You've Lost That
I dont know
about you but I like my sex to be with a person. But will I be seen
as old-fashioned and, worse, unhygienic, if thats the way I still
like it in the future?
Sex is one of the primeval urges like hunger, thirst and the need for
shelter. It is something unchanging. Attitudes towards it may have changed
and the number of people we may do it with. But fundamentally it remains
as something that we just do. Naturally.
But for how long will we continue to feel that way? Already we have
virtual sex, cyber sex and a machine which can give women orgasms. Films
over the last few decades have already portrayed sex with machines -
think of Barbarella and Woody Allens Sleeper. On
a lighter but just as pertinent note, Sandra Bullock refusing to sleep
with Sly Stallone in the America of the future in the film Demolition
Man because sex is messy.
And shes right. It is. But isnt that what makes it so glorious?
Sex isnt beautiful and has never been a spectator sport, in my
view. I dont mean the depiction of sex in porn films or Hollywood
glossies where the woman is beautifully made up, the lighting is soft
(and so probably is the actor) and barely a trace of emotion flickers
across the womans face. I mean real good passionate sex. Its
great for the two taking part but it really isnt that romantic
So how will technology impact on our lives in the future? Well, think
of it this way. Do you really want to make love to a machine or have
it make love to you? Does that thought do anything for you? No, me neither.
But then, we have been brought up to appreciate the human touch. We
love to stroke, to cuddle and enjoy bodily contact. But imagine a world
that doesnt. Imagine a world where your kids are brought up by
robot nannies, where they are never touched and never hugged. Imagine
that its much easier to have sex with a robot made for that purpose.
None of that adolescent angst, that worry about rejection. It doesnt
care that you have spots or bad breath or havent washed your hair
for a week. Looking any better now? Again, maybe not to us, but you
can bet it will to the future teenager.
Looking at it objectively like that, maybe that is our future, or at
least a part of it. And remember, given the advances in recent technology,
this robot wont look like some updated form of Metal Mickey. It
will probably have a human shape and be covered in a skin like substance.
We will be able to select the colour of its hair and eyes and body shape.
But, wait, is this, in fact, much removed from the sex toys in use today
such as vibrators? Obviously they may be able to do a lot more than
vibrators and the other sex toys that are around today but they will
probably fulfil the same function - as an aid to sex play. But wait
again. What if they guarantee blow jobs 24 hours a day, dont mind
doing all the housework and never nag? Maybe they will become the preferred
option, after all.
So is this our future? I dont think so. I have a feeling that
this may relate more to men than to women and that it has a lot more
to do with straightforward sex than emotional relationships. Theoretically,
you may hate arguing with your partner, but it would be awfully dull
if you had one who wouldnt argue with you. And having to programme
someone to have sex with you isnt going to make you feel any more
attractive than rejection from a living, breathing person does. But
there are a few options for the robot sex slaves. Maybe they will take
the place of prostitution - the oldest profession will get a new technological
twist. Maybe they will help to solve the potential future population
problem of China where, thanks to the one child policy, there is already
a huge imbalance of males and females - in favour of males. I dont
know how you feel about it, but a huge influx of sexually frustrated
males in charge of what will be one of the most powerful countries in
the world in the future is not a comfortable prospect. So bring on the
Of course, talking about sex in the future assumes that the people of
the future are going to be able to have sex or that they will want to.
In a recent New Scientist magazine there was a report that the consumption
of too many Es may lead to a drastic loss of libido. Using questionnaires
from 768 young people in Rome, Padua, London and Manchester, it was
discovered that heavy ecstasy users reported a large drop in sex drive,
larger than that given by users of other drugs or those who drank purely
alcohol. This is particularly ironic since many people use ecstasy to
heighten their sexual pleasure. Given that ecstasy usage is quite high
among the current teenage population, you have to wonder if they will
give up the sex, drugs and rock n roll lifestyle in favour
of just the drugs.
But ecstasy is only one of the drugs that we put in our bodies. Chemicals
in the atmosphere, as well as prescription drugs, may have a huge effect
not only on our libido but also on our reproductive capacity. In 1992
it was discovered that there has been a noticeable decline in sperm
counts in the second half of the 20th century throughout the Western
world. Though no one has, as yet, identified the prime suspect in causing
this, many culprits abound, and again, most of them are linked to chemicals
found in the environment. And who knows the effects of other products
that we have put into our bodies in the last fifty years? So will we
still be able to reproduce at all in the future?
