I’ve thought a lot about the origins and past of human sexuality, but a few years ago, a German magazine (The European) asked me for my thoughts on the future of sex.
Hi Chris, I enjoyed reading your article about the future of sex. Since I’ve also thought a lot about sex (written some books), I wrote a lengthy comment offering some new ideas on the subject. I thought you’d be interested in them and looked forward to a potential conversation. To be honest, I’m disappointed by your lack of response.
Maybe you were busy—I think your Mom wasn’t well around that time. Hope she's better. Anyway…I’m picking up the thread. How about engaging with my comment. If you think I’m full of it, at least tell me why… I’m an adult, I can take it.
BTW, here’s my latest article—Questioning Sex #8: Is Sex a Public Health Crisis?
Has humanity been polluted by millennia of toxic sexual shame? What are the consequences of this collective trauma?
Chris, You’ve written persuasively about two possible scenarios for the “future of sex”: 1) continuing on the same trajectory of an AI-fueled dehumanization or 2) a post-apocalypse societal collapse reverting to pre-historic “hunter-gatherer” communitarian basics. (Forgive my inadequate summaries).
I’d like to add a 3rd possibility (however unlikely).
I’ve authored 5 SECRET SEX LIFE books (fiction & nonfiction) that explore the mystery we call “sex’ (IJWeinstock.com) and have published over a dozen articles on Medium this past year that examine the hidden connections between sex, society, and survival. (https://medium.com/@jerryiweinstock)
What if we looked at sex as the CAUSE rather than the RESULT?
I believe sex is more fundamental and consequential than we realize, and two thousand years of patriarchal distortion and religious oppression have kept us ignorant of this.
Great ancient civilizations like Egypt and Sumer (Babylon), which lasted thousands of years, believed sex to be the “Original Blessing” that raised humanity from bestiality. They viewed sex as the “root” of the Tree of Life from which society and civilization grow. And they revered sex because if the “root” of the Tree of Life is damaged, the “fruit” (society) will become poisoned.
Think of sex—not just the physical act but also the story we tell ourselves about “sex”—as the hidden underground root system of how men and women relate and society functions. In some sense, everything flows downstream from sex.
A contemporary tech metaphor might be that “sex” is the “source code” for society. The story we tell ourselves about sex — how we conceive of, feel about, and engage in sex — governs gender identity, shapes relations between men and women, dictates the dynamics of family, and ultimately influences the values and structures of society.
If “sex” is the “root,” changing the story we tell ourselves about sex might have a tremendously beneficial impact on society.
We are inheritors of an Original Sin-sourced civilization that’s polluted our inner nature with sexual shame. Why are only sexual words bleeped on TV? Why are sex jokes called “dirty”? Why is the word for self-pleasure called “masturbation,” which originally meant to defile oneself? I’ve written an article about the sexual shame embedded in our language—Questioning Sex #2: Is a “Pussy” By Any Other Name the Same? https://medium.com/@jerryiweinstock/questioning-sex-2-is-a-pussy-by-any-other-name-the-same-280dae8ae7f
I believe that we’ve all suffered a form of childhood “sexual abuse” inflicted by this Original Sin-sourced sexual shame. Is the pollution of our inner world by toxic sexual shame driving us insane and to “poisoning our nest” by unconsciously creating societies that pollute our outer world? Is it possible that our headlong rush to dehumanization and destruction is rooted in the collective trauma of sexual shame? Can a species ashamed of the way it creates new life survive? Are we fucking up the world because our fucking is fucked up?!
If sex is the “root,” perhaps we can create a new story by reclaiming some of the ancient wisdom about sex being the Original Blessing. Healing our collective trauma of sexual shame may heal our inner nature…from which all healing of the planet manifests.
I propose that sex should be considered not only a “root” of the Tree of Life but also a Great Lever of society. In the past, changes in sex have had tremendous impacts on society. Take one recent example—the birth control pill which changed society. Ashley Montagu, the renowned anthropologist, ranked the evolutionary impact of the legalization of The Pill in 1960 with the primeval discovery of fire. The fight over abortion and reproductive rights is another instance of how sex and our ideas about it have a tremendous societal impact.
Yuval Noah Harari, the noted historian, has said, “The story in which you believe shapes the society that you create.” I’ll take it a step further—the “story” we tell ourselves about sex shapes the kind of society, its health, and ultimately its fate.
