Abstract
Sex matters. How men and women regard sex and bond sexually powerfully shapes the lifeworld. Sex is one of the major forces that influence a society and its background taken-for-granted norms. This chapter explores the ways in which the now dominant Western secular culture has generally deflated and demoralized the significance of sexual activity. Differences in preferred sexual activities (e.g., choosing one’s partners from members of the opposite sex, the same sex, sex robots, and so forth) are, according to this secular culture, to be appreciated as morally neutral lifestyle choices provided that they are consensual and affirm the “dignity” of the parties involved. As I argue, the dominant secular culture seeks to place consensual sexual acts, of which the use of sex robots is just one additional example, beyond moral judgment, further isolating individuals from the rich social connections of traditional family life, thereby transforming the family and advancing the secularization of society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, US courts still referred to the United States as a Christian nation, and affirmed Protestant Christian moral assumptions as central to the common law commitments of the country. See, e.g., Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States 143 U.S. 457 (1892) and United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931).
- 2.
Consider Kathleen Richardson’s summary: “
-
We believe the development of sex robots further sexually objectifies women and children.
-
The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sexual abuse, the persons in prostitution are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).
-
The development of sex robots and the ideas to support their production show the immense horrors still present in the world of prostitution which is built on the “perceived” inferiority of women and children and therefore justifies their use as sex objects.
-
We propose that the development of sex robots will further reduce human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship.
-
We challenge the view that the development of adult and child sex-abuse robots will have a positive benefit to society, but instead further reinforce power relations of inequality and violence.
-
We take issue with those arguments that propose that sex robots could help reduce sexual exploitation and violence towards prostituted persons, pointing to all the evidence that shows how technology and the sex trade coexist and reinforce each other creating more demand for human bodies.” For additional information see generally the Campaign Against Sex Robots: https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org
-
- 3.
As Elen Nascimento, Eugenio da Silva and Rodrigo Siqueira-Batista put the problem: “In ethical terms, what would best guide our study of sex robots? Religious piety? A Machiavellian morality? The Ethics of Kantian Humanism? And, when one opts for the principles exposed in the latter, how does it sustain itself by disregarding the social context and the plots of power? Most importantly, how do we go about considering a phenomenon with such great nuances and innumerable contradictions” (2018, p. 238)?
- 4.
Within traditional forms of the family, persons discover themselves sustained within a web of pre-existing duties and responsibilities. Here, moral duties are typically discovered and understood as already existing rather than created. Parents, grandparents, spouses and children have particular familial roles and obligations (Cherry 2010). “The obligations that connect parents and children are such to which they may never have committed themselves and to which they need never have consented in order for the obligations to have moral force” (Engelhardt 2010, p. 508).
- 5.
Among the consequences of the family’s social lifeworld is that it is appreciated as possessing significant, if perhaps defeasible, authority over its members. Such families seek successfully to convey core religious and cultural understandings as well as to communicate these foundational commitments to future generations. The family is a moral unit in its own right, whose general features are to be discovered rather than created.
- 6.
Confucianism, at least at one point, permitted a man to have both a wife and a concubine (T’ung-tsu 1980). Moslem understandings of the family, permit polygamy, such that a man may have more than one wife. The Koran states: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four” (4:3).
- 7.
There is no agreement, for example, regarding whether pregnancy should be welcomed or abhorred. Not all accept abortion as a permissible solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Nor is there agreement regarding whether given sexual conduct’s purportedly private nature, should sexually transmitted disease be treated only through private funds rather than public taxation. It is a significant annual expense. The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that there are approximately 20 million new sexually transmitted disease infections yearly in the US. Nearly half of new infections occur among 15–24 year olds. The CDC estimates that the total prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases exceeds 110 million cases, adding at least seventeen billion dollars in direct costs to the health care system each year. This estimate only includes eight common sexually transmitted diseases: chlamydia, gonorrhea, hepatitis B, herpes simplex type 2, HIV, human papillomavirus, syphilis and trichomoniasis (CDC 2013b; see also CDC 2013a; Owusu-Edusei et al. 2013).
