Will future sex tech be more inclusive? What’s at stake in the design and distribution of sex robots? And what role could they play in our relationships? In this second episode of our podcast "With Reason", we talk to Kate Devlin, author of Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots, about her research on technology and intimacy.

For fans of Blade Runner, Black Mirror, Ex Machina and anyone curious about the future of artificial intelligence, sex, love, feminism and relationships.

Host: Niki Seth-Smith
Co-host: Samira Shackle
Producer: Alice Bloch
Music: Danosongs

Podcast listeners can get a year's subscription to New Humanist magazine for just £13.50. Head to newhumanist.org.uk/subscribe and enter the code WITHREASON

Transcript:

Niki Seth-Smith:

Hello and welcome to with reason from New Humanist magazine and the Rationalist Association with me, Niki Seth-Smith -

Samira Shackle:

And me, Samira Shackle.

NSS:

This is the podcast where you can hear about new and radical research from writers and academics who deserve to be heard, and challenged too, of course…

SS:

It's the place for intelligent thinking in our ever-turbulent times, a place to think about reason and unreason, ideas and debate. In this series, we're talking about things like faith and fraternity, charity in virtue, racism and identity. Our guests include people like the sociologist Jason Arday, talking about music, race and nostalgia, and the anthropologist Joseph Webster discussing faith, fraternity and community. But today, a topic that endures perhaps above all else: sex, or more precisely, sex robots.

NSS:

Our guest today is Kate Devlin: She's a leading thinker in the fascinating field of intimacy, technology and how they relate. She's Senior Lecturer in the department of digital humanities at King's College London, and her research looks at human computer interaction and artificial intelligence. Her latest book Turned On: Science, Sex, and Robots confirmed her as an expert on sex robots. It takes a reasoned approach to a subject to ridden with moral panic. When we caught up with Kate, we started by asking her why it's important to take an academic look at something that people might think is just a bit of fun.

Kate Devlin:

I think that's one of the problems, isn't it, that you really have to justify it when you go into academia to look at things that aren't considered academic. So something that's so fundamental to us, like intimacy, and like sex and like love, are never really treated as academic things. They're not seen as being worthy of our examination, which I think is quite sad, because it's something that's so intrinsic to our well being and to us as people. So you do usually have to justify it in terms of health or psychology and things like that. So I thought it was important to really go and have a look in depth at those things and give them the academic treatment.

NSS:

Yeah, I mean, your book comes with a warning to readers that if they're looking for just salacious sound bites, then they should go elsewhere. And also you discuss, as a sex robot expert, that you've had to deal with quite a lot of simplification that surrounds that subject. I wondered if you could give us some examples of that kind of sensationalism or moral panic that you've encountered in your research.

KD:

One of the motivating factors was the the amount of headlines, especially coming out of tabloid papers about how sex robots were coming, they were going to take over the world, we're going to replace women or we'll all end up in relationships with machines. And I couldn't really see how that would play out in real life. So I wanted to mythbust in many ways, because there is a panic. That panic's very natural for humans, when we come across new pieces of technology, we do get quite scared. And it's a fear that goes into the idea that we're going to lose control, the idea that we're going to lose agency. And I wanted to explore that in that light.

NSS:

So let's start at the beginning. When was the very first sex robot?

KD:

It depends what you want to count as a sex robot. There are stories that go right back to Ancient Greece that talk about people trying to create a perfect artificial lover. And that's a trope that's lasted millennia. So down the centuries, we see these stories about how to create that perfect partner. But it wasn't until really the past few years that people have tried to build one. And that's because the technology is at a stage where we can get something that resembles a human, I will not say is unmistakably human, because we're a very long way from that. But there was a number of companies that create very high end sex dolls, and they've decided to introduce some kind of interactivity into the dolls.

SS:

And how has the tech progressed, in the years since those very first sex robots that resemble humans were created?

KD:

Well, it's all moving quite slowly, really, because there's not really any commercially available sex robots right now. There are prototypes that have been built by one or two companies and and by people out on their own just trying to build these things, garage builders, as we like to call them, so it's really not advanced at all. But they are making progression, in that there are there's some good robotics going on. There's some interesting work around conversational AI, but it's really not very advanced.