A new story about sex might heal our collective trauma and change society. Maybe healing sex can save the world!
PS I’ve made a lot of broad statements without much explanation. If you’re interested in these ideas, read my book, OUR SECRET SEX LIFE: The Key to Humanity’s Destiny.
"As our advancing technology renders sexuality ever more divorced from emotion and intimacy, a process already well underway, sex will increasingly be seen as simply a matter of provoking pleasure in the most efficient, reliable ways possible."
This is most certainly a tangent, but I am curious about the above quote. I have been a fan of yours for over a decade. I read your book and the idea of non monogamy seems to make sense, (biologically) but I have never been able to wrap my head around how emotion and intimacy play into that.
Have you ever considered the idea that non monogamous sex is not actual sex? That emotion and intimacy are not fully present?
Like having sex with a nn human object or watching porn. Perhaps non monogamous sex is a more efficient and reliable way to experience pleasure, without the commitment to emotional intimacy or creativity it takes to stay engaged with one partner.
Should we redefine what is sex and what is pleasure? Is a back massage sex or pleasure? Is the sun on your face? Is a three some?
Honestly, my opinions are really unsettled, and I would like to know what your thoughts are.
Hi William. Thanks for your comment. No, I wouldn't consider non-monogamous sex "not actual sex" at all. If I understand your point, you're implying that sex without intimacy doesn't quite qualify -- an argument I could find persuasive. For example, when semen is collected from some farm animals, ejaculation is provoked through the use of an electric charge from an anal probe touching the prostate. Is this "sex?" Is ejaculation during a so-called "wet dream" sex? So I'm with you on the premise that there can be orgasm that may not qualify as "sex."
But you lose me with your assumption that being sexual with more than one person during any given period in life must be without intimacy. As Chris Wright points out, there is nothing inherenet in intimacy or love that limits these feelings to one person at a time. We love several friends. No need to redefine "love" in light of that fact. Sexual intimacy can be similarly nuanced.
In my view, the assumption that anything other than monogamous intimacy isn't "real," is part of a deeply corrosive world-view that is inculcated into children along with racism, fear of God, and the belief that Mom and Dad are infallible. There is no objective evidence that this is true, and whatever anecdotal evidence we have just confirms the strength of cultural conditioning, just as the presence of racists doesn't prove that racism is "natural" or "real."
Thank you for replying Chris. I think I am speaking to your first point. What defines real sex? Sorta like asking what defines real wealth!
With the subject of monogamy I'm not trying to be self richeous. I am not suggesting non monogamy is wrong, I'm not really suggesting anything, I'm just curious.
What if ejaculating from an electric prostate stimulator is different than a blow job from your partners girlfriend, is different than focusing on pleasuring one partner at a time? I don't know!
Sure, there are general ideas that society provides to what "sex" and "wealth" are, but it seems like you are trying to chase a very specific definition of those. Just sticking to sex, a person can define this in many distinct, personal ways. Even within that, I'm sure you know someone who says "sex", "making love", "fucking", - and so on - all have different definitions (they may look similar, objectively, but they can differ subjectively based on the intent/mindset of the participants).
If to you, sex requires intimacy, then it does to you. If you think sex requires orgasm, then that's what you believe (and consequently you would think women are having a lot less straight sex than men). If a couple agrees that real sex can only be between one person and a partner whom one loves and has given oneself to solely, that sounds very romantic and good for them. That couple should also define what cheating looks like in said relationship, because with that defintion, it also sounds impossible to call any canoodling outside of the partnership as sex -> Many monogamous couples have unique ideas of cheating from even their closest partnered friends.
Although non-monogamy may be the more biological/original structure of human sex, that doesn't mean every human has to feel the same way about it. I'm sure one or two hunter-gatherers experienced some jealousy back in the day! To me it seems like you want to figure out how your personal view of sex could merge with a broader/societal/non-monogamous definition. The truth seems to be, they don't have to. At least not that closely. Humans created the word and the definition. The cosmos didn't declare "this is what sex is" the first time two cells merged to create a new cell with a novel genetic code (what humans call, sexual reproduction).
If you're curious what "actual sex" or "real sex" is, that's up to you. Same as "what does wealth look like to you?"
For the record, to me, the electric probe and the blowjob are different.
