Last week, the University of Wisconsin – Stout hosted Dr. Neil McArthur of the University of Manitoba for a discussion of the social, legal, and ethical considerations of sex with robots. Yes, you read that correctly. An affiliate of the UW – Stout Graduate Certificate in Sex Therapy program, Dr. McArthur specializes in several areas of philosophy including sexuality and legal and political philosophy. His research has recently focused on something that may be a tangible part of our near future – sexbots.
A large amount of students attended the seminar in anticipation of learning more about something that some experts have estimated will be a reality within the next thirty years. After introductions were made, Dr. Devin Berg of UW-Stout’s engineering department presented one of their robots of the typical variety, humorously loosening up the audience by pointing out how slowly it moved. Dr. McArthur then started the conversation with a brief overview of ethics before diving into the juicy material.
The first main topic point brought up was the attitudes that people may hold toward sex with robots, and the validation behind them. According to Dr. McArthur, “We WILL be having sex with robots!” and “….people are pissed off and worried about this.” Reactions and feelings in this topic area (whether positive or negative) tend to be very strong in either direction, and for many various reasons. In fact, there’s already an organization dedicated to campaigning against sex robots.
To better explain each side’s points, Dr. McArthur created two comprehensive lists. Among the arguments against the possibility of sexbots were some that many people likely anticipated: they could negatively impact relationships in the same way that pornography or prostitution can, and they may be considered a form of masturbation, which some people have an objection with on a moral level. In response, one audience member suggested that vibrators, which have become a normal part of what happens in the bedroom, could be considered very simple versions of sexbots. However, Dr. McArthur dug even deeper than the obvious surface problems and speculated that having a market of sexbots may contribute even further to the growing trend of cocooning – that is, individuals socializing less and retreating into their homes more, therefore removing themselves from the dating pool.
The list of arguments for the promotion of sexbots was shorter, but the potential behind each was powerful enough to stack against the opposition. There were two points that stood out the most to me. For those suffering from sexual trauma and who may not be psychologically ready for human intimacy, a sexbot could be a way to ease back into feeling safe in a romantic human relationship. It could also be a form of therapy or an outlet for others to be less disruptive socially and prevent crimes.
Although Dr. McArthur is for sexbots and de-stigmatizing their use, he acknowledged that there are some legal issues that would need to be sorted out before they could be a definite and positive possibility. One problem would be the determination of personality rights. Would people allowed to build Brad Pitt bots and Angelina Jolie bots? Would they be able to make their robots look like their exes? Also problematic would be the decisions on the age of access and how the robots would be distributed, especially if they’re used as a form of social good.
The seminar was then opened up for questions, of which there were plenty, many speculating on the possibilities of the sex bots and where lines may have to be drawn. Due to a history of sex being a driving force behind the advancement of technology, it was suggested that the possibility of sex bots might even be an incentive to work more on artificial intelligence and realistic robotic technology that may even be beneficial to those who use prosthetic limbs.
Intrigued? To learn more, visit Dr. Neil McArthur’s blog.