NSS:

It seems that humanity's been drawn to the idea of sex robots since ancient times. And I think if I'm right, one of the earliest stories is actually a woman that creates a sort of form of a husband in Greek mythology. But when we hear the term "sex robot" now we might have a certain image that says kind of hyper sexualized, pornified female form. That may be simplistic but we're not completely wrong, are we? The industry does seem to be quite dominated by the male gaze at the moment.

KD:

Yes, it's very much technology created by men for men. And it's because it comes out of that sex doll market. So that's again, something that the customer base tends to be straight men with enough money to be able to invest in these things. And there hasn't really been critical research into who might want a sex robot and why. It tends to be more a natural extension of the market that was already there.

NSS:

And some campaigners have opposed sex robots on the grounds that they assume it will encourage objectification of women. But some of your research in the book suggests that actually, these men who own sex robots tend on the whole to worship them. And so that's really interesting. What do you think's going on there?

KD:

It's difficult because as a feminist, I do not want in any way to perpetuate objectification of women. We see enough of that in all other walks of life that we don't need it from our technology as well. But in the case of the sex dolls, so I've done research into the community of people who own these dolls, and they own them for a number of reasons. Some of them really like the idea of companionship, and they project the idea of companionship onto the dolls, they treat them really well. They dress them up, they live with them, they invent backstories, for them, they give them names. For others, it's more of an aesthetic thing. So they collect, they model them and photograph them. For others, it's just like a collector, like collecting a piece of art. So it's a very diverse community. But by and large, everyone that I spoke to was incredibly respectful of the dolls that they owned, not just because they're investing a lot of money into this, but because for them, it represents something that they cherish. And I don't have that same fear that some people do that this is in some way, being used as an outlet for male violence. I just never saw any evidence of that at all.

NSS:

So would it be would I be right in saying that you don't think there's any real evidence to say that men who own sex robots are more likely to denigrate women in real life outside of their relationship with a sex robot?

KD:

No, there was really not any evidence pointing to that at all. And I think we see similar comparisons around other things, like the idea the concern that computer games might lead to violence in real life, and there's simply no evidence for that. It just doesn't play out. Or that increased consumption of porn will lead to increased sexual violence in the real world. And actually, given the huge scale of porn that is accessible online, today, we have not seen a corresponding rise in sexual violence. That's not to say that porn does not have other influences that can be negative. But in terms of violence, that's not playing out.

SS:

And so one of the other arguments that often gets made about sex robots is that they could bring about the end of human to human relationships, which seems like quite an enormous thing to pin onto a piece of technology. I wondered what your thoughts were on that and where that fear might come from.

KD:

I think it's a really simple fear to identify in terms of, we don't want to lose our position, we want to be the ultimate to everyone. So we want humans to stay at the pinnacle of all things. And we have that similar fear around things like automation, as well, and job loss. And actually, it's much more realistic, the fear around automation and job loss, it's much more compelling a fear, in terms of replacing human human relationships, I just don't see it. We are intrinsically as humans hardwired genetically, to want to meet with other humans and pass those genes on. Some people act on that, some people don't. So I think that we're never going to see that go away. But for some people, maybe that's an option, that they can have some sense of companionship, some sense of intimacy, with a piece of technology. And I don't feel it's my place to judge, if that's what they want to do.

NSS:

And you've made the point that that could be quite a distinct kind of emotional and sexual attachment, that's quite different from the attachment that we might get from human to human relationships. But can you talk a bit about what what that might look like? Or is it just completely different in different scenarios?

KD:

it's all about how we put things into social categories. So we're very good at identifying how people fit into different social categories. And we address them in different ways, depending on the context. And I don't think that robots are a replacement for humans. I don't think we're trying to just slot in any sphere, not just in terms of sex and intimacy. I don't think we're trying to slot robots in and say here as a replacement human, what we're seeing is an emergence of a new social class. And there are some really interesting studies out there. So Julie Carpenter, who's looked at military robots, has identified this as well, that we we are engaging with the technology in new ways, but we are very clear all along that it is a piece of technology. So there's no deception going on. There's not some illusion about this. We accommodate it into our lives and we adapt to it.

SS:

And what about the question of love? So is it possible to feel love when the emotion only runs one way? You've spoken about the fact that men who own these bits of technology are often very respectful, and might behave in ways that we equate with love. But I wonder, can love exist in that direction only?