"To me is seems like you want to figure out how your personal view(I would use experiences) of sex could merge with a broader societal non monogamous definition."
Well said! That is exactly what I am trying to do. My partner and I have been having these discussions recently, we have both expressed to each other that we are open minded about sex. We have also talked about how we are both in agreement with Esther Perel's idea that monogamy is not sex with one person for the rest of our lives, but sex with one person at a time. However, when we start discussing what that means we get into the weeds discussing what qualifies as sex therefore what qualifies as cheating. It is certainly complex and full of nuance and neither one of us really has a definitive answer. Which was the catalyst for my questions in this discussion.
Nonmonogamous sex can still be deeply intimate and emotional. We have capacity to love and connect with more than one person. Ask any parent of more than one child if they could ever limit their love and attachment to just one child; the idea would be nonsensical. That said, nonmonogamous sex can also be impersonal. So can monogamous sex in a relationship. It all depends on the intent of the people involved.
Yes Chris Wright it is nonsensical to say you can only love or connect with one person at a time. But love and connection is not sex. I love my mom, my brother, and my children but I am not having sex with them.
You are absolutely right, sex (as it is currently defined) can be very impersonal.
Ah, sex. Ahhhh. Mmmm. As to this lovely thoughtful article, I predict not either scenario but both, and various blends of the two. Apocalypse and collapse aren’t all at once in all places, they happen and are happening slowly in many places, and periodically in a few places, all at once. So our two scenarios will be meandering, intersecting paths as different peoples choose differently. The techno-bros will continue on theirs, the paleo-tribes on theirs (ours?), and many people will test and taste from each and create all sorts of hybrids. If your kink is technology, the choice is clear. If your kink is mutual squish and splash and glorious stink, the choice is clear. Most people, including me, mix and match, but I prefer the latter largely because porn and technology doesn’t give me the human intimacy I so deeply enjoy.
Gibson was right. When it comes to the future of sex, the future will not be evenly distibuted. The various scenarios discussed do not cover the parts of the world where poverty and/or religious dogma are too strong to permit radical changes. Currently, innovations in sexual activity are often suppressed and/or punished by the authorities (mostly male) . The silver lining is that these radical changes might catch on, given time, and undermine the current "powers that be" and their represssiive mentality and behavior.
So true, and as usual, I'm not sure if that uneven distribution is good or bad news for those who will be left behind. And you make a good point concerning my failure to address the current state of sexual repression in much of the world today, where women are still seen as sub-human possessions of men.
I'm not sure that Scenario 1 is necessarily so abhorrent, is it?
I mean, insofar as we're unlikely to to return to Bonobo-like sexual lives free from the transactionality and suspicion that now permeates sexual life (even though it's an ideal worth nudging toward), isn't more orgasms for lonely people inherently better than fewer? My view about the civilization problem fundamentally accepts all your premises, but I would add that insofar as we're stuck in this techno-dystopia (and it seems we are) why not at least leverage the few things that it's actually really good at? If we have to deal with technology making our lives worse in a hundred ways, why not at least let it help us get off?
Take ChatGPT and iOS, for example. The former gives you a moralizing lecture if you ask it to tell you an erotic story, and the latter simply bans apps that deliver erotic imagery. Tech companies have no problem mining our deepest secret souls for ad targeting. But god forbid anybody get a bit of jouissance out of it. This seems deeply wrong to me--at best, really rude on the part of these companies.
Reducing the importance of rigid gender roles and diminishing the link between human sexual connection and reproductive concerns (since in agricultural societies having children can carry life-ruining consequences), also don't seem so unambiguously bad to me. Indeed, much of your first book is about precisely why that actually is the ancestral human way of life. Isn't it possible to bring an awareness of these ancient aspects of the human condition to modern life and use our new tools to embrace and enhance them? If we're unafraid to look at the evidence about human sexual nature to then unrestrain our imaginations, perhaps some fusion might be possible that allows us to have the best of both ways of life?
