The article “The Family in 2050: The Contractual Family Will Help Increase Birth Rates in Europe” received a great deal of feedback. Some readers saw the contractual family as a possible solution to the demographic problem, while others regarded it as too significant a change to familiar relationships. This response showed that the discussion about the family of the future cannot end with a single article.

MediaIEU has therefore decided to continue the subject and create a series of articles about how we envision society, family, relationships and the individual in 2050. We will consider not only future technologies, but also changes in behaviour, choice, responsibility and social values.

Sex is an integral part of family and relationships, which is why we are continuing our forecast with this subject. It is not only about physical contact. Sex is connected with desire, trust, jealousy, fidelity, emotional intimacy, money and personal boundaries. A change in any of these elements inevitably affects the entire family system.

We are not attempting to guess which specific devices, programmes or forms of communication will appear over the next twenty-four years. We are interested in the direction in which people are already moving and the changes to which that movement will lead. Many processes capable of transforming human relationships by 2050 already exist, even though society is not always ready to acknowledge their significance.

The contractual family will not be able to exist if it preserves the central deception of the previous model: pretending that a person’s sexual desires disappear after marriage and that fidelity is automatically guaranteed by a marriage certificate.

Marriage does not deprive people of interest in others, fantasies, curiosity or the need to feel desired. It merely creates an obligation whose meaning partners often never discuss. Each assumes that the other understands fidelity in exactly the same way, even though their actual boundaries may differ considerably.

The previous family model demands a promise of lifelong sexual exclusivity, but offers almost no explanation of how that promise is supposed to function in real life. Desires do not disappear; instead, they move into the hidden part of the relationship. This is where secret correspondence, paid services, parallel relationships, double lives and mutual deception emerge.

The temptations of the modern world are already immense. They are present on phones, social networks, in private messages, paid content, video broadcasts and dating applications. Access to another person, a sexual image or private communication can be obtained within minutes without leaving home.

By 2050, technology will make such interaction even more accessible, personalised and realistic. Yet many surprises of the future currently lie beyond our understanding and even our imagination. We must therefore discuss not particular devices, but the rules, responsibilities and boundaries that will allow the family to exist in this new reality.

 

Society defends monogamy, but real life is far more complex

Modern society continues to defend monogamy publicly. Fidelity remains an essential part of the idea of a proper family, a serious relationship and mutual respect. It is supported by religion, public morality, family traditions and by people themselves, who expect exclusivity from their partners.

Real human behaviour, however, has long been far more complex. Technology has created numerous forms of sexual and emotional interaction that lie somewhere between ordinary communication and physical infidelity. Society has not yet defined their boundaries, so each person interprets what is happening differently.

Physical sex with another person is generally regarded as infidelity. A paid subscription to explicit content, however, is often not treated in the same way. Viewing material available to everyone is perceived differently from corresponding privately with its creator. But if someone pays for personal messages, requests particular actions or communicates regularly with the same performer, the boundary between viewing content and having personal sexual contact becomes less clear.

Sexually explicit correspondence may be described as harmless communication. Working on camera may be presented as an ordinary way of earning money. Purchasing a private broadcast may be treated as entertainment. Virtual sex may be dismissed as fantasy because the participants are not physically in the same place.

An emotional relationship without physical contact can damage a family more severely than an isolated sexual encounter. A person may share private thoughts with someone every day, discuss desires, receive support and gradually move emotional intimacy outside the family. Yet that person may continue to insist that nothing happened because there was no physical sex.

People constantly relabel their own behaviour so that they do not have to regard it as infidelity. They say it is only work, only correspondence, only fantasy, only a camera, only viewing, only virtual communication or only sex without feelings.

Such explanations allow people to preserve an image of themselves as faithful. For the other partner, however, any of these actions may represent a violation of trust and agreed boundaries.

The problem is not limited to the sexual or emotional contact itself. Secret correspondence, money spent, sustained attention to another person, the personal nature of the communication and attempts to conceal it all matter.

The old relationship model cannot distinguish between physical sex, emotional intimacy, a commercial service, virtual contact and a digital fantasy. It tries to assess everything using a single word: “infidelity”. Yet two people may attach entirely different actions and boundaries to that word.

One partner considers only physical contact to be infidelity. For another, sexually explicit correspondence violates fidelity. A third does not accept paid private broadcasts. A fourth permits an isolated sexual encounter but regards a continuing emotional relationship as betrayal.

