“Since I began to understand feminism, I love to [masturbate with a vibrator],” says a woman participating in the 1976 Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality. [1] Second-wave feminists were divided about the relationship between sexual pleasure and women’s liberation, which prompted debate about the vibrator as a “‘male-identified’ and anti-feminist form of sexuality,”[2] or as a “technology for orgasmic self-discovery, and an ‘indispensable tool of women’s liberation.’”[3] Second-wave feminism generally set standards of how a “true feminist” behaves, causing women to question their choices or differences and feel judged for stepping outside of standards.[4] Third wave feminism, or choice feminism, emerged in the early 1990s and emphasized that solely making any choice for yourself is feminist. In addition, choice feminism attempted to reduce judgment among second-wave feminists through sharing multiple perspectives and removing “true feminist” standards. The vibrator’s new presence in general stores, public advertisements, and more casual discussion in the U.S. after 1970 suggests that vibrators influenced societal perspectives enough to be able to contribute to changing feminist ideals. Vibrator articles, sex counseling books, and female sexuality studies shared various vibrator experiences and expressed the vibrator as a choice, likely increasing public understanding that each woman has different preferences and judging is unreasonable. Furthermore, the large amount of vibrator brands and models emphasized that each woman has unique preferences and should make individual choices. The increase in published material and societal awareness about vibrators in the U.S. after the 1970s promoted ideals of choice feminism.

Third-wave feminism, postmodernist feminism, or choice feminism was brought up in the late 1980s by women of color as a result of feeling that second-wave feminism “downplayed differences among women,” and, according to Michaele Ferguson, was “too radical, too exclusionary, and too judgmental.”[5] Coined by Linda Hershman, choice feminism is the “idea that feminism should simply give women choices and not pass judgment on what they choose.”[6] First wave feminism did not focus on sexuality, but second-wave feminism emphasized that “women [should] actively [be] determining what should happen to their bodies, [second wave feminism was] about empowering women to feel entitled to their desires whatever they may be.”[7] While this stance highlights that women should make individual choices, second-wave feminism did not support women in being completely individualistic. “Many of these feminists argued that sex was important, but they couldn’t agree on how a feminist should behave sexually,”[8] explaining that some second-wave feminists believed that sexual concepts could advance feminist beliefs, but also how second-wave feminists set standards for how a feminist should make personal choices.[9] Philosopher Jo Trigilio in a series of emails to a fellow female philosopher believed that second-wave feminism limited women in exploring their sexuality and that third-wave feminism is an “academic construction, used to mark the development of postmodernist critiques of second wave feminism”[10] through emphasizing making individual choices, such as purchasing a vibrator, as feminist and discouraging judgment. One woman participating in the Hite Report states that she was “defensive about mentioning that I use something other than my hand…there seems to be an unspoken taboo,”[11] indicating that using a vibrator was taboo during late second-wave feminism, but women were increasingly choosing to experiment with vibrators anyway. Considering that I argue that the increased societal presence and use of vibrators in the U.S.in the 1970s encouraged personal choice and discouraged judgment, I will use the term “choice feminism” to highlight my argument.

Historical perspectives regarding vibrators developed due to changing social and political norms. In the early-mid twentieth century, vibrators were advertised and used “as cure-alls for dozens of diseases,”[12] but the advertising of the vibrator for sexual pleasure was “extremely rare before the late 1960s.”[13] The sexual revolution, throughout the 1960s to 1980s, failed to destigmatize female masturbation which left vibrators to be controversial among second-wave feminists.[14] Before the 1970s, vibrators were mainly advertised in women’s, feminist and lesbian magazines which encouraged women to contemplate making new choices, but not necessarily with the goal of self-pleasure.[15] Many second-wave feminists argued that vibrator ads “depicted the subordination and infantilization of women”[16] and were “unnatural, alienating, male-identified, and addictive,”[17] proposing some reasons why Lieberman says many early second-wave feminists “vociferously objected” to vibrators; however, in the same sentence, Lieberman notes that feminists “enthusiastically embraced” vibrators, showing that feminist perspectives on the vibrator varied.[18] Many pro-sex feminists chose to meet up in a “variation of feminist consciousness-raising groups:” bodysex workshops.[19] Betty Dodson initiated bodysex workshops in the 1970s to discuss vibrators and self-pleasure and teach women “to bring themselves pleasure by both touching their genitals and by using vibrators, [in 1974] devices unknown to many participants.”[20] Most participants left the workshops “on a mission to find a vibrator,”[21] indicating that Dodson’s bodysex workshops influenced women’s perceptions.[22] Dodson believes vibrators being publicly associated with feminism began in the 1974 NOW (National Organization for Women) conference, while Dodson’s workshops allowed women to learn about the vibrator as a choice for oneself and experience the vibrator’s liberating capabilities, helping to encourage discussion about what motivated making choices for yourself and not inflicting personal choices on other women: vibrators. [23]