Good stuff Chris. I quit watching porn 10 years ago. I was a young 20 something male and was with women who wanted to have sex, but I was unable to get erect. This happened multiple times and enough was enough. I did research am correlated ED with pornography use. I was the first generation of humans (born in 1990) who could watch porn at the click of a mouse. And like a lab rat, the dopamine rush was powerful and I came back for more and more hits, nearly everyday for a decade. It wasn't easy, but the ED went away and have never had a problem since. That being said, there is the option to say, "I'll stick with the way my ancestors had been masturbating for years" and grip it and rip it to my imagination. Porn is certainly heading to 3D and VR mainstream and it's already here. I'll continue to tug away, but our new generation of humans will have a harder time as its readily available access is so easy. Go easy on yourselves out there and happy tugging and rubbing!
Good stuff Jerry. I've said the quote about a 'young person seeing more naked women than their grandfather in one session of porn use' on several occasions and it's true. Thanks for writing something you're passionate about!
I wonder how could we possibly escape this dystopia and return to a more natural pattern of behavior like we used to do before civilization emerged. Are we really beyond this possibility? I heard of communities attempting to drop all modernities and pursuing a natural life. Is it utopia? There are also the Quakers and the Amish, far from ideal, of course, but they’re still standing and prospering AFAIK. Is there a way for our species to wake up from this dream of technology (Matrix) and remember who we really are and what makes us happy and fulfilled? Can psychedelics help with this? Rhetorical questions, of course.
In the words of John Michael Greer, why can't we collapse first, to avoid the rush? Let's prepare a better world, informed by our paleolithic and neolithic successes and failures. Here is one way to prepare:https://www.lithica.earth/. Here is another:https://www.game-b.org/. There might be others. We can't necessarily count on a nice collapse if we don't prepare. It could end up being quite brutal.
Hi Chris, I enjoyed reading your article about the future of sex. Since I’ve also thought a lot about sex (written some books), I wrote a lengthy comment offering some new ideas on the subject. I thought you’d be interested in them and looked forward to a potential conversation. To be honest, I’m disappointed by your lack of response.
Maybe you were busy—I think your Mom wasn’t well around that time. Hope she's better. Anyway…I’m picking up the thread. How about engaging with my comment. If you think I’m full of it, at least tell me why… I’m an adult, I can take it.
BTW, here’s my latest article—Questioning Sex #8: Is Sex a Public Health Crisis?
Has humanity been polluted by millennia of toxic sexual shame? What are the consequences of this collective trauma?
https://medium.com/@jerryiweinstock/questioning-sex-8-is-sex-a-public-health-crisis-aa4f28930e60
Chris, You’ve written persuasively about two possible scenarios for the “future of sex”: 1) continuing on the same trajectory of an AI-fueled dehumanization or 2) a post-apocalypse societal collapse reverting to pre-historic “hunter-gatherer” communitarian basics. (Forgive my inadequate summaries).
I’d like to add a 3rd possibility (however unlikely).
I’ve authored 5 SECRET SEX LIFE books (fiction & nonfiction) that explore the mystery we call “sex’ (IJWeinstock.com) and have published over a dozen articles on Medium this past year that examine the hidden connections between sex, society, and survival. (https://medium.com/@jerryiweinstock)
What if we looked at sex as the CAUSE rather than the RESULT?
I believe sex is more fundamental and consequential than we realize, and two thousand years of patriarchal distortion and religious oppression have kept us ignorant of this.
Great ancient civilizations like Egypt and Sumer (Babylon), which lasted thousands of years, believed sex to be the “Original Blessing” that raised humanity from bestiality. They viewed sex as the “root” of the Tree of Life from which society and civilization grow. And they revered sex because if the “root” of the Tree of Life is damaged, the “fruit” (society) will become poisoned.
Think of sex—not just the physical act but also the story we tell ourselves about “sex”—as the hidden underground root system of how men and women relate and society functions. In some sense, everything flows downstream from sex.
A contemporary tech metaphor might be that “sex” is the “source code” for society. The story we tell ourselves about sex — how we conceive of, feel about, and engage in sex — governs gender identity, shapes relations between men and women, dictates the dynamics of family, and ultimately influences the values and structures of society.
If “sex” is the “root,” changing the story we tell ourselves about sex might have a tremendously beneficial impact on society.