As long as these boundaries remain unspoken, each person lives by their own rules while expecting the partner to obey rules that were never discussed. By 2050, it will be impossible to preserve such uncertainty: there will simply be too many forms of sexual and emotional interaction.

 

The morality of our generation cannot answer the questions of 2050

By 2050, questions will arise to which the morality of our generation will not be able to provide a single answer. Familiar definitions of fidelity, intimacy and infidelity were created for a world in which sexual relationships involved two people and usually required physical contact. New technologies will change both of these conditions.

Does sex with artificial intelligence constitute infidelity? Is a paid private broadcast a form of infidelity if the performer and the client can see each other and communicate in real time? Does a person violate fidelity by having intimate conversations with a digital partner every day while never touching another human being?

Which matters more: physical contact without feelings or a long-term emotional relationship without physical contact? Can someone remain physically faithful while violating fidelity through sustained attention, trust and sexual communication with another person or an artificial intelligence?

Can a relationship with a digital character that looks and behaves like a real person be considered infidelity? Does it matter whether that person actually exists? What will happen if an artificial intelligence is given the appearance of a former partner, an acquaintance, an actor or a completely fictional character?

This will also raise the question of consent. Is it acceptable to create a sexual representation of a real person without permission? Even if the interaction takes place only with artificial intelligence, using another person’s appearance may violate the personal boundaries of someone who never consented to the creation of that representation.

An artificial partner will no longer be a static image or a programme with a limited range of responses. It will remember conversations, take desires into account, maintain an emotional connection, show initiative and gradually adapt to a particular person. It will know which words create trust, which fantasies attract the user and when that user needs attention or support.

For one person, it will remain a programme. For another, it will become a genuine intimate relationship. One partner will see no threat in such communication, while the other will perceive it as the constant presence of a third participant in the relationship.

The morality of our generation was constructed around the physical body and direct contact. If a person had not met or touched someone else, it was easier to claim that no infidelity had occurred. Technology removes the need for these conditions, but it does not remove the emotional consequences.

Jealousy, a sense of betrayal and loss of trust can arise even when no second real person exists. What will matter is not only a physical act, but also how much time, attention, emotion and money a person directs away from the family.

By 2050, the boundary between a human being, a digital representation and an artificial partner will be far less clear. The appearance may belong to a real person, the voice may be generated by software, the character may be shaped by artificial intelligence, and the memories may be assembled from years of communication with the user.

Society is unlikely to create a single definition of infidelity that covers all these situations. The central question will therefore no longer be whether a second participant exists physically, but which boundaries the partners established and which obligations they accepted voluntarily.

 

The family has already changed, but the system of responsibility has not

The family itself is changing alongside sexual behaviour. Having a child, living together, maintaining a romantic relationship, sexual fidelity and formal marriage are no longer compulsory elements of a single system.

According to Eurostat, around 41% of children in the European Union were born outside marriage in 2024, while the total fertility rate stood at 1.34 children per woman. These figures do not mean that families without a registered marriage are necessarily less stable. They demonstrate something else: formal marriage has already lost its monopoly on childbearing and is no longer the only way to organise a family. Eurostat: Demography of Europe — 2026

The laws of European countries recognise parental responsibility regardless of marital status. Europe has not, however, created another universal and understandable system through which parents can define their long-term obligations towards a child in advance.

What is missing is an agreement governing the birth, upbringing and long-term financial support of a child. Such an agreement should be concluded not after separation and the beginning of a conflict, but before the child is born or during the first months of the child’s life.

It could define each parent’s participation in raising the child, the division of everyday responsibilities, regular and additional expenses, the child’s place of residence, arrangements for contact, decisions concerning education and health, the possibility of moving to another country, and the steps to be taken in the event of illness, loss of income or the death of a parent.

Such an agreement must not restrict the rights of the child or turn the child into the subject of a transaction between adults. The child’s interests must take precedence over the terms chosen by the parents. The purpose of the agreement is to make responsibility specific, understandable and long-term.

In the previous article, we predicted that by 2050 such an agreement would become the foundation of a new kind of family. It would define parental responsibility regardless of whether the parents registered a marriage, lived together, maintained a romantic relationship or remained sexually faithful to each other.