KD:

I think in real life, love exists in that direction only as well. So there are plenty of people out there in love with others who don't even know they exist. And I think that it's very different to get your head around the idea that that might be a piece of technology that can't love you back. But I don't think it's that unrealistic. We feel attachment to many different things. And it may not be the same as a loving two way relationship where the love is coming back to you. But there's certainly attachment you can feel, and we see this to a lesser extent in other bits of technology, the people who anecdotally report that they really enjoy the the robot vacuum cleaner that they have that becomes almost like a pet, or having conversations with Alexa, if you're feeling a bit lonely. So I think, then, that the idea of forming some kind of friendship or companionship with a machine is not far fetched. And although the machine can't feel - we may never have machines that can actually feel anything, they can certainly give the portrayal and the illusion of responding to your moods, and they can give the idea that they are interested. And that might be enough for us to buy into it, and think that the machine cares and allow us, not in a deceptive way, but just to allow us enough to feel that rapport.

NSS:

In the book, you go and visit one of these sex robots that has different moods. Can you just talk a bit about how that actually works in practice? And also following up on that that, could we begin to talk about robot emotion or even robot love?

KD:

The robot that I went to visit was by a company called Real Doll who make a robot called Harmony who is a sex doll with an animatronic head, so she can smile and she can turn her head and blink. And I'm calling her "she" - these are incredibly gendered. So she does look a bit like a giant Barbie doll, a very expensive giant Barbie doll. And Harmony robot has an AI personality. And that personality can stand alone as an app. So you can actually download this app onto your smartphone. And you can have this virtual girlfriend as a conversational tool. And you can set and tweak the parameters. So if you decide that you want to have her talk to you in a flirtatious mode, or in a loving mode, or in a jokey mode, you can tweak all of these parameters to get a personality of sorts that you want to interact with. So it is very much like programming your partner like on demand, mood matching, which you know, is itself an incredibly interesting phenomenon. And how does that go if you can actually build something to your demand? Does that take away from the idea of human interactions, whether it's kickback, for example? But this robot, you can control the the way that she speaks to you.

I mean, it would not be difficult, it would not be exceptionally difficult to program one that behaves more randomly, so you wouldn't have to control necessarily the personality. But that's the way it's been set up for now. But of course, this is very, very limited. So because this is essentially a sex doll with some robotics, the body of the robot can't stand up on her own or anything like that. She has to be propped up. It's just the head. There's no other movement in the limbs, although they're working on that. So it's still quite limited. The people who built it, really their motivation was this companionship element. And if you go on to their website, it's very, very clearly marketing this via companionship means, via the language of romance and the language of relationships, rather than sex. And certainly, the people I've spoken to that own these sex dolls, the one thing they say when you say "if you could tell the world about your sex doll, what would it be?" And they say, "Tell them it's not about sex. That's not what it's about." And there are people who are fetishists, who want the fact that it is a doll, and they are turned on by the fact that it is a doll, but by and large, it's about companionship, and this robot gives them a way of taking that interaction with the doll a bit further and into the realms of physical reality.

NSS:

You're listening to With Reason from the New Humanist magazine with me, Niki Seth-Smith -

SS:

And me Samira Shackle: and we're talking to Kate Devlin about her book Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots. If you'd like to read more on subjects like technology, sex and dystopia, why not subscribe to New Humanist magazine, a quarterly Journal of ideas science and culture. We depend on our readers to produce independent journalism. To get a whole year subscription, for just £13.50 head to newhumanist.org.uk/subscribe and enter the code WITHREASON.

NSS:

So far today, we've talked about the fear that sex robots could replace human to human intimacy, and discussed the possibilities for different forms of emotional and sexual attachment. We've also talked about why people might want to own robotic sexual companions.

SS:

But for now, that obligatory question on Covid-19. Since the pandemic hit, it appears that the appeal of virtual sex and high tech interactive sex toys has increased. So there seems to be actually some evidence that the higher risks associated with physical intimacy has led to an increase in use and sales. We asked Kate: does this also apply to sex robots?

KD:

Sex robots still aren't commercially available, but sex dolls have apparently seen a surge in purchases due to lockdown. I talked to a couple of people who own sex dolls about this, and one of them said, it did occur to them that someone like him is probably better equipped than most to deal with an extended period of isolation at home. And so they don't feel as if they're missing out on companionship as much as someone might, who wasn't in that position. So I think that's quite a positive thing. Interestingly, amongst the community of men who own sex dolls, there's been a few investigations and studies done, and they find that rather than being isolated, the those men are forming friendship groups, because they all own sex dolls. So the very fact that they own them, gives them a route to talk to other people and to form these groups. It's actually not as isolating as you might think.