Well, actually, that loss of fertility which has been widely reported
in the last few years possibly wont matter, as by 2030 sex will
be almost completely divorced from reproduction anyway. You will be
seen as old fashioned (or poor) if you want to make a baby out of pure
chance - or worse, love - rather than selecting it from a series of
test tubes. Within the next twenty to thirty years our range of both
contraception and choice of reproduction will grow enormously. Want
to harvest your eggs in your 20s when they are at their freshest, but
not have your baby until your 40s or 50s when youve had your career?
Certainly, madam, that shouldnt be a problem. Cant get it
up but want to use your sperm? Certainly sir.
This can only lead to three things, for women in particular: sexual
freedom, freedom from that hideous biological clock and the freedom
to make choices. To some extent, these are things that men already take
for granted. Men certainly arent held hostage to the biological
clock in the same way that women are at the moment. Men may prefer to
have their children in their thirties or forties, but there is no doubt
that they can continue creating children right up until they die. Charlie
Chaplin, for example, fathered his last child in his seventies.
In his book Sex in the Future Robin Baker argues that we will no longer
want just the one partner. Ive always liked that idea: one whos
a good chef, a personal trainer, a masseur, someone to talk to, someone
who loves to cuddle, and someone whos great in bed. That is somewhat
making light of Robin Bakers central premise, but his book does
explore the various options that an increase in fertility technology
will bring us. He argues that paternity testing will come to have a
huge influence in the future. Men will no longer be able to sleep with
women and then disappear without paying for any responsibilities that
they may leave behind them. He also explores the many new choices that
we will probably have with regard to contraception and reproduction.
Divorcing sex from reproduction, men and women may choose to freeze
their eggs and sperm at a young age and then become sterilised so that
they can have as many sexual partners as they wish. This will then give
them the opportunity to experiment and also give them the freedom to
choose exactly when they want to have their children and with whom.
This, of course, may lead to a broadening of our horizons. Homosexual
couples may no longer be seen as controversial as they are today. They
may be allowed to create children in the same way that heterosexual
couples do - through genetic selection of sperm and eggs on the internet.
People may choose to have children with people that they dont
know - in fact, people already are. Sperm donors are anonymous. Families
may become very different. A household may be made up of a woman who
has her own children (created with sperm which she choose from a selection
on offer) and a man who has his own children (his sperm mixed with eggs
on offer and carried by a surrogate mother). This man and woman may
deliberately decide not to have children together, as that may emotionally
confuse things if they decide to separate.
But, we have to consider, again, what effect that will have emotionally.
You werent made out of love, darling, but out of a test
tube. Gee, thanks mom. Well, thats only one
way to look at it. Another way is to realise that every child that will
be created in that way will be truly wanted. After all, there were no
mistakes involved, no bad timing - they will be planned
and, more importantly, wanted.
But the other emotional effect we have to consider is that of jealousy.
Wont we be jealous if our partner has other partners and how will
they feel about ours? Baker argues that sexual jealousy on the male
side is biologically related to a fear of bringing up a child that is
not their own - and that will no longer be a fear once paternity testing
is in place. A womans main fear is that she will be left, literally,
holding the baby with no support. Again, with paternity testing and
compulsory payment of a form of child tax this will no longer be the
main concern. Both parties also fear disease but if medical technology
advances the way Baker thinks it would this worry will also disappear.
Of course, legislation will have to change to allow any of this to happen.
Standing where I am, at the beginning of the 21st century, I cant
see any of this happening in the next ten years. People are still too
entrenched in their beliefs. The furore over Section 28 in Scotland
shows that a large number of people are still outraged by homosexual
relationships and the interest shown in any homosexual couples trying
to adopt children shows that society is not yet ready to consider them
adequate parents. But then society is having a problem at the moment
in deciding what a family is. Divorce legislation is going through to
make that process simpler while at the same time the government is saying
that it is a government for families. One parent families
are on the rise and may soon become, if not the majority, then certainly
a very large and influential minority. Yet society still portrays them
as a bad thing.
Sex in the past was always about reproduction (even if that wasnt
always why we did it) but isnt it interesting to think about how
we will approach it if that is no longer its primary purpose. Will it
become purely a hobby? Will it be more passionate or less interesting?
Will it become more connected to love or less? The options above will
almost definitely only be available to those who can afford to pay for
such things, therefore I cant see sex or making babies the old
fashioned way dying off at any time in the near future.
The Mating Game
Will such technological advances make a difference in how how we choose
our mate? There have already been vast changes during the last century.
In the twentieth century, for almost the first time in history, there
was a freedom about choosing partners for life. Marriage was no longer
about property or money but about love and lust. Divorce rates rose
accordingly but, as a society, we no longer cared so much about that.
Marriages may have lasted longer in the past but were they any happier?