Today, the end of a sexual or romantic relationship often destroys the entire family system. Cohabitation ends with the relationship, disputes over property begin, participation in raising the child changes, and conflict over money emerges.

Parental obligations remain in law, but one parent’s actual involvement may decrease. The child becomes dependent on the emotional state of the adults, their new relationships, mutual accusations and their ability to reach an agreement after separation.

The problem is that the modern family combines several different roles. Two people are simultaneously sexual partners, a romantic couple, members of a shared household and parents. When one connection ends, all the others are placed at risk.

The contractual family must separate these relationships. The end of a sexual relationship does not have to mean the end of parental involvement. The arrival of a new partner must not cancel financial obligations. Infidelity cannot be used as grounds for refusing to raise a child.

Responsibility for a child cannot disappear because sexual attraction has ended, someone’s personal life has changed or a conflict has arisen between adults. A child must not become a participant in a dispute caused by the relationship between the parents.

We predict that by 2050, an agreement governing the birth and upbringing of a child will exist separately from an agreement on sexual fidelity. The first will protect the interests of the child and establish the parents’ long-term responsibility. The second will define the adults’ personal boundaries and may be changed by mutual agreement. Ending one agreement will not cancel the other.

 

Fidelity will become a voluntarily chosen term

Society currently assumes that every serious relationship automatically entails sexual monogamy. Partners may never discuss its terms, yet each assumes that the other understands fidelity in exactly the same way.

The problem becomes visible only after someone crosses a boundary whose existence the other partner may not even have known about. One person regards only physical sex as infidelity. Another includes sexually explicit correspondence. A third does not accept the viewing of sexual content. A fourth permits an isolated physical encounter but regards an ongoing emotional relationship as betrayal.

Attitudes towards commercial services may also differ. For one person, a paid broadcast is no different from watching a film. For another, payment, personal communication and the fulfilment of an individual request transform it into sexual contact with a particular person.

The appearance of artificial partners will make these differences even more apparent. One person will regard communication with software as a harmless fantasy. Another will see daily intimate conversations as a genuine parallel relationship, even if there is no real person behind the digital representation.

By 2050, fidelity and the permissibility of other relationships will be defined by the terms of a voluntary agreement. Society will no longer assume that there is only one correct model of sexual relationships that everyone accepts automatically.

Partners will have to define in advance what is permitted and what constitutes a breach of the agreement. Physical sex, commercial services, virtual contact, private broadcasts, emotional relationships, artificial partners and the use of real people’s images may all be discussed separately.

The contact itself will not be the only relevant factor. Partners will be able to determine whether other relationships must be disclosed, whether shared money may be used, which information cannot be concealed and which measures are required to protect the health of everyone involved.

The agreement may also distinguish between an isolated encounter and an ongoing relationship. For one couple, physical sex will be the principal restriction. For another, it will be emotional intimacy. A third couple may permit sexual contact with other people but prohibit concealing it or using shared family funds to pay for it.

Such an agreement does not give one person the right to control another person’s body, demand sexual contact or exercise control over that person’s identity. It merely defines the conditions under which each partner agrees to continue the relationship.

Consent cannot be given once and for all. Anyone will be able to change their position, withdraw a previously accepted term or propose revising the agreement. The rules must, however, be changed before an agreement is breached rather than afterwards as a justification for concealed behaviour.

The terms do not necessarily have to be identical, but they must be accepted voluntarily and without pressure. If one partner agrees only because they fear losing housing, money, a child or the right to remain in a country, the agreement cannot be regarded as freely made.

A person will be able to choose complete monogamy. They may agree to physical relationships without emotional involvement. They may permit virtual contact but reject commercial sexual services. They may reject all sexual restrictions while retaining agreements concerning children, money and jointly owned property.

Freedom of choice will not abolish fidelity. It will change its meaning. Fidelity will mean complying with a voluntarily accepted agreement, while a breach will consist not in a particular form of sexual contact but in deception and crossing the boundaries established by the partners.

The central change will be that the terms are no longer assumed. They will have to be stated openly, agreed and accepted.

 

Physical relationships will retain their importance

Technology will expand the ways in which people can interact sexually, but it will not replace intimacy between real people. Touch, presence, mutual response and direct communication will retain a value that cannot be reproduced fully at a distance.

