Beauty standards, bodies, and virtual reality
Last April, I co-organised the workshop “The role of the
body in virtual reality” at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Two of the
talks given were, I think, of particular interest for raising philosophical
questions on body and beauty in relation to technology. Stephen Gadsby
(Macquarie University) spoke about “Disorders, body representations and virtual
reality” and Robert Sparrow (Monash University) presented a talk on
“Teledildonics and rape by deception.”
Photo by Paul Bence |
Robert Sparrow presented a paper, co-authored with Lauren
Karas, on current and future sex technologies. The area of focus was
teledildonics, or haptic interfaces for genitalia, as exemplified by the Pearl
and Onyx sex toys by Kiiroo.
Though the toys can function separately, with the Pearl as a dildo and the Onyx
for penis insertion, their main appeal lies in using them in tandem. By
connecting the devices through the Internet, partners can intimately stimulate
each other across a distance. And while the toys are mainly shown in
advertisements with heterosexual couples, it is also possible to connect a pair
of Onyx’s or Pearls for same-sex use: it’s just a matter of calibrating the
right vibration registration and simulation. Sparrow and Karas investigate the
ethical consequences that are raised by the use of such sex toys. While these
toys allow partners to engage in sexual acts when the partners are not
physically near each other, the toys also potentially allow for ‘rape by
deception’. Rape by deception is often understood as the deception of one
person by another passing as someone else -- for example under cover of night
or by wearing a mask -- in order to obtain sexual intercourse with the former.
The possibility that teledildonic sex toys can be hacked legitimises the fear
that a new way of rape by deception becomes viable: who knows who is using the
other toy when one is not physically near?
Though rape by deception is an important topic to be brought
in relation to these sex toys, it is not the only one. One might wonder, for
example, what influence these toys could have on the sex life of developing
adolescents who are experimenting sexually. In a world that is already
digitised through-and-through, teledildonics might further stimulate social interaction
which does not involve direct physical contact, nor the careful exploration of
another’s naked body. It is not hard to imagine that augmenting such sex toys
with virtual reality visors or, as
also recently raised by Sparrow, that sex robots will have a
significant influence on the way standards in sexual intercourse will shift.
Such virtual reality devices or robots will likely overemphasise unrealistic
body standards by mainly showing or mimicking pornstar-like bodies that are
always ‘willing’. At least two things need to be done. First, care needs to be
taken, especially in sex education, to communicate that these virtual bodies,
which one can now not only look at but even ‘touch’, are not necessarily a
realistic depiction of what a naked body looks and feels like. Second, assuming
that it is pointless to try and stop or forbid these technological
developments, we need to get creative about how developers of such virtual
bodies can be made conscious of the influence they will have on beauty
standards. Perhaps then, if realistic human bodies are shown in realistic
social interactions, we can not only avoid extra pressure these sex toys would
put on beauty standards -- we can even improve current perceptions of those
standards.
Anco Peeters is a PhD
Candidate in Philosophy of Mind at the University of Wollongong, Australia and
works on functionalist and enactivist theories of cognition that strive to
explain mind--technology interaction. For more info: www.ancopeeters.com
Comments
Post a Comment