We are inheritors of an Original Sin-sourced civilization that’s polluted our inner nature with sexual shame. Why are only sexual words bleeped on TV? Why are sex jokes called “dirty”? Why is the word for self-pleasure called “masturbation,” which originally meant to defile oneself? I’ve written an article about the sexual shame embedded in our language—Questioning Sex #2: Is a “Pussy” By Any Other Name the Same? https://medium.com/@jerryiweinstock/questioning-sex-2-is-a-pussy-by-any-other-name-the-same-280dae8ae7f
I believe that we’ve all suffered a form of childhood “sexual abuse” inflicted by this Original Sin-sourced sexual shame. Is the pollution of our inner world by toxic sexual shame driving us insane and to “poisoning our nest” by unconsciously creating societies that pollute our outer world? Is it possible that our headlong rush to dehumanization and destruction is rooted in the collective trauma of sexual shame? Can a species ashamed of the way it creates new life survive? Are we fucking up the world because our fucking is fucked up?!
If sex is the “root,” perhaps we can create a new story by reclaiming some of the ancient wisdom about sex being the Original Blessing. Healing our collective trauma of sexual shame may heal our inner nature…from which all healing of the planet manifests.
I propose that sex should be considered not only a “root” of the Tree of Life but also a Great Lever of society. In the past, changes in sex have had tremendous impacts on society. Take one recent example—the birth control pill which changed society. Ashley Montagu, the renowned anthropologist, ranked the evolutionary impact of the legalization of The Pill in 1960 with the primeval discovery of fire. The fight over abortion and reproductive rights is another instance of how sex and our ideas about it have a tremendous societal impact.
Yuval Noah Harari, the noted historian, has said, “The story in which you believe shapes the society that you create.” I’ll take it a step further—the “story” we tell ourselves about sex shapes the kind of society, its health, and ultimately its fate.
A new story about sex might heal our collective trauma and change society. Maybe healing sex can save the world!
PS I’ve made a lot of broad statements without much explanation. If you’re interested in these ideas, read my book, OUR SECRET SEX LIFE: The Key to Humanity’s Destiny.
https://www.amazon.com/OUR-SECRET-SEX-LIFE-Humanitys-ebook/dp/B0B69PVL7Z/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TU5DVCME6RKD&keywords=our+secret+sex+life+weinstock&qid=1687369707&s=digital-text&sprefix=our+secret+sex+life+weinstock%2Cdigital-text%2C82&sr=1-1
"As our advancing technology renders sexuality ever more divorced from emotion and intimacy, a process already well underway, sex will increasingly be seen as simply a matter of provoking pleasure in the most efficient, reliable ways possible."
This is most certainly a tangent, but I am curious about the above quote. I have been a fan of yours for over a decade. I read your book and the idea of non monogamy seems to make sense, (biologically) but I have never been able to wrap my head around how emotion and intimacy play into that.
Have you ever considered the idea that non monogamous sex is not actual sex? That emotion and intimacy are not fully present?
Like having sex with a nn human object or watching porn. Perhaps non monogamous sex is a more efficient and reliable way to experience pleasure, without the commitment to emotional intimacy or creativity it takes to stay engaged with one partner.
Should we redefine what is sex and what is pleasure? Is a back massage sex or pleasure? Is the sun on your face? Is a three some?
Honestly, my opinions are really unsettled, and I would like to know what your thoughts are.
Hi William. Thanks for your comment. No, I wouldn't consider non-monogamous sex "not actual sex" at all. If I understand your point, you're implying that sex without intimacy doesn't quite qualify -- an argument I could find persuasive. For example, when semen is collected from some farm animals, ejaculation is provoked through the use of an electric charge from an anal probe touching the prostate. Is this "sex?" Is ejaculation during a so-called "wet dream" sex? So I'm with you on the premise that there can be orgasm that may not qualify as "sex."
But you lose me with your assumption that being sexual with more than one person during any given period in life must be without intimacy. As Chris Wright points out, there is nothing inherenet in intimacy or love that limits these feelings to one person at a time. We love several friends. No need to redefine "love" in light of that fact. Sexual intimacy can be similarly nuanced.
In my view, the assumption that anything other than monogamous intimacy isn't "real," is part of a deeply corrosive world-view that is inculcated into children along with racism, fear of God, and the belief that Mom and Dad are infallible. There is no objective evidence that this is true, and whatever anecdotal evidence we have just confirms the strength of cultural conditioning, just as the presence of racists doesn't prove that racism is "natural" or "real."
Thank you for replying Chris. I think I am speaking to your first point. What defines real sex? Sorta like asking what defines real wealth!
