Digisexuality: A Dark Descent into the Dehumanization of Intimacy

Sunday, September 15, 2024.

As technology continues to shape nearly every aspect of our lives, it was perhaps inevitable that it would seep into the most personal and intimate corners of human existence.

Enter digisexuality, a term coined by academics Neil McArthur and Dr. Markie Twist to describe a new wave of sexual identity and behavior in which technology becomes the primary means for emotional and sexual fulfillment.

While the futurists and tech enthusiasts cheer this development as groundbreaking, a deeper look reveals something far more unsettling: the dehumanization of sex, the commodification of intimacy, and the growing alienation of folks from authentic human connection.

The Birth of Digisexuality

Neil McArthur, a philosopher at the University of Manitoba, and Dr. Markie Twist, a sexuality educator and therapist, introduced the concept of digisexuality in 2017.

They categorized it into two "waves": the first wave involving the use of digital tools such as dating apps and sexting to facilitate sexual experiences, and the second wave, which is more dystopian in nature, involving robots, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality to fully replace human partners.

Their work explores the idea that technology can become a substitute for real human connection, leading to an entirely new form of sexual identity—one that is primarily mediated through digital means.

Their concept, however, has sparked a bit of controversy, with critics questioning whether digisexuality represents a step forward or the beginning of a bleak future in which human relationships are further fractured by technology.

“We’re already seeing the first wave of digisexuality, which includes people using dating apps and other digital tools to form relationships. But the second wave, involving deeper connections with robots and AI, is where the real change is happening. These technologies will offer emotional and sexual satisfaction in ways that challenge traditional relationship structures.” Dr. Markie Twist

But Markie, machines don’t have emotions. Emotions are a human experience.

The Empty Facade of Connection

At its core, digisexuality offers the illusion of intimacy without its substance.

Proponents claim that sex robots, AI-driven partners, and virtual reality environments can fulfill emotional and sexual needs, providing companionship to the lonely or the socially anxious.

Yet, what these technologies truly offer is a shallow, one-sided interaction that caters to the user's desires without any emotional reciprocity. It's an interaction devoid of depth, complexity, or mutual growth. It is Limbic Capitalism at its most vile.

Martin Buber's philosophical concept of "I-Thou" relationships, where genuine intimacy arises from reciprocal encounters, stands in stark contrast to the world of digisexuality.

In Buber's framework, true connection involves recognizing and engaging with another person as a unique individual.

In contrast, digisexuals engage in "I-It" relationships, where the "other" is an object—be it an AI or robot—to be used for gratification rather than mutual engagement. This transactional approach to intimacy reduces sex to a mere act of consumption, eroding the transformative potential of human relationships.

The Psychological Fallout: Loneliness and Narcissism

The promise of digisexuality is that it provides relief for the lonely and socially anxious.

Yet, social science research suggests a far darker reality.

A study by Przybylski and Weinstein (2017) found that excessive reliance on technology for social interaction leads to increased feelings of loneliness and a diminished sense of connection. This raises the question: does digisexuality help or harm those who turn to it?

The answer appears clear—digisexuality, particularly in its second wave form, reinforces a self-centered, narcissistic model of interaction.

Rather than engage with another human being, with all the complexity and messiness that entails, digisexuals retreat into interactions where their every need is catered to by technology. Commodification of sexual intimacy is the ultimate achievement of Limbic Capitalism, and the fullest manifestation of Cultural Narcissism at its most debased.

Now thought leaders in marriage and family therapy are saying.. don’t fight the future.

I get it. With technology, we’ll get the no muss, no fuss orgasm.

There is no need for compromise, empathy, or emotional labor—qualities that are essential for the development of meaningful, long-lasting relationships (Gottman & Silver, 1999).

This lack of emotional work leads to stunted personal growth, as digisexuals avoid the discomfort of confronting their own flaws and vulnerabilities in a real relationship. The idea that a marriage and family professor is championing this atrophy of human sensibility is a breathtaking herald of Limbic Capitalism in the service of Cultural Narcissism.