- 8.
Decisions about one’s sexual practices are made in a framework that is characterized by a hypereroticism unconnected to reproduction. Given the frequency of sexual content in movies, television, music, pornographic websites, and magazines, as well as new media formats, including online chat rooms, podcasts, and now sex robots, exposure can be difficult to avoid. Has there ever been as much talk and presentation of sexuality with such limited reproductive consequences? Western culture and secular ethics has generally deflated the moral significance of sexual choices. The point bears emphasis. Decisions to engage in fornication and sexual experimentation generally are seen as morally neutral, as long as they are consensual.
- 9.
Gianna Vattimo argues that this highly demoralized appreciation of sex has changed Catholicism: “Members of Catholic youth organizations today are exhorted much more forcefully to engage in volunteer work and assist the poor than they are to fight to preserve their chastity. Even when homosexuality and purely physical and casual sexual promiscuity are stigmatized, they are treated as violations of respect for others, the cultural and human value of relationships, and the social importance of the family, rather than as violations of the natural law that sexual energy is intended for procreation” (2003, p. 62).
- 10.
Susan J. Stabile notes, for example that “Some feminists insist that feminism requires absolute individual autonomy, including not only unlimited sexual freedom but also freedom from any special responsibility towards children” (2007, p. 436). Critics of traditional forms of the family have even argued that women have a duty to have fewer children so as to help curb pollution and protect the environment (Newby 2011).
- 11.
As Frank and Nyholm argue: “In the human case, the key issue that typically separates legally permitted sexual relations from legally forbidden sexual relations is consent. If a person (e.g., a child) is unable to give/withhold consent, it is illegal to perform a sex-act on that person. Or if a person is able to give consent, but does not give his or her consent, it is also illegal and an act of rape to perform a sex-act on that person. This suggests to us that one possible avenue for incorporating robots in sexual community is via the concept of consent” (2017, p. 307).
- 12.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm See sect. 22.011. Sexual Assault.
- 13.
See: https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/europe. Would this imply that sex robots must look at least 14 years of age in some parts of the world, but 17 or 18 years of age in Texas?
- 14.
As McArthur argues: “There is a simple, rights-based argument in favor of sexbots that some people might consider decisive. According to this rights-based argument, sex with a robot is something that people will generally do in the privacy of their own homes, and it causes no direct harm to others. It is therefore covered by the more general right to privacy that people possess in a free society. The laws in nearly all liberal democracies now recognize a right to privacy that offers significant protections for private sexual behavior. For instance, in 2004, the United States Supreme Court, in a decision granting homosexuals the right to engage in consensual sex, commented that such a right ‘has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom’ in numerous liberal-democratic jurisdictions around the world. A 2008 federal court decision, which overturned Texas’s law against ‘obscene devices’ (sex toys), said of the Lawrence decision: ‘The right the Court recognized was not simply a right to engage in the sexual act itself, but instead a right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding ‘the most private human contact, sexual behavior.’‘According to this line of reasoning, many of the arguments against sexbots are misguided from the outset, since they presume the legitimacy of something that is in fact illegitimate, the interference by society in the lives of individuals, in matters of strictly private concern’” (2017, p. 32; citing Lawrence v. Texas 539 US 558 (2003), 577 and Reliable Cons. v. Earle, 538 F.3d 355 (fifth Cir. 2008).
- 15.
John Danaher argues that “it can be a proper object of the criminal law to prohibit wrongful conduct even if it has no extrinsically harmful effects on others” and that “acts of robotic rape and child sexual abuse (even if they have no extrinsically harmful effects on others) would fall within the class of wrongful conduct that it is a proper object of the criminal law to prohibit” (2017, p. 72). Anna C.B. Russel argues that legal regulation of sexual interaction with robots will be regulated when “the level of interaction either (1) mimics human sexual interactions currently regulated or (2) will create a social harm if the interaction is not regulated” (2009, p. 457). Robot sex designed to mimic child rape, for example, would likely cross this line.