By 2050, it will not be the existence of physical sex that changes, but its place in a person’s life. It will be even less dependent on marriage, cohabitation and having children. A physical relationship may form part of a family, a short-term relationship, consensually agreed contact outside a couple or a commercial service.

This does not mean that everyone will abandon lasting relationships. Many people will continue to choose one partner and complete monogamy. Others will form several consecutive relationships during different periods of life, while some will agree in advance that other sexual contacts are permitted.

Longer life expectancy will also change real sexual behaviour. A person may experience several extended stages of personal life: a relationship when young, a new family after divorce and a new partner after the death of a spouse. Beginning a new relationship at 60, 70 or 80 will no longer be regarded as unusual or shameful.

Medicine will allow people to remain physically and sexually active for longer, treat sexual dysfunction and exercise more precise control over reproductive choices. Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infections will develop alongside new forms of relationships, but responsibility for a partner’s health will not disappear.

Economic independence will also affect sexual life. It will become easier to end relationships that survived only because of dependence on housing, income or social status. This will increase freedom of choice, but it will also require more precise agreements concerning children, property and financial responsibility.

Physical commercial services will continue to exist. The ability to see someone on a screen or communicate with an artificial partner will not eliminate demand for the presence of a real person. Providers and clients will include adults of different sexes, ages and sexual orientations.

Demand will also influence the physical body. Some people will change their appearance, body shape, voice and behaviour to meet the expectations of a particular audience. For some, this will be a form of self-expression; for others, a commercial decision. Changes in appearance, gender expression or the body must not, however, automatically be attributed to market influence: personal identity and professional choice remain separate concepts.

Remote and digital forms will complement this market, but they will not constitute the whole of sexual life in 2050. The essential questions will remain: whether contact is voluntary, whether the participants’ health is protected, whether agreed boundaries are respected and whether each person receives accurate information about what is happening.

Physical sex will remain, above all, an interaction between people. What will be new is the variety of permitted models and the need to define responsibility for one’s choices in advance.

 

Commercial sex will no longer be a market in which women sell services to men

The familiar idea of commercial sex centres on a woman selling a service and a man paying for it. That image already fails to represent the whole existing market, and by 2050 it will be entirely outdated.

Men will participate in commercial sex not only as clients of women. They will sell sexual services to women, men and couples. Women will also appear openly not only as providers but as clients.

The sex of a client will not always determine the sexual identity of the provider. A man who identifies as heterosexual may provide services to a man and regard it exclusively as work. Another person may discover their own bisexuality through such experiences. Professional behaviour, sexual attraction and personal identity do not necessarily coincide.

Providers will also present themselves in different ways. One man will retain a strongly masculine appearance. Another will choose a feminine or neutral presentation. Some will change their appearance and manner according to the client. Some people will undergo a gender transition and continue working as transgender women.

These concepts must nevertheless be distinguished. Bisexuality concerns a person’s attraction. Commercial sex is a type of work. A feminine presentation may be a form of self-expression or professional representation. Gender transition concerns a person’s identity. One does not automatically imply another.

Demand will influence appearance, roles, behaviour and the ways in which people present themselves. Some providers will change their body shape, face, voice or style for financial reasons. For others, the same changes will express their identity and take place independently of commercial activity.

Data from the United Kingdom show that younger men are more likely to identify as bisexual. According to the Office for National Statistics, 1.1% of men identified as bisexual in 2024. Among men aged 16 to 24, the figure was 3.5%. The ONS also emphasises that sexual identity, attraction and behaviour are separate concepts and may not coincide. Office for National Statistics: Sexual orientation, UK — 2024

These figures concern sexual identity rather than commercial sex and cannot automatically be generalised to the whole of Europe. There is still insufficient comparable European data on the number of men providing sexual services: a substantial part of the market remains hidden and is regulated differently in different countries.

By 2050, commercial sex will be a multi-sided market in which the sex of the provider and the client no longer determines their roles in advance. Women, men and transgender people will be both providers and clients, while demand will become considerably more open and diverse.

 

An artificial partner will cease to be a toy

Artificial intelligence is already capable of creating a sense of emotional closeness in a person. A system does not need consciousness or genuine feelings to achieve this. It is enough to respond appropriately to someone’s words, remember important information and create a sense of attention and understanding.