The Commodification of Intimacy

One of the most troubling aspects of digisexuality is its role in the commodification of intimacy.

Sex robots, AI partners, and immersive virtual reality environments are products, sold to those seeking emotional or sexual fulfillment. In a capitalist world where everything is for sale, intimacy itself has become a commodity, available for purchase by those who can afford it.

Companies like RealDoll and AI app developers profit from the loneliness of individuals, selling a version of connection that is devoid of real emotional investment.

David Levy, in his 2007 book Love and Sex with Robots, suggested that humans would fall in love with robots by 2050.

While this bleak reality may someday come to pass, it is not a sign of progress, but rather a sign of societal failure—a failure to address the root causes of loneliness, alienation, and the growing disconnect between folks.

By commercializing intimacy, digisexuality cheapens what should be a profound and meaningful human experience, reducing it to a mere transaction. Now we have marriage and family thought leaders cheering this on.

Ethical and Social Concerns: A New Isolation?

The ethical implications of digisexuality are profound.

The use of sex robots, for example, has been criticized for reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes and objectifying women. Many of these robots are designed with hypersexualized, submissive personas, feeding into dangerous tropes about gender and power dynamics.

Furthermore, critics argue that digisexuality could exacerbate social isolation, as individuals retreat further into their digital worlds rather than engage in real-life relationships.

Religious and conservative groups have been particularly vocal in their criticism, arguing that digisexuality represents a breakdown of traditional family values and social norms.

To these groups, the concept of replacing human connection with technology is not just morally questionable—it is a sign of societal rot decay. They see digisexuality as a symptom of a broader cultural shift toward self-gratification at the expense of meaningful relationships.

“As therapists, we need to be prepared for digisexuality to become a more common part of people’s sexual identities. It’s not about resisting this change, but about understanding how to support clients as they navigate relationships that are mediated by technology, and addressing the challenges that come with it.” Dr. Markie Twist

No, we do need to resist digisexuality, and resist it mightily.

Many of my clients who are wives and mothers say, Let’s start with porn.

I never thought In would have to argue against pornography with a feminist academic, but such are the times we live in.

The Therapeutic Challenge: Avoiding Emotional Labor

Emotional labor is central to the development of fulfilling relationships, and digisexuality offers a shortcut—a way to bypass the discomfort and work of real emotional engagement.

Couples who invest in emotional labor, compromise, and mutual growth tend to have more successful relationships. The easy gratification provided by digisexuality risks reinforcing narcissistic tendencies and inhibiting humans from learning the valuable emotional skills necessary for healthy relationships.

In the world of digisexuality, emotional intimacy has twisted into a digital dance with artificial partners.

Dr. Twist’s naiveté is on epic display in this quote:

“There’s a legitimate concern about the objectification of women in the design of sex robots. Many of these devices are modeled with stereotypical body types and submissive personas, which can reinforce harmful gender dynamics. As technology advances, it’s crucial to think critically about the messages we’re sending through these designs.”

Markie, no offense, but that’s got me scratching my head. I am utterly bewildered.

Limbic Capitalism assures us that sex robots will conform to the basest common denominator of male sexual desires.

I realize that the idea that women must not be objectified remains a central tenet of of fourth wave feminism. But, a sex bot made for the utility of men, is… nevertheless an object, whose creation you are avidly endorsing… is it not?

Perhaps you are the herald of a 5th wave feminism, in which these devices, which so utterly debase women, are deeply valued for post-human purposes. Where we differ is that I utterly oppose the creation of these sexy simulacrum in the first place.

Conclusion: A Future of Hollow Connections

Digisexuality is not a bold leap forward into the future of intimacy—it is a descent into isolation, alienation, and self-gratification.

As we become more reliant on technology to meet our emotional and sexual needs, we risk losing the very qualities that make human relationships meaningful: vulnerability, emotional labor, mutual growth, and the ongoing buffer of authentic connection.