- 16.
“Robot sex offers a solution to a host of problems associated with the sex trade. Given the rise of incurable STIs, including emergent strains of gonorrhea and HIV/AIDS throughout the world and the problem associated with human trafficking and sex tourism it is likely that we will see an increase in demand for alternative forms of sexual expression. In 2050, Amsterdam’s red light district will be all about android prostitutes who are clean of sexual transmitted disease, not smuggled in from Eastern Europe and forced into slavery. Android prostitutes will be both aesthetically pleasing and able to provide guaranteed performance and stimulation ” (Yeoman and Mars 2011, p. 366; see also Laue 2017). Others dispute the notion that sex robots will reduce the use of human prostitutes: “The Campaign also rejects the notion that sex robots will take work from consensual prostitutes, but noting again that the spread of internet porn has not decreased male use of prostitutes but increased it … human prostitutes may even be valued more highly than robots…” (Cranny-Francis 2016, p. 4)
- 17.
On a similar point, see Noel Sharkey et al. (2017, p. 22): “The scholars cited here are pretty much in agreement that sex with robots could or will lead to social isolation (Whitby 2011). The reasons given varied: spending time in a robot relationship could create an inability to form human friendships (Sullins 2012); robots don’t meet the species specific needs of humans (Richardson 2016); sex robots could desensitize humans to intimacy and empathy, which can only be developed through experiencing human interaction and mutual consenting relationships (Kaye 2016; Vallor 2015); real sexual relationships could become overwhelming because relations with robots are easier (Turkle 2011)” (quoted in Gunkel 2018, p. 129).
- 18.
As Mark Migotti and Nicole Wyatt note: “The point is simply that if sex robots are nothing more than aids to masturbation (or for that matter to sex with a human person), they are no different from the broad variety of sex toys already on offer, and so don’t raise any distinctive social, ethical, or conceptual problems” (2017, pp. 21–22).
- 19.
As Nascimento, de Silva and Siqueria-Batista comment with regard to the artificial violence of video games and virtual reality videos summarizes some of the challenges: “… even if those videos are meant to be just entertainment, we should be concerned about their influence on human values, behavior, and health. Some psychological and behavioral studies show that violent games lead to an increase in violent behavior ... On the other hand, there are proponents who argue that these video games, even if inclusive of simulations of violence, can contribute to cognitive development, such as improving one’s responses to harm, attacks, or threats. However, the extent to which the portrayal of violence is acceptable will vary among different societies…” (Nascimento et al. 2018, p. 235).
- 20.
As Charles Murray summarizes: “No matter what the outcome being examined—the quality of the mother-infant relationship, externalizing behavior in childhood (aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity), delinquency in adolescence, criminality as adults, illness and injury in childhood, early mortality, sexual decision making in adolescence, school problems and dropping out, emotional health, or any other measure of how well or poorly children do in life—the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married. Divorced parents produce the next-best outcomes. Whether the parents remarry or remain single while the children are growing up makes little difference. Never-married women produce the worst outcomes. All of these statements apply after controlling for the family’s socio-economic status” (2012, p. 158).
- 21.
For example, Shulamith Firestone argued for a revolution radically to undermine traditional family life: “… the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. … The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general … The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (1970, p. 11)
- 22.
Judith Butler, for example, urges “… a feminist view argues that gender should be overthrown, eliminated, or rendered fatally ambiguous precisely because it is always a sign of subordination of women” (1999, p. xiii).
- 23.
International newspaper headlines, such as “Man gives birth to healthy baby 4 years after transitioning” (Drewett 2017), assert medical “success” in such matters, despite the fact that the only examples of “men giving birth” have been females, who are living as transgender males. As a matter of reproductive biology, their bodies are functioning females.