SS:

Hmm, that's so interesting. Why do you think that is that people would identify with their ownership of this thing so much that they join a support group? That isn't something you do, for instance, with another kind of sex toy that's more widely available, like a vibrator?

KD:

I think because this is such a lifestyle thing. For many people, it becomes more than just a gadget that someone owns. There's a lot of emotion invested in it. In some ways. It's a bit like hobbyists, so the forums that people meet on to talk about it, friendships emerge from that, and carried over into real life. So there's a very strong social bond that forms between people who are facing the same kind of judgment as well. There's a lot of judgment, a lot of suspicion about men who own sex dolls. And if you can get together with groups of people and talk about that in a safe environment, then it's unsurprising that social bonds emerge.

SS:

So do you think that this kind of sex tech is something that lots of people wouldn't mind trying, but wouldn't want to admit to wanting? We've talked a bit about the stigma around it?

KD:

Yeah. So that's the joy of doing research into sexual interests and behavior is that people just don't want to tell you, but are really curious. So we know that people underreport things a lot when it comes to sexual experiences. I think there is definitely a curiosity for people. Maybe not necessarily around this form of technology and sex, but certainly around other forms. And it's only maybe the past 20 years that people have started to be more open about owning sex toys. So there's still quite a way to go for anything that advances on that.

NSS:

And we've talked about the dominance of male gaze in the sex robots industry, but now we're broadening that to talk about more forms of sex tech. And your book emphasizes, there's all sorts of different possibilities, not necessarily sort of defined by the human form. You wrote about a surrealist game that you played at a workshop where people came up with all sorts of different creations. Can you remind us of that?

KD:

It was really fun. So it was the game where you draw a head, you fold over the page, you pass it on to the next person, they draw the body, they fold it over, they pass it on to the next person, they draw the legs, etc, etc. And it was really fun. They said, what what could you imagine as as a piece of sex tech or sexual companion that you've created and built. It was so interesting to unwrap the paper and see things like someone who put a screen for a head, that would screen erotica, so you could read while you're having sex with this thing. Other people were putting on wings or tentacles or squidgy bodies or all sorts of things. I ran two hackathons in 2016, and again in 2017. A hackathon is a like a 24 hour prototyping tech sprint, where you come together and you build things. And we brought people from all walks of life, we brought psychologists and tech people and musicians and artists and industry experts. We got them into groups, and they looked at exploring new forms of sex and technology that went beyond the idea of the sex robot or even just the sex toy. And that was fun, because they explored not just sex but intimacy and sensuality and how could you create experiences that were remote from the other person yet, you could still feel connected. And I think that right now in lockdown, that's particularly interesting.

NSS:

Were there any particular examples out of that that you could talk about?

KD:

Yes, absolutely. So we had one group in the first year, they created soft robotics in the form of - almost looks like a hand sized tentacles, and you can put them anywhere on your body. And when you squeeze the controller, it blew air into the tentacles, and they curled around the body. So you could create this, you could put this on anyone's body and then manipulate. it was really interesting. Another group have made what I called a sensual shawl. And they call the sex blanket, which was a short piece of fabric with some sensors in it. And when you wrapped it around your body, the sensors were next to your skin. Then when you were in a virtual or an augmented reality scene, where perhaps you had rose petals falling from the ceiling, you would feel those trigger the sensors. And as it was as if you were actually experiencing the rose petals touching you.

NSS:

That sounds amazing.

KD:

We had a one that was a series of inflatable tubes that you could wrap around yourself. And if you flick the switch on a motor, they would inflate, and it was like being squeezed and hugged.

SS:

Wow, so innovative. In terms of the industry, what do you think would have to change for more experimental products and approaches like that to take hold?

KD:

It's quite difficult with sex tech to get funding for projects. A lot of venture capitalists won't touch anything that has sort of adult content. So if it involves sex, or gambling or drink, things like that, they don't want to get involved quite often. So it's still seen as being very taboo in terms of funding. And there's been a lot of sexism in it as well. The Consumer Electronics Show last year awarded an innovation prize to a robotic vibrator company, but then wouldn't let them exhibit in the trade show. And yet, we're quite happy to have a sex robot being shown on stage. So it's a double standard of what's allowed; a sex toy for women was deemed not nice enough to have on the stage, whereas the sex robot was seen as being fun and interesting.