With the subject of monogamy I'm not trying to be self richeous. I am not suggesting non monogamy is wrong, I'm not really suggesting anything, I'm just curious.
What if ejaculating from an electric prostate stimulator is different than a blow job from your partners girlfriend, is different than focusing on pleasuring one partner at a time? I don't know!
Sure, there are general ideas that society provides to what "sex" and "wealth" are, but it seems like you are trying to chase a very specific definition of those. Just sticking to sex, a person can define this in many distinct, personal ways. Even within that, I'm sure you know someone who says "sex", "making love", "fucking", - and so on - all have different definitions (they may look similar, objectively, but they can differ subjectively based on the intent/mindset of the participants).
If to you, sex requires intimacy, then it does to you. If you think sex requires orgasm, then that's what you believe (and consequently you would think women are having a lot less straight sex than men). If a couple agrees that real sex can only be between one person and a partner whom one loves and has given oneself to solely, that sounds very romantic and good for them. That couple should also define what cheating looks like in said relationship, because with that defintion, it also sounds impossible to call any canoodling outside of the partnership as sex -> Many monogamous couples have unique ideas of cheating from even their closest partnered friends.
Although non-monogamy may be the more biological/original structure of human sex, that doesn't mean every human has to feel the same way about it. I'm sure one or two hunter-gatherers experienced some jealousy back in the day! To me it seems like you want to figure out how your personal view of sex could merge with a broader/societal/non-monogamous definition. The truth seems to be, they don't have to. At least not that closely. Humans created the word and the definition. The cosmos didn't declare "this is what sex is" the first time two cells merged to create a new cell with a novel genetic code (what humans call, sexual reproduction).
If you're curious what "actual sex" or "real sex" is, that's up to you. Same as "what does wealth look like to you?"
For the record, to me, the electric probe and the blowjob are different.
"To me is seems like you want to figure out how your personal view(I would use experiences) of sex could merge with a broader societal non monogamous definition."
Well said! That is exactly what I am trying to do. My partner and I have been having these discussions recently, we have both expressed to each other that we are open minded about sex. We have also talked about how we are both in agreement with Esther Perel's idea that monogamy is not sex with one person for the rest of our lives, but sex with one person at a time. However, when we start discussing what that means we get into the weeds discussing what qualifies as sex therefore what qualifies as cheating. It is certainly complex and full of nuance and neither one of us really has a definitive answer. Which was the catalyst for my questions in this discussion.
Then it sounds like your on your way. Keep whacking at the weeds!
Well said. But what about the electric probe AND the blowjob?
Lol it's all about the conjunction. Toys should supplement, not substitute. You can add, not subtract.
As long as I'm saying "Yes!" to the probe, it ~sounds~ like sex to me!
Nonmonogamous sex can still be deeply intimate and emotional. We have capacity to love and connect with more than one person. Ask any parent of more than one child if they could ever limit their love and attachment to just one child; the idea would be nonsensical. That said, nonmonogamous sex can also be impersonal. So can monogamous sex in a relationship. It all depends on the intent of the people involved.
Yes Chris Wright it is nonsensical to say you can only love or connect with one person at a time. But love and connection is not sex. I love my mom, my brother, and my children but I am not having sex with them.
You are absolutely right, sex (as it is currently defined) can be very impersonal.
Ah, sex. Ahhhh. Mmmm. As to this lovely thoughtful article, I predict not either scenario but both, and various blends of the two. Apocalypse and collapse aren’t all at once in all places, they happen and are happening slowly in many places, and periodically in a few places, all at once. So our two scenarios will be meandering, intersecting paths as different peoples choose differently. The techno-bros will continue on theirs, the paleo-tribes on theirs (ours?), and many people will test and taste from each and create all sorts of hybrids. If your kink is technology, the choice is clear. If your kink is mutual squish and splash and glorious stink, the choice is clear. Most people, including me, mix and match, but I prefer the latter largely because porn and technology doesn’t give me the human intimacy I so deeply enjoy.
No doubt. You remind me of the William Gibson line: “The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed.“
Gibson was right. When it comes to the future of sex, the future will not be evenly distibuted. The various scenarios discussed do not cover the parts of the world where poverty and/or religious dogma are too strong to permit radical changes. Currently, innovations in sexual activity are often suppressed and/or punished by the authorities (mostly male) . The silver lining is that these radical changes might catch on, given time, and undermine the current "powers that be" and their represssiive mentality and behavior.
