Why The Future and Futurists Shouldn’t Forget The Power Of Human Sexuality
From bias to inclusion:the importance of sex in speculative discourse
Let’s talk about sex—solo sex, partner sex, multi-partner sex, and even digital sex—and the ways that some forms of sexual behavior and types of partners are still privileged over others, even by futurists opining about sex with AI.
Tracy Follows, interviewed in El Pais, and the author of Future of You, describes herself as as a “’truly original thinker’, ‘a visionary’ and ‘scarily accurate’ in her predictions” and Forbes has called her “one of the top 50 female futurists in the world.”
While I’m not disputing any of this, I want to demonstrate how expertise in one area (futurism) does not necessarily grant expertise in another (human sexual behavior).
Pundits—and the public—sometimes forget this. As a result, the less expert pronouncements or implicit biases may go unchallenged.
Examples of sex negativity
Conflating an AI partner’s “perfect programming” with masturbation, and then calling self-pleasure uninteresting, risky, and “not a relationship,” could demonstrate several sex-negative assumptions. It also dismisses those who experience sex with an artificial companion, including AI, as partner sex.
There are other examples in the El Pais interview. For example, though rightfully concerned about the biases of the owners of AI companies and how they might affect users, Follows says:“Imagine that they socially program usage towards homosexuality instead of heterosexuality, or towards trios instead of couples. Then you could end up with a set of desires that you never thought were part of you, but that have been programmed into you through mental manipulation.”
It is difficult to understand why Fellows chose to use these particular examples. Are they used for shock value in a presumably heteronormative context? Are these examples of homosexuality and multiple partners supposed to be scary? In any case, it demonstrates a need to also be aware of the biases of pundits.
Follows also does not explain how AI companies, whose business is to develop, program, and train bots, would also program the human user. This is another aspect of the comment that links sex with fear.
Counterproductive pleasure?
It could be argued that the interviewer demonstrated some bias as well, at one point saying “pressing a button and having an orgasm in 10 seconds could be counterproductive.”
Before we nod our heads in agreement, let’s stop and ask ourselves what is it about quick pleasure that could actually be considered “counterproductive?” Pleasure, fast or slow, is pleasure, period. It’s also the whole point behind sextech.
It’s not all bad
Follows also predicted that “AI will make us embrace completely new and emerging psychosexual concepts that we have not yet heard of or come to terms with.”
This is a fairly safe prediction, given that new psychosexual concepts are already emerging and these same concepts—such as the legitimacy of intimate partnerships with AI companions—might be among the harbingers of a far more informed sex- and pleasure-positive future, where the entire bandwidth of consensual human sexual (and asexual) behavior is acknowledged and respected.
Is there a sexologist in the futurist house?
As a sexologist who has a pulsating finger on the clit of tomorrow, I strongly advocate the inclusion of sexologists, sex therapists, and sex educators in futurist forums and discussions of sex tech and AI intimacy.
Just as many of my colleagues could benefit from learning more about Human/AI intimacy and relationships with other kinds of artificial companions, so could futurists such as Tracy Follows learn more about that sexual behavior bandwidth mentioned above.
If people from various disciplines and walks of life can learn from each other and share expertise as we envision the worlds of tomorrow, we will be all the better for it. And this just might make an inclusive future more plausible.
Image: A.R. Marsh using Starry.Ai