Throughout history, how have we gone about finding our mates?
On the 11th of February, 2001, the following advert appeared in The
Independent on Sunday:
White man, divorced, blue eyes, brown hair, 58, 53, American,
seeks single or divorced white English lady, blue eyes, black hair,
average figure or better, attractive face, 18-30, without children but
able and willing to have them. He is Christian, conservative, non-smoker,
non-drinker, non-vegetarian, good background ... seeks same. Only sport
he likes is chess, cerebral, gentle, kind, caring and loving... 20 year
member of Amnesty International, 10 year freedom writer, 15 year Mensan...
enjoys all music, loves slow dancing, loves children and desires a big
family. He is the last male member of the family for many branches removed.
Bear me a healthy son, and I will worship the ground you walk on. Surname
is listed in Burkes peerage back to the 13th century... family
in America in 1682. She should be willing to cook and clean house, for
which he promises his constant support - financial and emotional.
This wasnt in the soulmates or equivalent section
of the newspaper - this was in the main pages. I thought that was quite
strange but I also found it highly amusing when I came across the following
advert while reading a book about the 18th century:
Tall and graceful in her person, more of the fine woman than the
pretty one; good teeth, soft lips, sweet breath, with eyes no matter
what colour, so they are but expressive; of a healthy complexion, rather
inclined to fair than brown; neat in her person, her bosom full, plump,
firm and white; a good understanding without being a wit, but cheerful
and lively in conversation, polite and delicate of speech, her temper
humane and tender, and to look as if she could feel delight where she
wishes to give it ... She must consent to live entirely in the country,
which, if she likes the man, she will not be unwilling to comply with;
and it is to be hoped she will have a heart above all mercenary views
and honest enough not to be ashamed to own she loves the man whom she
makes her choice. She must not be more than fourteen years, nor less
than seven years, younger than the gentleman.
One of these adverts is from the 18th century and one from the 21st.
Has our choice of mate changed by that much? Personally I can see no
difference, except that in the 18th century the man looking for a wife
did not expect someone as young as the one from the 21st. Ah, the cult
of youth that pervades our society today. While they may have been more
pragmatic about it in the 18th century, most people look for someone
with whom they are compatible as their mate. In the past, in the upper
echelons of society in particular, it was purely about land, property
and money and if sex came into the equation at all, it was about creating
the (male) heir. But in the 20th century, with more economic freedom
around, and more female freedom in particular, love became much more
important and people began to choose their partners accordingly - and
no longer felt obliged to marry the first person with whom they had
The Pill had a lot to do with this. But while giving us the option of
a choice of partners, it turns out that the Pill may actually be affecting
our choice. There was a report in the New Scientist (10 February, 2001)
saying that being on the Pill could actually affect how we choose our
partner. And here were back to the primeval side of things. This
is nothing to do with chemical or technological advances, but to do
with the good old fashioned sense of smell. Taking the Pill may be affecting
that sense of smell as there is evidence to show that when on the Pill
we are not selecting people with different immune systems to ours as
we used to do. We used to select these compatible people by our sense
of smell, but the Pill seems to mask this. Does that mean we are selecting
more based on love and personal compatibility, rather than letting biology
or chemistry make that choice for us? Or does it mean that we are picking
less compatible people - and we dont find that out until we stop
taking the pill?
It makes you wonder what other pills will come in in the future. Will
we start popping pills that will make us attractive to people? Just
as we design our babies will we also design our mates - and then what
happens if we dont like them any more. Surely, then, we really
only have ourselves to blame. Were already bottling pheromones.
Whatever happened to love and romance and just sheer chance?
But is this anything new? Just what does natural mean? On the purely
biological / chemical front we have always changed the way that we smell,
and therefore have affected our choice of partner. Perfume, shaving
and deodorant all have a lot to answer for when it comes to masking
our natural pheromones. We started changing our biochemical makeup when
we first put on clothes and everything we have done ever since has only
changed us more.
Will we follow Robin Bakers theory and have a range of partners
at different times in our lives? Well, Id rather believe his view
than the one that we will only have sex with machines and make our babies
only out of test tubes. Call me an old romantic but I cant see
my the majority of my generation settling for anything less than the
Will it happen that way? Well, back to the New Scientist and a different
premise about gene therapy: soon there will be a GenerationRich who
will be able to afford to build themselves and their children just as
they want them and create a new class within society. But some scientists
think that this wont work for the simple reason that these people
will always want to mate with the lower classes. And I think the same
reason will prevent our future from being a robotic one. We wont
be able to keep our hands off each other.
< About the Author
< Reply to this Article