I will focus on one key attendant of Dodson’s workshops, Dell Williams, who, like many other women, had to shop in dangerous neighborhoods and encounter judgmental (typically male) salesclerks when looking to purchase her vibrator.[24] Williams was unsatisfied with her experience and, in 1974, chose to follow through with her idea for “Eve’s Garden:” initially a mail-order company that sold two vibrator models and Dodson’s book, expanding into a retail store in 1979.[25] Williams began “Eve’s Garden” to sell, as the advertisement slogan states, “liberating vibrators and other pleasurable things for women from a feminist-owned business.”[26] Specifically advertising vibrator sales from a feminist-owned business and emphasizing its liberating capabilities further opened the opportunity for the vibrator to be seen positively among feminists.[27] Williams’ customers sent letters with passionate feedback, including questions about products and personal experiences and “revealing intimate details of sexual desires…that many women kept hidden even from their sexual partners and therapists.”[28] Williams’ advertising techniques and extremely supportive feedback to customers (all expressing varied opinions on the vibrator) “reassuring[ed] women that their desire for vibrators was not only legitimate, but also feminist.”[29] One customer’s letter stated that she felt liberated “knowing that she was connected to a group of people [likely feminists] who were accepting of her desires,”[30] supporting that women could be united while having different preferences. Williams’ response to a similar letter was “right on, erotic sisterhood can indeed by powerful, why do you think I’m selling vibrators?”[31] Throughout the 1970s, Williams created a “sense of community to reduce the stigma of sex toys”[32] and promoted ideals of choice feminism.

After the 1970s, the increasing prevalence of vibrators allows us to conclude that vibrators could have contributed to the emergence of a new wave of feminism in the early 1990s. During late second-wave feminism, the increase of feminist sex-toy stores, window displays of vibrators in electrical shops, presence in department and drug stores, “mail-order catalogs” for common stores, “door-to-door salesmen and women” and vibrator “product demonstrations” meant that avoiding the vibrator was likely difficult towards the end of second-wave feminism and suggests that the vibrator’s change in society could have been significant enough to adjust some feminist viewpoints.[33] Pornography shops (highly debated among feminists)[34] were no longer the only businesses selling vibrators, and vibrator advertisements were primarily published in the shops that sold them—not through vibrator or pornography companies—showing that vibrators had the opportunity to become more well-known and respected.[35]  Redbook magazine “believes that it is our responsibility, as editors of a magazine for women, to present appropriate and objective reporting on the subject [vibrators],”[36] indicating that editors observed vibrators becoming a more widely addressed topic, or one that needed to be. The vibrator’s increased presence in main-stream media, stores and advertising after the 1970s suggests that vibrators may have been a significant enough of a change in society to encourage a shifting of feminist beliefs.

Vibrators are included in the broader topic of masturbation, so what makes the vibrator more significant than manual masturbation in encouraging choice feminism? Unlike manual masturbation, selling vibrators prompted discussion about making personal choices.[37] Therapist Joani Blank published her book Good Vibrations to discuss components of the vibrator and share women’s various uses and experiences. In her chapter about purchasing a vibrator, Blank recommends consulting friends or borrowing their vibrators.[38] Respondents to the Hite Report, Redbook Report, and therapist questionnaires provide more instances of women discussing with someone before purchasing a vibrator, even including women who “suggest a little consumerism”[39] and were pushed into uncomfortable interactions with salesclerks.[40] Although each woman will make different choices, “the conversation necessary to arrange the [vibrator] loan will be liberating and enlightening for the both of you,”[41] indicating that solely discussing vibrators and hearing varying perspectives about vibrators may have encouraged reflection on making personal choices and discouraged judgment. Regardless of a woman’s choice to purchase a vibrator, Blank believes that “you will learn something about yourself if you can observe how your current beliefs affect your decision to obtain a vibrator,”[42] expressing that spreading awareness about vibrators could encourage self-reflection and an understanding that everyone should make personal choices. Vibrators helped initiate conversation about the choice to self-pleasure, something manual masturbation could hardly do for millennia, and, as vibrators were increasingly advertised in magazines and displayed in well-known stores, the conversation Blank mentions likely became more prevalent towards the end of second-wave feminism.