The rise of digisexuality is a symptom of a society grappling with loneliness and emotional deprivation. For some techies, it’s a market to be tapped. Dr. Twist seems to lack even the faintest understanding of how capitalism actually works. There will be no sex bots subject to feminist review.

Loneliness is an ancient human affliction.

But rather than confronting these issues head-on, we are turning to technology to fill the void. But in doing so, we are trading genuine intimacy for a hollow, artificial experience, with academics in Marriage and Family therapy cheering us on into the soulless void.

“Just like other sexual identities, digisexuality represents an emerging way for people to define themselves in relation to their experiences. Whether it’s through AI, sex robots, or virtual environments, digisexuals are finding new avenues for emotional and sexual fulfillment. It’s critical that we validate these experiences and support individuals as they explore their identities.” Dr. Markie Twist

I don’t see any place for validating sex with robots, as a marriage and family therapist. I am a humanist. Having sex with machines is post-human.

Posthuman Death Wish?

The question of whether posthumanism is a "death wish" taps into deeper philosophical concerns about the trajectory of humanity, identity, and the role of technology in reshaping what it means to be human.

Posthumanism as a philosophy critiques the centrality of human beings in the universe and explores how technology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology challenge traditional notions of identity, subjectivity, and embodiment.

I view posthumanism as a radical departure from humanism, while others see it as an opportunity to expand our understanding of existence and personhood.

Posthumanism represents a surrender of what fundamentally makes us human. Here are some key points I’d like to make:

Loss of Human Essence: Posthumanism risks erasing essential aspects of the human condition, such as emotions, vulnerability, mortality, and the capacity for deep, embodied relationships. As we embrace technologies that enhance or even replace human functions (e.g., AI relationships, brain chips, cybernetic enhancements), we risk losing the essence of what makes us human in exchange for something cold and artificial.

Detachment from Physical and Emotional Reality: Posthumanism often embraces the merging of human consciousness with technology, potentially through things like mind uploading or direct neural interfaces with AI. This detachment from our biological and emotional roots can be seen as a "death wish" in that it enthusiastically sacrifices the richness of lived, embodied experience for a synthetic, disembodied existence.

Dehumanization: Posthumanism leads to dehumanization by reducing humanity to a mere component in a techno-scientific system. As humans increasingly rely on machines and AI for emotional and intellectual tasks, the value of human life and human relationships, in situ, will steadily diminish. This will ultimately lead to a loss of empathy and compassion, which I see as an ongoing existential threat to human society.

Philosophical Nihilism: At its most extreme, posthumanism is a form of philosophical nihilism, rejecting traditional values of humanism—such as dignity, freedom, and the intrinsic worth of individuals—in favor of a future where technology and machines surpass or replace human beings.

This could be interpreted as an unconscious or even conscious "death wish" for humanity, suggesting that humans are no longer necessary or important in the grand scheme of existence.

If we allow this happen, human intimacy will become twisted, tangled up in wires and algorithms. If this is the future of human relationships, Unlike Markie and Neil, I will not be holding the door open.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Crown.

Levy, D. (2007). Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. Harper.

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(4), 530-547.

McArthur, N., & Twist, M. L. C. (2017). The rise of digisexuality: Therapeutic challenges and possibilities. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3-4), 334-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1397948

Twist, M. L. C. (2019). Sexuality in the time of digisexuality: Implications for relationships and therapy. In M. K. Habashi (Ed.), Technosexuality: A reader (pp. 89-101). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Twist, M. L. C., & McArthur, N. (2020). Digital intimacy: A posthumanist perspective on emerging sexualities and relationships. Journal of Sexuality Research and Therapy, 42(2), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2019.1569472

Twist, M. L. C., & Nelson, K. (2018). Digisexuality and sex robots: A new paradigm in sex therapy? American Journal of Sexuality Education, 13(1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2018.1427161

Twist, M. L. C. (2018). Social Media, Relationships, and Technology: Digisexuality and Beyond. Routledge.