Dame Products

No. Dame Products is a consumer products company that designs and sells sexual wellness devices. It does not manage external capital, make direct investments, or participate in fund commitments. The firm's business is hardware R&D, e-commerce, and wholesale distribution, not asset management. Its co-founders, Alexandra Fine and Janet Lieberman, are operators, not allocators.

Dame was founded in 2014 by Alexandra Fine, a sexologist, and Janet Lieberman, an MIT-trained engineer. The pair combined clinical expertise and product-design rigor to create vibrators based on user research. They launched with Eva, which became the most crowdfunded sex toy at the time.

There is no evidence of any investment portfolio, fund structure, or co-investment vehicle. The company generates revenue from direct-to-consumer sales and wholesale partnerships. It does not act as an allocator to venture capital, private equity, or hedge funds.

The Pleasure Gap describes the documented disparity in sexual satisfaction between heterosexual women and men. Dame's founders cite research indicating that women report fewer orgasms and less pleasurable sexual experiences than their male partners. The company's products are engineered specifically with this gap in mind.

Dame maintains a clinical advisory board that includes a board-certified OB/GYN, a naturopathic doctor specializing in menopause, a licensed marriage and family therapist who is also a certified sex therapist, and a board-certified pelvic floor physical therapist. Product testing is crowdsourced through a community called Dame Labs.

The ownership and capital structure of Dame Products is not publicly disclosed. The company was launched via crowdfunding and has since operated as a revenue-generating consumer brand. No family wealth, family-office, or institutional-backing narrative has been made public.

In 2019, Dame sued New York City's MTA for discrimination after its advertisements for sexual wellness products were rejected while ads for male-focused products were allowed. The case generated significant media coverage, including in The New York Times and Forbes. The specific settlement or legal outcome has not been publicly detailed by the firm.