 Published articles about vibrators after the 1970s included multiple perspectives that emphasized that women could not make a “wrong” personal choice and indicated that judging another woman’s choice is unreasonable. I am going to show how four published articles during late second-wave feminism presented the vibrator as a choice and shared multiple perspectives and preferences to suggest that judging a woman’s choice is unreasonable.

 Published in a 1976 edition of Redbook magazine, Claire Safran’s “Plain Talk About The New Approach To Sexual Pleasure” explicitly emphasizes the main ideal of choice feminism by stating that the vibrator is a “question of choice.”[43] Safran later mentions that “either extreme [of people who refuse or embrace the vibrator] takes away our freedom of choice,”[44] expressing that feeling strongly about one choice and inflicting this on others takes away a right that each woman is entitled to: choice. Safran quotes Ms.Kline-Graber saying that “a woman shouldn’t be coerced or made to feel that if she doesn’t use a vibrator, she’s not sexually liberated,”[45] which offers an additional perspective to comfort women who make different choices. In addition, Safran includes many vibrator models and brands to highlight that women have different preferences and that no choice is “wrong.”

Published alongside Safran’s article, Virginia Johnson’s “What’s good-and bad-about vibrators” discusses vibrators as a choice while emphasizing its significance in a relationship setting. Johnson states that “the wisest rule is to rely on your own perceptions of what’s happening to you”[46] when contemplating using a vibrator, ultimately emphasizing how the vibrator encourages making a choice that is best for yourself and that women have varying preferences. The author mentions experiences of many women, expresses concerns and, despite her more negative stance on vibrators, includes various perspectives that emphasize that the vibrator symbolizes making a choice for yourself.

Published in a 1980 edition of Esquire, Mimi Swartz’s“For The Woman Who Has Almost Everything” presents the vibrator through telling a story about a husband in 1972 who formed a Sensory Research Corporation hoping to “distribute vibrators as widely as possible;”[47] he felt passionate after he and his wife improved their lives through using a vibrator and wanted to spread knowledge of this choice to others, presenting the vibrator as a choice through offering various perspectives and experiences. Swartz includes positive and negative viewpoints that emphasize how each woman has unique preferences and that other women’s choices should not be judged. Vibrator advertisements are included throughout the article and specifically state many brands and prices, prompting women to debate purchasing a vibrator and encouraging that the vibrator is a choice with many options.[48]

Published in a 1981 edition of Cosmopolitan, Laura Scharf’s“Vibrators Are Here to Stay”focuses on presenting women’s perspectives about vibrators.[49] Scharf includes how some women think of the vibrator as a substitute for their husband and play a role in relationships, perspectives of medical experts, and a consumer’s guide. The relationship perspectives emphasized that the vibrator can be a choice regardless of your status, but that you should have discussion with your partner, showing how the choice to use a vibrator encouraged discussion about varying perspectives and making choices. Perspectives from medical experts, including a generalized opinion that the vibrator should be “one path among many,”[50] further indicated that the vibrator offered choices and suggested that there is no “wrong” choice.[51] Including consumer guides with many descriptive vibrator advertisements attempted to immediately direct women to think about purchasing a vibrator. The article includes quotes from Betty Dodson about how the vibrator can “unblock inhibitions,”[52] and “’help women shed guilty attitudes formed in childhood,’”[53] further encouraging that the vibrator can provoke reflection about long-term beliefs.

Through emphasizing how contemplating, purchasing, or using the vibrator expresses that women should make choices best for themselves and refrain from judging other women’s choices, “Plain Talk About The New Approach To Sexual Pleasure,” “What’s good-and bad-about vibrators,” “For The Woman Who Has Almost Everything” and “Vibrators Are Here to Stay” indicate that vibrators promoted ideals of choice feminism.

