The Myth of Stigma

Sometimes a course correction is in order

Photo by Stephany Lorena on Unsplash

I was listening to a year-old podcast episode this morning—because there are thousands of interesting podcasts in the world, and who cares if they’re old—by Culturally Determined. The episode, called “Sex with Robots,” featured host Aryeh Cohen-Wade and author Sam Lipsyte, who’d been commissioned to write an article on the topic in Harper’s.

“Digisexuals,” Lipsyte explains, are those who “use technology for sexual purposes,” but unlike patrons of online porn or phone sex hotlines, “use it without other humans involved in any way.” In other words, they prefer “sex bots” and “computer-generated sexual partners.”

When I think of this population, other terms come to mind. “Teenager,” for example. “Virgin,” for another. I don’t know what frustrated young man doesn’t avail himself of the masturbatory aids available to him, technological or otherwise. Presumably, “digisexuality” won’t be a passing phase for some. In that case, other words come to mind: Socially delayed. Agoraphobic. Anxious. Coddled. Lazy.

Advocates at the Erotic Heritage Museum, which Lipsyte visited while researching his article, would be none too pleased with my assessment. They envision a world of gratifying post-human sex in the metaverse, and according to Lipsyte, worry that those who partake will experience “persecution” and “marginalization.” They hope that giving a name to “digisexuals” will help society “skip the stigma stage.”

To “marginalize” is to relegate to the margins. And margins are what “exists outside the mainstream.” So I have to ask—does society really marginalize the men who are apparently already "marrying holographic chatbots”? Or is chatbot marriage in fact marginal?

To stigmatize is to “show disapproval.” Is it wrong to disapprove? The current discourse around “reducing stigma,” which extends to contexts beyond this one, would suggest so. But we all disapprove of some things, unless we’re sociopaths. Perhaps it’s only wrong to show disapproval. This, too, suggests a value system I’m not sure I share. While I don’t go around chastising strangers, I don’t nod and smile at their every impulse, either.

I value personal growth, so I don’t applaud teens’ failure to launch. I value human connection and intimacy, so I’m concerned about their increased tendency toward abstinence, especially when “mental health challenges” and “living with their parents longer” are implicated. I’m not impressed with kinks, in and of themselves, whether it’s this one or that of the “adult baby diaper lover” I ran across on Twitter. And I don’t think it’s a good thing if “computer games and social media have become a sort of stand-in for physical relationships.”

Do I want to see sex-bot users jailed or institutionalized? No. I can even empathize with them. But I’m not responsible if my preference for healthier habits makes them feel stigmatized. Though it’s hard to hear, I genuinely think some people would benefit from putting down the joystick.

So to speak.

When did "reducing stigma” become an important societal goal? Its elevation implies certain myths.

First, that stigma is irrational.

There’s a very postmodern, very Foucault-esque idea underlying this assumption: that behaviors aren’t problematic in and of themselves, but become so when we name and “problematize” them.

I’m reminded of the perennial call to “reduce the stigma” of mental illness. As though it consists of some harmless set of quirks that we’re all unreasonably nervous about, rather than something that “impairs functioning” in “social, work or family” situations. Many of us have found ourselves victim of a mentally ill person’s “social” dysfunction—lied to, stolen from, sabotaged, implicated in delusions of persecution, and worse. Plus, mental illness is not a good thing for the sufferer. It damages his relationship with reality, which makes everything else more difficult for him. What is objectively undesirable stigmatizes itself.

A second myth is that there’s value in reducing stigma.

Society curbs what is detrimental to its success, whether that’s a social dysfunction that breaks down relationships or a sexual preference that, if popularized, could slow procreation and spell its own end.

A third myth is that stigmatization harms its target. It is at least benign: those with unusual interests are welcome to foster an internal locus of control rather than seeking the approval of others. As well, it could be beneficial—steering us away from what’s addictive, harmful or simply counter to living a meaningful life.