SS:

We've spoken about the male gaze. I'm assuming it's an industry that's quite dominated by men. Is that a fair assumption?

KD:

Certainly with sex robots, it reflects the state of play in Silicon Valley, which is its its tech being designed by men, for men. We see this in every bit of tech that comes out of there. We see it in the fact that all voice assistants began with female voices because men like to tell women what to do. We see it in the fact that when Apple released a health tracker, there's no way of tracking menstruation on it. It's just incredible. Even in a business sense, it's ridiculous - because you're excluding half the world from your market.

SS:

You mentioned about that double standard when we're talking about sex tech. Does looking at the approach to sex tech, as well as maybe misunderstandings about it, as well as sexism within the industry - has that led you to think about how narrow minded we can be about sex itself?

KD:

There's still so much to do around sex. Certainly, in the past few years we see a resurgence in more moralistic views, more right wing views, that are pushing against the idea of sexual freedom. Certainly, in the US, you can see this in terms of fights over abortion and women's bodily autonomy, things that restricted sex workers being able to use the internet for work. And that's quite worrying. in other ways, we like to think we're very open. And we like to think that we're very broad minded. But there's still a lot of social judgment around these kind of things. Interestingly, with lockdown, people are starting to turn to tech for solutions around sex and around intimacy. So perhaps that will be liberating in some ways.

NSS:

And if different kinds of desire were taken into account, so you know, female desire, queer desire, what might that lead to? What's different about different kinds of desire, that's not sort of getting a look in within the industry?

KD:

At the moment, it's very much a very much a heteronormative, mono-heteronormative environment. I think there are quite a few startups now that are pushing against that. So you getting more sex tech, that will be better for people with disabilities, for queer communities, for people with multiple partners. And that's really, really promising to see. I just hope that they're able to get momentum and get going with that. Certainly, the will is there, the intention is there. It's whether or not it can be delivered in this society.

SS:

When we're talking about this intersection of intimacy and technology, what kind of future would you like to see?

KD:

I would love to see a future where people have companionship needs met and their intimacy needs met, but not one that replaces humans, because I don't think we should aim for that. I don't think we will get that anyway. But something where life becomes more pleasurable for people who may be missing out, or it becomes more convenient for people when they're apart from their loved ones. I'd like to see technology mediating human relationships, I'd like to see it enhancing what we have, and making things better. I am a techno optimist. I'm not saying that there are no flaws with technology, I can list many, many, many flaws with technology. And you know, I do work in a lot of work in AI ethics, and I get very concerned about some of the directions that these things go. But overall, I think that technology does have the power to enhance lives. And I'd really like to see it go in that direction.

SS:

To put you on the spot, what would you invent, if you could in this space?

KD:

At the moment, I think it would be really lovely to have a machine that could just cuddle you and make you feel reassured, that would be able to give you a bit of a hug when you're away from your loved ones, and maybe whisper in your ear and tell you everything's going to be okay.

SS:

So in this series, we've been looking to the New Humanist's huge archive of writing on science, culture and ideas to find pieces that might appeal to our guests. And today, we thought we'd take a quick look at "The Dawn of the Replicant", which is an article from 2016, in which Will Wiles considers advances in robot design. Kate, Will writes about the robot revolt trope, which is often seen in pop culture. So that's this idea that the robots might rise up and turn against us. You've seen your fair share of robots, probably more than most people. Is that something to be genuinely concerned about? Or is it firmly in the realm of fiction?

KD:

We certainly don't have to worry about the robot revolution just yet. I would say out of all the problems that tech is bringing us, in all the threats to humanity, that's one of the further away threats. There's definitely a very long standing trope of this. It's where we get the word robot from, from chap x play, where the the robots were servants who threw off the shackles, and we see it time and time again in science fiction, but that's not the big problem in tech with technology. So we're pretty safe.

NSS:

Will also mention this question of the kinds of jobs that might be filled by robots. So for in care and domestic work, for example, do you think with COVID-19, we may be being shown that robots can and should do such jobs? Or has in fact shown that the human touch remains vital?