- 24.
See Katie Law (2019) : “My big fat solo wedding – Why I married myself”. https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/reader-i-married-me-book-review-sophie-tanner-a4143836.html
- 25.
See Pecoraro, who argues that “…absent any evidence of coercion or psychological abuse, the choice between a brother and sister to form a romantic bond is a product of their own autonomous choice. It is likely one of the most difficult choices each has made. Especially after Obergefell, the state cannot close the doors of marriage simply because it does not approve of the choice two individuals have made. Moreover, this concept implicates the very dignity that Obergefell seeks to protect – the right of two individuals to make a choice of their existence without undue interference by the state (2017, p. 2085).
- 26.
See Rachel Hosie (2017): “Woman who married dog 8 years ago says he’s perfect for her”. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-married-dog-8-years-perfect-for-her-marriage-animal-wilhelmina-morgan-callaghan-northern-a7994626.html
- 27.
See Aislinn Simpson (2008): “Woman with objects fetish marries Eiffel Tower”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
- 28.
This point has not been lost on Matt McMullen, the founder and CEO of RealDoll. “In a video interview for the New York Times, McCullen described his company’s current goal as to develop artificial intelligence for the RealDolls that would allow them to ‘arouse someone on an emotional, intellectual level, beyond the physical.’ He added that: ‘I want people to actually develop an emotional attachment to not only the doll, but to the actual character behind it. To develop some kind of love for this being.’ McMullen is explicit that this requires interactivity, in particular for the doll to be able to converse with and respond to their partner” (Migotti and Wyatt 2017, p. 23; quoting Canepari et al. 2015).
References
Butler, J. 1999. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Canepari, Z., D. Cooper, and E. Cott. 2015. Sex dolls that talk back. Robotica, episode 5, New York Times Video, June 11. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/technology/robotica-sex-robot-realdoll.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013a. CDC fact sheet, STD trends in the United States, 2011 National Data for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis. Accessed July 28, 2015. www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/trends-2011.pdf
———. 2013b. STDs today. Accessed May 09, 2013. www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/std/std.asp#1
Cherry, M.J. 2010. Parental authority and pediatric decision making. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (5): 553–572.
———. 2016. Sex, family and the culture wars. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Cranny-Francis, A. 2016. Is data a toaster? Gender, sex, sexuality and robots. Palgrave Communications 2. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.72.
Dalrymple, T. 2005. Our culture, what’s left of it. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Danaher, J. 2017. Robotic rape and robotic child abuse: Should they be criminalized? Criminal Law and Philosophy 11: 71–95.
Davidson, J. 2020. Smithsonian pushes racist material claiming ‘white culture’ is ‘nuclear family,’ ‘self-reliance,’ being ‘polite’. The Federalist July 15. http://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/smithsonian-pushes-racist-material-claiming-white-culture-is-nuclear-family-self-reliance-being-polite/
Di Nucci, E. 2017. Sex robots and the rights of the disabled. In Robot sex: Social and ethical implications, eds. J. Danaher and N. McArthur, 73–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Drewett, Z. 2017. Man gives birth to healthy baby four years after transitioning. Metro December 13. https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/13/man-gives-birth-healthy-baby-four-years-transitioning-7155091/
Engelhardt, H.T., Jr. 1996. The foundations of bioethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2000. The foundations of Christian bioethics. Lisse: Springer.
———. 2010. Beyond the best interests of children: Four views of the family and of foundational disagreements regarding pediatric decision-making. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (5): 499–517.
———. 2017. After God: Morality & bioethics in a secular age. Yonkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Firestone, S. 1970. The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: Bantam Books.
Frank, L., and S. Nyholm. 2017. Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable? Artificial Intelligence and Law 25: 305–323.
