Every week, Rich and Stoya answer a special question they could only tackle together, just for Slate Plus members. Join today to never miss a column.
How to Do It is Slate’s sex advice column. Have a question? Send it to Stoya and Rich here. It’s anonymous!
Dear How to Do It,
I’m a 58-year-old man. I met my wife in our late-30s. For our first years, we had lots of sex (my wife is very beautiful and sensuous) but after children and now menopause, she has become less interested, so I have compensated with porn and masturbation. One big fantasy is what our sex life might have been like in our 20s (90s-style haircuts are a thing for me).
However, now thanks to artificial intelligence, face-swapping deepfakes, I can now realize this in pretty vivid detail. What’s more, I can also act out other fantasies (threesomes, bondage, exoticism, etc.). This is all incredibly compelling and, weirdly enough, seems to make me even more desirous of her, so it hasn’t created any problems in our marriage. However, I also feel a little uneasy. Even though I keep this strictly to myself, I have not told her I’m doing this and I’m guessing she would not be into it (she doesn’t like porn in general). We have a great marriage and share most things with each other, but we still allow each other to have a private sphere as long as we are emotionally and physically faithful. But I wonder if this crosses a line even if our wedding vows mentioned nothing about privately making deepfakes of each other.
—Ethically Uncertain
Stoya: Anytime you’re in the letter of the law, and not in the spirit of it, that’s a sign.
Rich: Yeah. It does bring up the question of what AI means for the future of fantasizing. What’s described is kind of like this way of getting your fantasies out and viewable and I wonder what would keep us from putting this under the “there are no thought crimes” umbrella.
Stoya: Well, this is a heretofore unthought-out facet of the idea of no thought crimes… This does somewhat create a reality. It creates a visible product. It is no longer contained in one’s own head. By virtue of the fact that it’s viewable, it exists out in the world.
Rich: To me, the main concern would be it leaking. That’s number one. I don’t know if you can think of other things that might go wrong here that would cause us to recommend him pumping the brakes.
Stoya: There’s public leaking and there’s within the home leaking. Public leaking would be absolutely horrible for this private person. I mean, it’s bad enough when people make deepfakes of people in the public eye. But for credible-looking AI pornography to be circulating of a woman who is not into porn, that would be an absolute tragedy. As for within the home, I also think if she were to encounter one of these videos on his computer, it would be quite a shock.
Rich: Do you think there’s a possible solution here in advising him to delete what he does? I guess what I’m wrestling with is the thought crime question and the actual physical manifestation of it. I agree that the leaking is potentially problematic, but if you can cut that part out is it just an externalized fantasy that you can then walk away from because you say you deleted the porn that you made via a deepfake?
Stoya: But it still exists on a server somewhere.
Rich: I see. So it’s like a cloud leaking breach kind of fear.
Stoya: Yeah. He’s taking a risk with her public presence by doing this. The way that AI works is completely inscrutable to me, but based on the way that the internet and technology are kind of like copy machines I would say that there’s a real—I don’t know how significant—risk that there could be a cloud breach essentially and then instead of this being like, “Oh my God, honey, I can’t believe you.” It would be, “Oh my God, honey, the women at the baking club have all seen me hogtied and getting pounded and it looks real enough that it actually could be me.”
Rich: Hogtied, getting pounded, with a Rachel haircut.
Stoya: Yes.
Rich: Is this a firm no for you, do you think? I’m really on the fence about this one.
Stoya: I’m a firm no because of the last line about, “Our wedding vows didn’t specifically mention deepfakes.” That puts me in no mode.
Rich: I couldn’t tell if he was being cheeky or serious there because of course, the wedding vows didn’t mention that. There’s a million things that the wedding vows didn’t mention, you know?
Stoya: Yeah. Sure, the wedding vows didn’t mention anything about porn.
Rich: So maybe the solution is to have that conversation to see what she thinks about that even though he thinks she’s not going to be a fan of it. Then they could really get to the bottom of it. I mean, there could be something to be said for just the karma of it all of manipulating someone’s image digitally and the possible, if rare, real-life problems that could have, put aside just the idea of taking someone’s image and how they feel about it. I think that these are ethics questions that are going to come up in the future, if not already. This is something that technology ethicists are probably already discussing.
Stoya: I’m also stuck on the wife being less interested in sex, but he specifically points out that these deepfakes make him desire her more and so, “That hasn’t created any problems in our marriage.” I’m like, “Are you sure about that?”
Rich: Right. Also, what does less interested mean? Does that mean that her sex drive isn’t what it used to be but there is still sex happening or does it mean she’s not interested at all and here’s what I’m doing instead? How dire is the situation, I guess?
Stoya: That’s a great question. You know how in the U.S. you can choose to be an organ donor and it gets listed on your ID? It strikes me as a similar situation with persona and likeness. That’s a choice that people should be able to make. Artists should have been able to choose to have their work used for these AI machines, but they didn’t get that chance. Individuals should be able to say, “Yes, I am OK with this limited use of my image.”
Rich: Yeah. I mean, this was one of the main sticking points of the SAG-AFTRA strike, right? This is becoming more and more of an issue. I think probably the ethical thing to do is to actually have that conversation. Even if you don’t think it’s a big deal, even if you think that you can completely silo this aspect of your sex life away, you don’t know what the ramifications are for the future because we’re moving so fast and we don’t know how that’s going to play out, ultimately, or where this stuff might live and then ultimately leak. It’s much smarter in this case to have that conversation. As much as I, in some cases, will say, “Fly under the radar. What somebody doesn’t know about your private, personal, self-sex life won’t hurt them,” I think in this case if it did come back to her in some way, the ethics of the situation might play off very differently in the future than they do here.
Stoya: Yes. Get her permission.
More Advice From Slate
Me and my girlfriend have a pretty good relationship, going on two years. We have a great kinky sex life, and we love experimenting around. But I have always felt for a while that I was missing something about her turn-ons. I have asked her a couple times, but she told me she already told me everything and that she is too embarrassed to talk about it.
Rachel Carter is a health and wellness expert dedicated to helping readers lead healthier lives. With a background in nutrition, she offers evidence-based advice on fitness, nutrition, and mental well-being.