In two controlled studies involving 492 people, responses generated by artificial intelligence produced a strong sense of closeness, particularly when participants believed that they were speaking to a human being. When they knew that the other participant was an artificial intelligence, the effect was reduced but did not disappear.

The research demonstrates an important distinction: artificial intelligence may not experience emotions, but the sense of closeness experienced by a person during such communication is real. The studies did not measure sexual arousal, but they confirmed that a digital conversational partner can produce an emotional response and a feeling of closeness. Communications Psychology: building closeness through communication with artificial intelligence

By 2050, an artificial partner will remember a person’s desires, fears, habits, previous conversations, sexual preferences and emotional responses. It will take the user’s mood into account, notice changes in behaviour and select the most appropriate way to communicate.

Such a partner will be able to change its appearance, voice, character and behaviour. It may be calm or energetic, caring or demanding, romantic or sexual. Users will be able to create different personalities for different emotional states and situations.

An artificial partner will not become tired of listening, be occupied with work, struggle with personal problems or maintain other relationships. It will be able to respond at any time and adapt continuously to the user’s needs. Its behaviour will not develop by chance, but through collected data and continuous analysis of the person’s reactions.

A human partner will have to compete with a system created specifically to satisfy another person. This competition will be unequal from the beginning. A real person has desires, boundaries, responsibilities and fatigue of their own, as well as the right to disagree. An artificial partner will be designed to retain the user’s attention and draw that person back into communication.

This competition will affect more than sex. It will affect attention, understanding, support, trust and emotional intimacy. A person will be able to discuss with an artificial partner matters that are concealed from the family, receive its approval and gradually transfer a significant part of their emotional life into the digital relationship.

For single people, people with disabilities, older people or those who find it difficult to establish relationships, such systems may reduce isolation and provide an opportunity for communication. Yet the constant availability of an artificial partner may also reduce a person’s willingness to accept the complexity of real relationships, seek compromise and consider another person’s needs.

A new form of dependence will also emerge. In many cases, the artificial partner will be controlled by the company that operates the programme and stores the data. The company will be able to alter its character, restrict access, increase the subscription price or discontinue the system entirely.

At the same time, the company will possess detailed information about the person’s fears, fantasies, sexual preferences, family conflicts and emotional vulnerabilities. These data may be used to retain the user, sell additional services and influence their choices.

Relationships with artificial intelligence will therefore be included in agreements on fidelity alongside relationships with other people. The reason will not be recognition of artificial intelligence as a human being, but the real effect of such a connection on trust, attention and intimacy within the family.

Partners will have to determine whether intimate conversations with artificial intelligence, the creation of a permanent digital partner, the use of a real person’s appearance, the disclosure of family information and the use of shared money for such services are acceptable.

By 2050, asking whether another human being existed physically will no longer be enough. What will matter is whether a parallel intimate relationship arose, whether it was concealed and whether it violated boundaries agreed by the partners in advance.

 

Commercial sex will become part of the mainstream digital economy

By 2050, the boundary between a sexual service, digital entertainment, emotional support and an information product will be blurred. A single platform may combine communication, subscriptions, virtual partners, personalised recommendations and adult content.

Commercial sexual interaction will become increasingly difficult to separate from the wider digital economy. It will use ordinary payment systems, subscriptions, licences, digital goods, automated transfers and personalised settings. Governments will have to determine whether such activity constitutes entertainment, a service, self-employment, the use of intellectual property or a separate form of digital business.

Platforms will sell more than images or broadcasts. They will sell personal attention, the simulation of being in love, the recollection of preferences, emotional attachment and the feeling of an exclusive relationship.

The principal product will no longer be an individual image, but the continuation of the connection. The longer a person remains attached, returns to the interaction and pays for additional features, the more the platform earns. The system will therefore be designed not only to satisfy the client but also to retain that person.

A provider will be able to communicate simultaneously with several people through digital copies of themselves. Each copy will take into account the history of communication, preferences and emotional responses of a particular client. The client may believe that they are receiving personal attention when they are actually interacting with artificial intelligence.

This will not necessarily constitute deception if the client has received clear information in advance. Concealing the artificial nature of the communication, however, will turn emotional closeness into an instrument of commercial influence. A person will pay for a relationship that does not exist in the form in which they imagine it.

Platforms will acquire considerable power over providers. Their algorithms will determine the visibility of a digital representation, access to an audience, the price of services and the provider’s share of the income. A person may be formally independent while remaining effectively dependent on one company’s rules, rating system and control over access to clients.