So true, and as usual, I'm not sure if that uneven distribution is good or bad news for those who will be left behind. And you make a good point concerning my failure to address the current state of sexual repression in much of the world today, where women are still seen as sub-human possessions of men.
I'm not sure that Scenario 1 is necessarily so abhorrent, is it?
I mean, insofar as we're unlikely to to return to Bonobo-like sexual lives free from the transactionality and suspicion that now permeates sexual life (even though it's an ideal worth nudging toward), isn't more orgasms for lonely people inherently better than fewer? My view about the civilization problem fundamentally accepts all your premises, but I would add that insofar as we're stuck in this techno-dystopia (and it seems we are) why not at least leverage the few things that it's actually really good at? If we have to deal with technology making our lives worse in a hundred ways, why not at least let it help us get off?
Take ChatGPT and iOS, for example. The former gives you a moralizing lecture if you ask it to tell you an erotic story, and the latter simply bans apps that deliver erotic imagery. Tech companies have no problem mining our deepest secret souls for ad targeting. But god forbid anybody get a bit of jouissance out of it. This seems deeply wrong to me--at best, really rude on the part of these companies.
Reducing the importance of rigid gender roles and diminishing the link between human sexual connection and reproductive concerns (since in agricultural societies having children can carry life-ruining consequences), also don't seem so unambiguously bad to me. Indeed, much of your first book is about precisely why that actually is the ancestral human way of life. Isn't it possible to bring an awareness of these ancient aspects of the human condition to modern life and use our new tools to embrace and enhance them? If we're unafraid to look at the evidence about human sexual nature to then unrestrain our imaginations, perhaps some fusion might be possible that allows us to have the best of both ways of life?
Good stuff Chris. I quit watching porn 10 years ago. I was a young 20 something male and was with women who wanted to have sex, but I was unable to get erect. This happened multiple times and enough was enough. I did research am correlated ED with pornography use. I was the first generation of humans (born in 1990) who could watch porn at the click of a mouse. And like a lab rat, the dopamine rush was powerful and I came back for more and more hits, nearly everyday for a decade. It wasn't easy, but the ED went away and have never had a problem since. That being said, there is the option to say, "I'll stick with the way my ancestors had been masturbating for years" and grip it and rip it to my imagination. Porn is certainly heading to 3D and VR mainstream and it's already here. I'll continue to tug away, but our new generation of humans will have a harder time as its readily available access is so easy. Go easy on yourselves out there and happy tugging and rubbing!
Taylor, you have a lot to teach to a generation of porn-addicted youth.
You might also be interested in a recent article I wrote, "Questioning Sex #4: Is the Porn-ification of Puberty and Sex Ed a Ticking Time Bomb?"
https://medium.com/@jerryiweinstock/questioning-sex-4-is-the-porn-ification-of-puberty-and-sex-ed-a-ticking-time-bomb-bd8a42a57df9
Good stuff Jerry. I've said the quote about a 'young person seeing more naked women than their grandfather in one session of porn use' on several occasions and it's true. Thanks for writing something you're passionate about!
I wonder how could we possibly escape this dystopia and return to a more natural pattern of behavior like we used to do before civilization emerged. Are we really beyond this possibility? I heard of communities attempting to drop all modernities and pursuing a natural life. Is it utopia? There are also the Quakers and the Amish, far from ideal, of course, but they’re still standing and prospering AFAIK. Is there a way for our species to wake up from this dream of technology (Matrix) and remember who we really are and what makes us happy and fulfilled? Can psychedelics help with this? Rhetorical questions, of course.
In both scenarios, sales of sapiosexual sex dolls will continue to rise.
Chris, what a great article! Your writing is thought-provoking, nuanced, and masterful.
Both scenarios are catastrophic!
As someone whose written 5 books about the mystery we call "sex," I want to respond. But first I'll take a moment to digest what you've said.
Thanks for your work.
www.IJWeinsock.com
In the words of John Michael Greer, why can't we collapse first, to avoid the rush? Let's prepare a better world, informed by our paleolithic and neolithic successes and failures. Here is one way to prepare:https://www.lithica.earth/. Here is another:https://www.game-b.org/. There might be others. We can't necessarily count on a nice collapse if we don't prepare. It could end up being quite brutal.