From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Holodeck sex (was  Re: DEEP SPACE 9!! UGH!!!)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:56:48 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

hooverb@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong) writes:
>Several interesting ideas arise from this discussion... (In no
>particular order)

Sex and the holodeck is a popular recurring subject, probably because
none of the questions are easily answerable.

>1. It seems as if "HoloSex" would probably be much more satisfying
>(mechanically) than the real thing since one could program exactly what
>was desired, and with no worries about satisfying one's partner(s).

I think that's a valid observation.  The holodeck would simply allow
for a higher degree of fantasization than is available today.  But
while it may be "mechanically" satisfying, I don't think it would
appeal to those for whom part of pleasant sex is satisfying one's
partner.

>2. Would it be some sort of crime to have HoloSex with the computer
>generated image of a real human without the consent of that human?

Very difficult question.  One could make the case that since laws
governing sexual conduct are unpopular and difficult to enforce they
would be obsolete in the 24th century.  This is especially true
given the air of permissiveness that Star Trek seems to engender.
Presumably they are more enlightened on these subjects in the future.

Since sexual activity normally takes place in private, restricting it
is difficult if not impossible.  But there is a distinct possibility
of disclosure in the case of the holodeck (see below), and I think
it's quite appropriate for the person whose image is created on the
holodeck for sexual purposes to be granted some legitimate legal
recourse for the (now public) malignant use of his/her representation
in what is likely to be an uncharacteristic role.

There seems to be a reluctance to restrict what one does in the
privacy of one's own home.  If one's sexual activity includes an
inflatable Connie Chung lookalike there is probably little if any harm
done to Miss Chung if that activity were kept private.  But if that
activity becomes public, then Miss Chung is likely to claim a
violation of her rights.  She might be thus associated with
uncharacteristic sexual activity and this might constitute slander.

Therefore the possibility of disclosure demands that putatively
private acts of a questionable nature be restricted, thus providing
legal recourse for a plaintiff in case of disclosure.

>3. What about the possibility for blackmail? Is the 23rd century so
>liberal that noone would care about Picard on the holodeck with a couple
>of orion slave girls and a donkey :-).

Blackmail has been a healthy element of our society for hundreds of
years.  I think it is naive to suppose that it will not persist in the
next few hundred years.  Larry Niven has an interesting approach to
this in some of his Known Space short stories -- blackmail is a
legitimate business practice and is governed by laws and conventions.

But I digress.  In the humanistic sense, Picard's (or anyone's) sexual
preferences shouldn't necessarily be a matter of discussion or grounds
for societal discrimination.  But in a more applicable sense, Picard
is an officer in an organization.  That organization's reputation is
defined by the reputation of its constituents, hence Starfleet should
(and probably does) have ethical expectations for its members.

Starfleet's ethics are probably governed indirectly by the prevailing
ethics of the Federation population as a whole.  This in itself poses
a formidable problem since the various constituents of the Federation
are not likely to share much in common by way of sexual ethics.

But without attempting to characterize those ethics we can probably
assume that ethics of some kind exist.  We can then postulate that
Starfleet requires ethical conduct from its officers and provides
guidelines which define such conduct.  Where there are restrictions
there are bound to be violations of such restrictions.  And where
there are violations of restrictions there is blackmail.

>4. Given the worries about Barclay and the holodeck, does the computer
>have any checks about holodeck activity?

Probably.  If, as I suggest above, Starfleet sees fit to regulate the
public activities of its members, it is reasonable to presume that it
can use whatever means are at its disposal (i.e., computers which
control the holodeck) to enforce or encourage obedience to its
regulations.

I think it's quite valid to suppose that Starfleet prohibits
simulations of a sexual nature to be run on its holodecks.  This may
seem prudish or extreme, but it simply makes good sense.  SOMEone
SOMEwhere is likely to oppose the idea that his tax money is being
used to support what may be in his opinion an exploitative and immoral
activity.  And so Starfleet plays it safe by walking the conservative
side of the fence.  If you want to program HoloSex, buy your own
holodeck.

Since there is such widespread opinion even today on the
appropriateness of certain kinds of sexual conduct, it is unlikely
that the ethics of holodeck sex will be answered to everyone's
satisfaction.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | <insert snappy quote here>