Society is obsessed with women’s genitals. So why are ads for sex toys still taboo?

Given society’s obsession with women’s sexual organs – how they should look, how they should smell – it is ironic that they are so intentionally concealed. The latest attempt to obscure any mention of women’s nether regions comes from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the company that runs the New York subway, which has rejected adverts by women’s sexual health startup Dame Products showing sex toys. Dame is now suing the MTA over its decision.

Although the MTA maintains that the promotion of “sexually oriented business” has long been prohibited, the definition appears to be slippery (much to its disgust, no doubt). Several sexually suggestive, tongue-in-cheek-and-God-knows-where-else ads have been allowed, including ones for condoms and erectile dysfunction medication.

Dame’s adverts don’t depict bodies or faces contorted in ecstasy of orgasm, and the products in question aren’t explicit: they are smooth, brightly coloured objects that could be mistaken for a millennial mood-tracking device, or some newfangled step-counter.

The company says it spent $150,000 (£119,000) on revising the campaign so that it was more appropriate, and collaborated with the MTA; it was even told there were “no objections” to the proposed ads. Meanwhile, Hims, a company that sells medication for erectile dysfunction, was allowed a flagrant campaign featuring phallic-shaped cacti and taglines such as “hard made easy” that barely bothered with innuendo.

This inconsistency isn’t surprising when male sexuality is considered a type of public health issue (how many more studies do we need into the average penis size?), while the very existence of female sexuality is still taboo.

The MTA maintains that this isn’t a sexism issue, pointing out that adverts for another New York sex-toy company, Unbound, were initially rejected last year for displaying “phallic symbols”. (Unlike Dames, Unbound refused to remove the imagery that had been deemed inappropriate.) In 2015, period underwear company Thinx was told by the MTA that its adverts – showing a grapefruit cut in half to sort of look like a fanny, and runny egg whites – were disallowed.

So Dame is not the first product referencing women’s genitals to have been suppressed, and it won’t be the last.

Earlier this year, female sex-toy company Lora DiCarlo was given an innovation award at the Consumer Electronics Show that was later revoked, with organisers saying they considered the Osé massager “immoral, obscene, indecent, [and/or] profane”. (After an outcry, the award was restored.) It took until 2017 for Britain to depict a sanitary towel with blood on it, as opposed to the blue liquid resembling detergent. This is not just an issue with female desire, but with our anatomy full stop. The attempts to censor women’s bodies with double entendres or to exclude them completely makes it clear how afraid of them we are.