Gunkel, D.J. 2018. Robot rights. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hosie, R. 2017. Woman who married dog eight years ago says he’s perfect for her. Independent October 11, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-married-dog-8-years-perfect-for-her-marriage-animal-wilhelmina-morgan-callaghan-northern-a7994626.html
Kaye, L. 2016. Challenging sex robots and the brutal dehumanization of women. Campaign against sex robots. https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/2016/02/10/challenging-sex-robots-and-the-brutal-dehumanization-of-women
Laue, C. 2017. Familiar and strange: Gender, sex, and love in the uncanny valley. Multimodal technologies and interaction 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti1010002.
Law, K. 2019. My big fat solo wedding – Why I married myself. Evening standard, May 16, 2019. www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/reader-i-married-me-book-review-sophie-tanner-a4143836.htm
Levy, D. 2009. Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. New York: Harper Collins.
McArthur, N. 2017. The case for sexbots. In Robot sex: Social and ethical implications, eds. J. Danaher and N. McArthur, 31–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Migotti, M., and N. Wyatt. 2017. On the very idea of sex with robots. In Robot sex: Social and ethical implications, eds. J. Danaher and N. McArthur, 15–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murray, C. 2012. Coming apart: The state of white America. New York: Crown Forum.
Nagel, T. 2009. Secular philosophy and the religious temperament. Essays 2002–2008. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nascimento, E.C.C., E. de Silva, and R. Siqueira-Batista. 2018. The “use” of sex robots: A bioethical issue. Asia Bioethics Review 10: 231–240.
Newby, J. 2011. Al Gore promotes having fewer children to curb pollution. Spokane conservative examiner (June 22). Accessed July 30, 2015. www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/al-gore-promotes-having-fewer-children-to-curb-pollution
Owusu-Edusei, K. Jr., H. W. Chesson, T. L. Gift, G. Tao, M. Reena, M. C. Bañez Ocfemia, and C. Kent. 2013. The estimated direct medical cost of selected sexually transmitted infections in the United States, 2008. Sexually Transmitted Disease 40 (3): 197–201.
Pecoraro, A.J. 2017. Exploring the boundaries of Obergefell. William & Mary Law Review 58 (6): 2063–2103.
Richardson, K. 2015. The asymmetrical ‘relationship’: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. SIGCAS Computers & Society 45 (3): 290–293.
———. 2016. Sex robot matters: Slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 35 (2): 46–53.
Russell, A.C.B. 2009. Blurring the love lines: The legal implications of intimacy with machines. Computer Law & Security Review 25: 455–463.
Sharkey, N.E., van Wynsberghe, A., S. Robbins, and E. Hancock. 2017. Our sexual future with robots: A foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. Foundation for responsible robotics. https://responsiblerobotics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FRR-Consultation-Report-Our-Sexual-Future-with-robots-1-1.pdf
Simpson, A. 2008. Woman with objects fetish marries Eiffel Tower. The Telegraph June 04, 2008. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
Stabile, S. 2007. Can secular feminists and Catholic feminists work together to ease the conflict between work and family. University of St. Thomas Law Journal 4 (3): 432–467.
Sullins, J.P. 2012. Robots, love, and sex: The ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 3 (4): 398–409.
T’ung-tsu. Ch’u. 1980. Law and society in traditional China. Westport: Hyperion Press.
Turkle, S. 2011. Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
Vallor, S. 2015. Moral deskilling and upskilling in a new machine age: Reflections on the ambiguous future of character. Philosophy & Technology 28 (1): 107–124.
Vattimo, G. 2003. Nihilism & emancipation: Ethics, politics, & Law. New York: Columbia University Press.
Whitby, B. 2011. Do you want a robot lover? The ethics of caring technologies. In Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics, eds. P. Lin, K. Abney, and G. Bekey, 233–248. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yoeman, I., and M. Mars. 2011. Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures 44: 365–371.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cherry, M.J. (2021). Could You Marry a Sex Robot? Shifting Sexual Norms and the Transformation of the Family. In: Fan, R., Cherry, M.J. (eds) Sex Robots. Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82280-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82280-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82279-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82280-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)