Sex therapists, Joani Blank and L. Barbach and L. Levine wrote books that mention types of vibrators, share positive and negative perspectives, express varying perspectives, and comfort women that no choice is “wrong.” Blank, who Dodson refers to as a “pioneering sex counselor and educator,”[54] published a new edition of Good Vibrations in 1989 to spread knowledge about vibrator models, fears, facts and perspectives to educate women that the vibrator encourages making a choice for yourself that varies for each woman.[55] “So Many to Choose From”[56] is the longest chapter and includes details about battery, coil, or motor operated vibrators, the variable speeds, materials, and shapes; the length of the chapter and multiple options of vibrators listed emphasizes the extent of choices vibrators provided. When writing about each type of vibrator, Blank recommends different models to women by providing details of what types of pleasure each consumer typically enjoyed, emphasizing that every customer has different preferences and that women should make the best choice for themself. Furthermore, sharing that “some people want to speed up and/or increase pressure…others feel the opposite desire”[57] and that some women choose to use the vibrator in a relationship setting highlights that each woman has different preferences and that judging another woman’s choices is unreasonable. In addition, L. Barbach and L. Levine’s Shared Intimacies shares women’s statements like “discovered ways”[58] and “when we do decide to use it,”[59] or “tried it once or twice”[60] to promote vibrators as a choice for oneself that emphasize how women have different preferences. Through saying statements like any orgasm is an orgasm and things needed to orgasm depend on the individual, the written paragraphs that separate the women’s stories seem like they were written to validate women, ultimately expressing that everyone has their own preferences and there is no “wrong” choice.[61] Shared Intimacies expresses that some women had to learn to love the vibrator and some women enjoy using it alone or with their partner, showing how the vibrator encouraged understanding various perspectives and making individual choices. Sex professionals sharing knowledge and other women’s vibrator preferences after the 1970s encouraged discussion about women making individual choices.[62] Furthermore, increased open discussion about women’s various choices likely reduced judgment by helping women realize that everyone has different preferences, and they are not alone.

The increased societal presence and use of vibrators during late second-wave feminism encouraged the idea that making a choice for yourself was feminist and that judging other women’s choices was unreasonable. Vibrators became known as a feminist tool through uniting women and initiating conversation, specifically through symbolizing that making a choice for yourself is “feminist” and that women can be united while making different choices. Vibrators prompted thought about making individual choices and encouraged wide-spread sharing of multiple perspectives, ultimately increasing understanding and reducing judgment of other women’s preferences. After the 1970s, the vibrator’s presence in general-stores, wide-spread advertising, discussion in published articles, studies in sexuality reports and discussion among therapists increased awareness about the vibrator and its ability to promote feminism and, more specifically, choice feminism.

---

[1] Shere Hite, Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality (Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976),361.

[2] Hallie Lieberman, “Taboo Technologies: Sex Toys in American Since 1850” (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2014), 225.

[3] Dennis Waskul and Michelle Anklan, “‘Best Invention, Second to the Dishwasher’: Vibrators and Sexual Pleasure,” Sexualities 23, 2019, 3. Comella, 2019, 25. Lieberman 2017.

[4] Claire Snyder-Hall, “Third-wave Feminism and the Defense of ‘Choice,’” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. (March 2010), 257.

[5] Susan Mann and Douglas Huffman, “The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism and the Rise of the Third Wave,” Science & Society (January, 2005), 57. Mann and Huffman, “The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism and the Rise of the Third Wave,” 59. (Spelman, 1988). Michaele Ferguson, “Choice Feminism and the Fear of Politics,” Perspectives on Politics (March, 2010), 247.

[6] Snyder-Hall, “Third Wave Feminism and the Defense of ‘Choice,’” 247.

[7] Lieberman, “Taboo Technologies: Sex Toys in American Since 1850,” 241-2.

[8] Hallie Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions: Sex Toys and the Sexual Discourse of Second-Wave Feminism,” Sexuality & Culture 21 (March 1, 2017), 4.

[9]Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 8.

[10] Rita Alfonso and Jo Trigilio, “Surfing the Third Wave: A Dialogue between Two Third Wave Feminists,” Hypatia, 1997, 8.

[11] Lieberman, “Taboo Technologies: Sex Toys in American Since 1850,” 256-7.

Hite, Hite Report, 83.

[12] Hallie Lieberman, “Selling Sex Toys: Marketing and the Meaning of Vibrators in Early Twentieth-Century America,” Enterprise & Society 17, no. 2 (2016), 395. Noble Eberhart, A Brief Guide to Vibratory Technique (Chicago New Medicine Publishing Co. 1915).

[13] Lieberman, “Selling Sex Toys,” 395, 407.

[14] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 6, 15.

[15] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,”13.

[16] Lieberman, “Selling Sex Toys,” 398-99.

[17] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 7. Vibrator ads “create unattainable ideals for female beauty”[17] through featuring the “Modern Girl”[17] or emphasizing a woman’s body.[17] Lieberman, “Selling Sex Toys,” 399, 419, 420.

[18] Lieberman, “Taboo Technologies,” 251.