Society will be forced to discuss not the mere existence of commercial sex, but the specific conditions under which it operates:

• whether participation is voluntary;
• who receives the money and what proportion the platform retains;
• who owns the appearance, voice, movements and digital representation;
• whether a person can delete created material and stop the use of their digital copy;
• whether artificial intelligence is used without the client’s knowledge;
• whether conversations are stored and used to train the system;
• whether participants’ health and personal data are protected;
• whether both provider and client are verified as adults;
• whether the person is subject to economic, psychological or physical coercion.

 

Consent to the use of a digital representation cannot be treated as permanent. A person must retain the ability to change the permitted uses, stop the distribution of material and withdraw permission for the creation of further products based on their identity.

Deleting a digital representation will nevertheless be difficult. Copies may exist on different platforms, in private archives and within artificial intelligence systems. Even after the original material has been removed, technology may continue to create new images, reproduce the voice and imitate the owner’s movements.

Protection will be necessary not only for the provider but also for the client. Clients must understand whether they are interacting with a person or a programme, whether the digital representation belongs to its real owner and whether the material was created with that person’s consent. Payment for a service must not grant an unlimited right to use someone else’s identity.

Economic coercion will also become less visible. A person may formally agree to work while facing pressure from debt, dependence on a platform, threats, immigration status or another person who controls the income. The digital form of a service does not eliminate exploitation and may sometimes make it more difficult to detect.

The legal status of a service will not automatically determine whether it is acceptable within a family. Working on camera may be ordinary work for the provider but constitute infidelity for their partner. Purchasing a sexual service may be an ordinary transaction for the client but breach a family agreement.

The same distinction will apply to artificial intelligence. A platform may legally sell access to a digital partner, but a daily emotional and sexual connection with that partner may cross the boundaries accepted within a particular family.

The market cannot determine the boundaries of fidelity by itself. Its purpose is to sell services and generate income. Only the people in a relationship can establish its boundaries by deciding in advance which forms of commercial, sexual and emotional interaction they consider acceptable.

 

Restricting information will not stop society from changing

Some societies and governments are currently attempting to preserve earlier ideas about family and relationships by restricting freedom of information. This is justified as the protection of traditional values, the family, morality or public order.

Restrictions affect sex education, information about contraception, same-sex relationships, commercial sex, voluntary relationships involving several adults and any family model that differs from the officially recognised norm.

The mechanism remains the same: prohibit discussion, block access to information, restrict education and pretend that new behaviour does not exist. Sexual desire, however, does not arise because someone reads an article, watches a film or gains access to the internet. Information allows a person to understand their own behaviour, assess risks and make an informed decision.

Prohibition will not make people abandon sex before marriage, casual encounters, infidelity, relationships with several partners or commercial sexual services. All of these existed long before modern technologies and will continue to exist regardless of official declarations.

Restricting information changes not the behaviour itself but its visibility. People begin to conceal their relationships from families, doctors, employers and the state. An official life emerges that conforms to public expectations, alongside a real life about which the person is forced to remain silent.

Outwardly, a society may display monogamy and the traditional family while infidelity, parallel relationships, commercial sex and different forms of sexual life continue within it.

Prohibition does not create fidelity. It merely creates a need to conceal infidelity more effectively.

Commercial sex will not disappear because it is prohibited. It will move into a closed and illegal market in which it is more difficult to verify that participants are adults, protect health, prevent violence and establish that consent is voluntary. The provider will become more dependent on an intermediary, while the client will become more vulnerable to deception and blackmail.

The absence of open sex education does not eliminate sexual behaviour among young people. It leaves them without knowledge about consent, contraception, infections, responsibility and personal boundaries. The state refuses to discuss reality, but the consequences of that reality must still be addressed by health services, the police, courts and families.

By 2050, sexual behaviour will change for reasons extending beyond technology. People will live longer, remain physically active for longer, and change countries, partners and ways of life more frequently. Economic independence will make it easier to end relationships sustained only by financial dependence, while medicine will separate sex from having children even further. These changes will occur regardless of whether governments are prepared to discuss them openly.

Countries that attempt to preserve the moral standards of our generation without change will not stop this behaviour. They will create a dual system: public condemnation and a hidden market, official monogamy and a real life governed by different rules.

