Every time I read a headline that contains the term “the future of sex” I brace myself, usually I use something heavy. Often I wait a few days before reading it, just to make sure my blood pressure is low enough to handle the inevitable screaming, panting, and waving around of hands. And when I eventually read the article, listen to the radio documentary, or watch the over-produced television segment, and my fears are confirmed and my passions inflamed I wonder why I even bother.
So it was with great trepidation that I began to read a recent article by Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies’ executive director James Hughes. The article is actually called “From Virtual Sex to No Sex?” but the future of sex phrase is right there in the first sentence, and the piece doesn’t disappoint.
Hughes is hypothesizing about where sex and technology are heading, and proposes that:
"the two most important developments in the technological control of sex are both already occurring; first separating sex from physical contact, and then establishing our control over our sexual feelings altogether."
His thesis amounts to a lot of science fiction and very little else, but raises enough interesting questions to be worth considering.
Hughes’ focus on the ways technology may be used one day to control sexuality are compelling. Consider this picture he paints of the future:
"Eventually we will be able to directly stimulate the parts of the brain that desire specific partners or experiences. In the future we will be able to specifically turn off sexual thoughts about children, and turn on appropriate sexual thoughts about adults. We will be able to make gays straight, and straights gay, and everything in between. There will be no more necessity for sexual boredom between long term partners. We will be able to wire ourselves to only desire sex with our spouses, to only desire it in-body, and to desire it according to an agreed upon frequency. Or we can turn off our jealousy, and turn up our libidos, if we have agreed to a polyamorous lifestyle."
Here we have a suitably futuristic vision of the future of sex; its got mind control, cyborg body parts, and even techie terms like "in-body". Unfortunately it suffers from a simplicity that is stymieing the very researchers Hughes references. Implied in this vision is the fact that desire, love, orientation, and identity are nothing more than toggle switches in our brains that need to be found and can then be turned on and off with the push of a button. Desire, sexual orientation, sexual thoughts are influenced by many factors far more complicated than what genetic researchers refer to as behaviors, and this is the reason that even if researchers manage to convince people they’ve found a “gay gene”, manipulating it will never eliminate people who are gay, or the idea of “gayness”.
Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t be thinking about the ways technological advances will be used in the future, I just wish it were a little more grounded in both a historical and contemporary understanding of sex research.
Hughes understanding of sexual experience is also a little puzzling, and I’m not entirely sure where it comes from. Arguing that the future of sex is more melding of sex and technology, Hughes writes:
"Electronically mediated sex and porn are safer (no diseases or pregnancy), easier (lengthy courtship and foreplay are unnecessary), more convenient (available any time you are) and more likely to be exactly what you want (your partners can be anyone, or anything, you desire, without any physical defects)."
With the exception of the first point, I’m not sure any of this is true. Would people who engage in on line sexual relationships characterize electronically mediated sex as either easier or more likely to be exactly what they want as sex in real life? It’s my experience, personally and professionally, that sex is messy, and a sexual relationship on line can be as much of a roller coaster as any real life one.
His comments about virtual sex being exactly what we want also fail to ring true. Virtual sex is often (but not always) about playing in the space between fantasy and reality. As a sexual health educator I am constantly having to remind people that sexual fantasy and sexual reality are two separate yet equally important experiences (like Law and Order, but with fewer courtroom appearances). Here Hughes runs roughshod over lived sexual experience in favor of a science fiction that sounds good on paper, and leads him to the questions that interest him most. The problem is that his vision is based on highly debatable research and leaps of logic that require time travel to deal with.
The resulting questions are sexy, to be sure (I mean who doesn’t want to think about issues of consent in robot sex?) but they overshoot the mark and miss a chance to raise more basic questions about sexuality that we still haven’t thought to ask.
Questions like:
- Where exactly are the lines between fantasy and reality, and what happens when we cross them virtually versus crossing them in real life?
- What is the nature and extent of our sexual agency? If we manage to find a way to consistently and reliably control sexual behavior or thoughts (which is highly unlikely) does this mean we had no sexual free will to begin with?
- And finally, if my third tier polyamorous robot lover forgets to feed my primary human partners cat while we’re away on our Mars honeymoon, is it okay for my surrogate sexual partner to withhold sex favors in protest?
I guess I’ll just have to wait for the answers to be revealed when some mainstream media outlet picks up Hughes article and runs with it.
Read more - Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: From Virtual Sex to No Sex (via Sex Drive Daily and Slashdong)
Previously - What's Wrong with Reporting on Sex?