KD:

The problem is we don't have enough human touch. We don't have enough human care workers. And a lot of countries are adopting a strategy where robotics could help out but it's not about building humanoid robotic carers, because that's just not technologically feasible. It's very computationally and financially expensive. So Japan, for example, has a robot strategy that kind of hinges on the idea of things that are assistive, like exoskeletons that could help carers lift people, or special powered wheelchairs that can get people around. So there's definitely space for that. Interestingly, people are fine. Actually, people are generally okay with the idea of putting care robots at work in things like nursing homes, but they are really not happy with the idea of robots looking after their children. So survey after survey, you hear people going, "well, you know, I'm okay with it for all people, but I don't want them near my babies", which I think it's very telling about how we treat our elderly people. There are actually trials in care homes and nursing homes with robotic therapy pets, for example. And companionship robots, they've actually been quite successful. And anecdotally, the the people in the care homes are pretty positive about them and find it to be quite a good thing. But you do get kick back from others going, "wow, that's just no replacement, we're destroying human contact", but we can have it as well as human contact. We're spread a bit thin when it comes to caring. So I'd like to think that technology can help.

SS:

So finally, Will's piece, in common with your book Turned On includes lots and lots of pop culture references. So we've got The Stepford Wives and Blade Runner, and Ex-Machina, and so on. Can you think of a piece of TV or a film or a book that you think gives a progressive vision of the future and sex tech in particular, and robotics?

KD:

Oh, well,if we had if we had a nice TV program, it wouldn't get as many viewers we everyone loves a dystopian sci fi. So things like Black Mirror are really interesting, because they're so near future that some of the technology is quite feasible. But of course, it goes wrong, because where's the fun if it doesn't? I actually think that some of the Black Mirror ideas are really interesting, including cobbling together your loved one from their leftover social media posts. I think that's fascinating. It's not that far off from what we could do, given the amount of data that is collected about us and given the amount of footprint we leave. So would that be a good thing? I don't know. There's something to be said for hanging on to the memories digitally of your loved ones. But then again, does that impact on how we grieve, and how we move on in the world? I don't know that there's a particularly happy portrayal of where we might go in the future. But there's definitely interesting ones. And with the dystopian ones, there's definitely paths we don't want to go down.

SS:

Thanks so much. That was fascinating. Kate Devlin, author of Turned On: Science, Sex, and Robots. Niki, there's loads to take in there. What are the main things that you'd want to take away from our chat with Kate?

NSS:

I guess I was confronted by my own assumptions, because I hadn't really thought about it. I think at some level, I had associated owning a sex doll with denigrating women in real life. And the fact that Kate overturned that assumption, made me think of the association that people make between playing violent video games and thinking that will automatically lead kids and teenagers to act out that violence in real life. So those are just,I guess, knee jerk reactions that don't necessarily hold water in reality.

SS:

Yeah, I agree. I think I shared that assumption, and hadn't really ever interrogated it, this idea that there's an association with denigrating women in some way. And I was, on a similar note really struck by what Kate said about lots of people who own these dolls, not seeing them as being primarily or certainly not solely about sex, and that it can be about intimacy, and about companionship, which certainly isn't something that I would have associated with this kind of technology. But I thought that was really fascinating.

NSS:

Yeah, and I guess it's also about what kind of role that we assume there'll be used for, and also, not talking about sex robots, but talking about robot carers. And she mentioned that people like general population are more much more likely to accept a robot carer for older people, and for the elderly, than they are for children. Kate actually said that, for her that seemed to speak to the way that our current society prioritizes children, vastly over the elderly. I think that there's maybe something that's true about that. I don't know what you think.

SS:

It's interesting, I guess there could also be a moral element. And the idea that children growing up are being taught a moral code. So it's not just functional care that they need. They also need to learn about the world and the way life is, whereas elderly people have a whole lifetime of experience and knowledge and wisdom and so on. And what they need is a more functional companionship, I suppose. And practical help. So yes, it's obviously a complicated issue. But listening to Kate talk, it seems that maybe robots could be more appropriate for elderly care than something like teaching children.

NSS:

Yeah, it does seem that Kate's book challenges a lot of assumptions and it's definitely worth a read.

SS:

Well, that's all for today. Next up, we'll be talking to Jon Dean, who has written a book on charity - an area rather like sex tech, perhaps, where what people claim to believe might sometimes be pretty different from what they actually do.

NSS:

Remember, you can head to newhumanist.org.uk/withreason to read more about the podcast and find reading lists and transcripts for each episode. And if you like what you've heard, why not also click subscribe right now on whatever app you're using. This podcast was presented by me Niki Seth-Smith and Samira Shackle. The producer was Alice Bloch.

Further reading: