one depicted in Nicholson Baker‘s House of Holes but minus the horrifying bubbly porn monster. The article is a biography of Ethan Imboden, the founder of the upscale Jimmyjane sex-toy company that sells 24-karat gold vibrators and ones created by high-end designers. Imboden’s goal is not just to sell sex toys but also to transform the cultural attitudes surrounding sex toys by introducing good design into the world of butt plugs and vibrators. I view him as a kindred spirit.

After reading the article, I decided to visit Jimmyjane’s website to peruse their newest products. Scrolling at the top of their page was an animation of a red curtain emblazoned with the logo for the Hysteria movie. The curtain opens and closes, revealing a link to a trailer for the movie on one side, and a link to their collection of Hysteria-themed vibrators on the other.

Even though Hysteria is filled with historic inaccuracies (which I detailed in an earlier post), I was thrilled to see this movie tie-in. No mainstream Hollywood studio has ever been brave enough to partner with a sex-toy company to promote their movies before. Because the movie is based on Rachel Maines’ book on the history of the vibrator, I wasn’t surprised that her version of vibrator history is retold on the Jimmyjane website, a story that claims that doctors in the 19th century thought of vibrators as a chaste medical devices even as they were applying them to women’s clitorises and giving them orgasms in their offices. Although I argue that the vibrator was always considered a sexual device, I can’t fault Jimmyjane founder Imboden for repeating Maines’ story. He’s not a historian, and, to his credit, the site does mention that Maines’ book is controversial among sex historians. But because Imboden obviously takes sex toys seriously and thinks deeply about the design of his vibrators, it’s distressing to see this erroneous history retold. However, I quickly got over my annoyance and checked out the historically themed products themselves. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Why Obama Relies On the Myth of Monogamy to Defend Gay Marriage

Obama Gay ScandalAlthough I’m thrilled that Obama came out in favor of gay marriage, I’m not happy that he trotted out his monogamous gay staff members as a justification for his changed opinion. “Members of my own staff…are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships” and “are raising kids together,” Obama said as if this were a new phenomenon that hadn’t been going on for decades in the United States. Even though my opinion is biased since I’m straight-phobic (according to this test), I felt like what he really wanted to say was: “Now that gay people have finally stopped spending all their time fellating customers at truck stops in exchange for peanut-butter Wicked Whoopie pies, they should be granted equal rights.” Praising same-sex couples for following the heterosexual model of lifetime monogamy allows him to seem progressive by advocating for sexual minorities, while also enabling him to reinforce the deeply held belief that all worthwhile sexual relationships should culminate in monogamous marriage.

Since I’ve never been particularly impressed by the institution of heterosexual marriage, I’ve found it unfortunate that gay marriage is being used as a proxy for gay rights. A monogamous lifestyle should not be a requirement for civil rights. If that were the rule, then nobody would have any, since in practice, in nearly half of “monogamous” relationships, one or both partners has cheated, according to Dr. Terri Conley. And you can’t throw a rock without hitting a “straight” monogamous married man who frequents transsexual hookers.

Lost in this whole gay marriage debate is the idea of whether marriage as an institution is valuable and whether monogamy makes us happy. The gay marriage debate glorifies marriage, presenting the betrothed as blissful creatures who live moral lives of tranquility. But this is an inaccurate picture. Not only is cheating rampant among the married, but also 15% of married people are stuck in sexless marriages. Sure some people are happily married, and that’s great for them. But what is rarely discussed is that most married people have shitty sex lives. Defenders of marriage routinely trot out statistics that married people have more sex than single people. What they don’t mention is that most of this sex is boring and mechanical. A disappointing sex life seems to be an accepted trade off for the security of marriage, but does it have to be? Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Why the Movie “Hysteria” Gets Its Vibrator History Wrong

Hysteria Movie

A still from the movie Hysteria, about the invention of the vibrator in the 19th century.

Given my profession as a dildographer, I should be elated that Hysteria a movie about the history of the vibrator, is premiering in the U.S. in two weeks. Although I’m thrilled that a legitimate studio produced a movie on the subject, I’m also frustrated that an inaccurate and unfortunate myth about the vibrator is being perpetuated. The movie details the invention of the electromechanical vibrator in the 19th century, and its use as a medical device to treat hysteria. And it maintains the myth that 120 years ago using vibrators on your clitoris was not considered to be sexual because women were thought to only get pleasure from penile penetration. Although it makes for a great story, it doesn’t give the full picture. I don’t expect historical movies to tell the truth, but in this case, media coverage is acting as if this movie is presenting an accurate story about the history of the vibrator. This blog post is my attempt to set the story straight.