[19] For more information about Consciousness Raising Groups’ presence and impact on second-wave feminism, see Snyder-Hall, “Third Wave Feminism and the Defense of ‘Choice,’”257. Rita Alfonso and Jo Trigilio, “Surfing the Third Wave,” Hypatia, 1997. Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 5-11.

[20] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” (Dodson 1974, p. 30; Williams and Vannucci 2005, pp. 140–145), 11.

[21] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” (Williams and Vannucci 2005, pp. 140–145), 11.

[22] “Into the early eighties, these home pleasure parties flourished.” Joani Blank, Good Vibrations (Down There Press, January 1989, 28.

[23] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 12. (Dodson 1974, page 2).

[24] Williams “ended up buying the vibrator, but not without ‘a sense of guilt and shame. It was this feeling of embarrassment, along with the empowerment she had felt at Dodson’s workshop, that laid the foundation for her sex-toy store.” Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 1, 11, 16. See for more information about purchasing a vibrator in a store.

[25]“Stock expanded to include more vibrators, and a larger number of books.” Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 12.

[26] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 13. Williams and Vannucci, 2005, p. 179.

[27] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 13.

[28] “Showing that women struggled to reconcile their sexual desires with the tenets of second-wave feminism.” Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 25.

[29] “Intimate Transactions,” 13, 15, 16.

[30] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 22.

[31] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 12. Customer to Eve’s Garden, 3 Apr 1975. In Customer Correspondence, Box 5, Folder 3, Dell Williams papers, #7676. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York (Hereafter referred to as ‘‘Williams Papers’’).

[32] Comella argues that ‘‘Eve’s Garden was a direct outgrowth of second-wave U.S. feminism and the fervid politicization of female sexuality that was occurring in certain corners of the women’s liberation movement.’’ Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 7, 12.

[33] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 7. Lieberman, “Selling Sex Toys,” 394, 405-407.

[34] Snyder-Hall, “Third Wave Feminism and the Defense of ‘Choice,’” 257. Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 15.

[35] Lieberman, “Selling Sex Toys,” 407. “The electric industry, drugstores, and department stores produced 64 percent of ads featuring vibrators, whereas vibrator company ads accounted for only 22 percent.” Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 13, 16.

[36] Claire Safran, “PLAIN TALK ABOUT THE NEW APPROACH TO SEXUAL PLEASURE,” Redbook Magazine, March, 1976, 85.

[37] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 3.

[38] Joani Blank, Good Vibrations, 26.

[39] Safran, “PLAIN TALK ABOUT THE NEW APPROACH TO SEXUAL PLEASURE,” 87.

[40] Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 11.

[41] Blank, Good Vibrations, 26.

[42] Blank, Good Vibrations, 65.

[43] Safran, “PLAIN TALK ABOUT THE NEW APPROACH TO SEXUAL PLEASURE,” 87.

[44] Safran, “PLAIN TALK ABOUT THE NEW APPROACH TO SEXUAL PLEASURE,” 88.

[45] Safran, “PLAIN TALK ABOUT THE NEW APPROACH TO SEXUAL PLEASURE,” 88.

[46] Virginia E. Johnson, “What’s good—and bad—about the vibrator,” Redbook, March 1976, 85, 136.

[47] Mimi Swartz, “For The Woman Who Has Almost Everything,” Esquire, July 1980, 58.

[48] Swartz, “For The Woman Who Has Almost Everything,” 61.

[49] Laura Scharf, “VIBRATORS ARE HERE TO STAY,” Cosmopolitan, January 1981. 136-138.

[50] Scharf, “VIBRATORS ARE HERE TO STAY,” 136.

[51] Scharf, “VIBRATORS ARE HERE TO STAY,” 136.

[52] Scharf, “VIBRATORS ARE HERE TO STAY,” 136.

[53] Scharf, “VIBRATORS ARE HERE TO STAY,” 136.

[54] Blank, Good Vibrations, viii.  

[55] Blank, Good Vibrations.

[56] Blank, Good Vibrations, 9-26.

[57] Blank, Good Vibrations, 32.

[58] Lonnie Garfield Barbach and Linda Levine, Shared intimacies (Bantum, 1983), 117.

[59] Barbach and Levine, Shared Intimacies, 117.

[60] Barbach and Levine, Shared Intimacies, 115.

[61] Barbach and Levine, Shared Intimacies, 115-118, 166-168.

[62] Williams “marketed her business to psychologists and sex-therapists, giving them catalogs to hand out to their patients.” Lieberman, “Intimate Transactions,” 14.