To understand this lingering myth about the vibrator, it’s important to understand its origins. The story is gleaned from Rachel Maines’ 1999 book The Technology of Orgasm: “Hysteria,” Vibrators and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction. Maines should be given credit for opening up the field of sex-toy history to scholarly research. That being said, her book shouldn’t be uncritically accepted just because it’s the only one written on the subject. And it has been criticized by historians of technology and sexuality. The problem is that popular culture has wholeheartedly embraced her story, leading to artistic works that are perpetuating this myth. In the past five years, three  pop culture products have been based on her books: a play (In the Next Room, (or the Vibrator Play)), documentary (Passion and Power) and fiction film (Hysteria.

Here’s Maines’ vibrator story that’s been circulated throughout pop culture for over a decade:

Victorian women were sexually frustrated. Sure, some of them were having sex with their husbands, but they were left unsatisfied because most women can’t have orgasms from penetration only. And since masturbation was considered dangerous and unhealthy, they didn’t have that outlet either.  So, what did women do? Well, they went to their doctors, complaining of vague symptoms like nervousness, and their doctors promptly diagnosed them with hysteria, whose other symptoms included insomnia, shortness of breath and muscle spasms.

Doctors decided that the best treatment for the hysteric was female genital massage, which in practice involved rubbing their patients’ clitorises until they had orgasms (which doctors called “paroxysms”). Few people raised their eyebrows. Doctors didn’t think of their medicalized hand jobs as sexual because they didn’t understand the function of the clitoris, instead believing that women only got pleasure from sexual intercourse. And even though getting paid to rub women’s genitals should seem like the best job in the world, it was the opposite. According to Maines, being a professional hand-job giver was “the job nobody wanted,” because it was so tedious and time-consuming.

So when the vibrator was invented, doctors eagerly embraced it as a replacement for their tired hands because it gave women orgasms in ten minutes, instead of the 30-60 minutes that it usually took.  Since it allowed doctors to see more patients in a shorter period of time, they were able to treat more patients and make more money. Therefore,  the vibrator was a “capital-labor substitution device, ” she says. With its legitimate medical uses, the vibrator became known throughout culture as a medical device, and its sexual powers remained hidden. Companies like Hamilton Beach began producing consumer vibrators that they marketed to housewives as essential home appliances that women could use to treat their insomnia and other ailments. But when vibrators began appearing in porn in the late 1920s, they lost their “social camouflage as a home and professional medical instrument,” says Maines. Once the vibrator had been revealed as a sexual device,  doctors stopped using them in their practice and companies stopped marketing them. The end.

My issues with this story:

  1. Some women have vaginal orgasms, so these orgasmically blessed Victorian women must have enjoyed sex with their husbands.
  2. Cunnilingus wasn’t invented in the late 20th century. Although all husbands didn’t perform oral sex on their wives, some of them did. And those lucky wives had clitoral orgasms, at least some of the time.
  3. Just because an advice book tells a woman not to masturbate, it doesn’t mean she’ll listen. Victorian women masturbated. The Mosher survey shows this.
  4. Doctors knew about the function of the clitoris, that’s why in the late 1800s some physicians bothered to remove them  to cure nymphomania.  (Sarah Rodriguez wrote a great article on this).
  5. Women alerted vice societies to the immorality of their physicians’ vibratory treatments, so women must have thought these treatments were sexual.
  6. Doctors who massaged genitals were usually considered to be quacks. At least that’s what the American Medical Association thought about them.
  7. Vibrators were also considered to be quack devices by the AMA, according to their Historical Health Fraud Collection.
  8. Consumer vibrator ads weren’t openly sexual because of draconian anti-obscenity laws, not because of a lack of knowledge about women’s sexuality. If companies described orgasms in their advertisements, they faced arrest. That’s why they had to rely on coded language.
  9. Companies didn’t stop advertising their vibrators in the 1920s. Ads have appeared in every decade since. And most people didn’t watch porn films in the 1920s anyway because they were difficult to get a hold of. So, knowledge about the vibrator’s sexual uses couldn’t have been spread through them. Continue reading
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,