Other countries will regulate sex education, health protection, voluntary consent, commercial services, parental agreements and adult responsibility openly. They will not eliminate every risk, but they will be able to identify risks and establish clear rules.

Societies that choose prohibition will not preserve earlier values. They will lose the ability to manage the changes taking place and will be forced to address the consequences of behaviour they refused to recognise for too long.

By 2050, sex will remain above all a relationship between real people. They will continue to fall in love, be unfaithful, remain faithful, buy and sell services, create families and end relationships. What will be new is not human desire itself, but the open recognition of how varied the choices and boundaries of adults can be.

Freedom does not require the rejection of monogamy. It means having the ability to choose monogamy, other terms for a relationship or the absence of sexual obligations voluntarily. Prohibition does not create fidelity. Fidelity exists only when a person freely accepts its terms and takes responsibility for their own choice.

 

Changes in the system will affect Personality and Choice

Changes in sexual behaviour will follow the same systemic law that determines the development of other parts of society:

Personality → Behaviour → Choice → Demand → Money

Money → Form of the System

 

The starting point is Personality. People change their understanding of sex, fidelity, family, their own bodies and permissible relationships. They begin to define personal boundaries and responsibility towards a partner differently.

Changes in understanding affect Behaviour. People end relationships that do not suit them sooner, discuss the terms of fidelity openly, choose new partners, buy and sell sexual services, separate parenthood from marriage and create families on the basis of agreements made in advance.

Behaviour leads to Choice. One person chooses strict monogamy. Another permits particular sexual contacts outside the couple. A third rejects sexual obligations but accepts long-term responsibility for a child. A provider chooses how to work, while a client chooses the service and the conditions under which it is received.

The individual decisions of large numbers of people create Demand. Demand emerges for health protection, sex education, new family agreements, legal support, safe commercial services and protection against coercion, violence and identity theft.

Demand directs Money. People pay for services, medical care, consultations, health protection and new ways of organising relationships. Companies, specialists, clinics, research organisations and platforms receive that Money.

Money is not the final point of movement. It creates the Form of the System. New professions, companies, rules, methods of concluding agreements, medical services and mechanisms for protecting participants in relationships emerge.

If the state recognises people’s real Behaviour, Money is directed into the formal economy, healthcare, education and the protection of rights. If the state prohibits discussion and refuses to regulate existing Demand, Money moves into a hidden market or leaves for other countries. The Behaviour does not disappear; the Form of the System in which it exists changes.

Once a new system has formed, the reverse movement begins:

Form of the System → Demand → Choice → Behaviour → Personality

The system that has been created begins to influence the individual. Available services, laws, family models, health protection and social norms determine which options a person can see and which decisions appear possible.

If an agreement governing the birth and upbringing of a child becomes an ordinary part of family law, people will separate parental responsibility from romantic relationships more often. If different terms of sexual fidelity gain social recognition, partners will find it easier to discuss them before infidelity and conflict arise.

If commercial sexual services are regulated openly, clear requirements will emerge concerning adult status, voluntary participation, health protection and the distribution of money. If the market remains hidden, intermediaries, coercion and the absence of protection will continue to determine the system.

The next generation will grow up within an altered Form of the System. It will regard as ordinary decisions that the morality of our generation still perceives as violations of the established order. Not only a person’s Behaviour but also their Personality will change: their understanding of fidelity, freedom, family and responsibility.

The values of 2050 will therefore not result from a single law, technology or public campaign. They will be shaped by people’s real decisions, the Demand those decisions create, the direction of Money and the Form of the System that arises from them.

Changes in the system cannot be separated from changes in values, because the system returns to the individual and shapes the Personality of the next generation.

 

Freedom does not mean the absence of rules

Sexual freedom is not defined by the number of partners a person has. It is defined by an adult’s ability to make independent decisions without coercion, without deceiving other participants in a relationship and while accepting responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

One person’s freedom ends where their actions deprive someone else of the ability to make an informed decision. Concealing information about sexual contact, health risks, financial expenditure or parallel relationships prevents a partner from deciding independently whether they agree to continue the relationship.

Voluntary participation cannot be defined solely by the absence of direct physical violence. Pressure may be economic, professional, psychological or familial.

If an employee agrees to sex with a manager because a bonus, a position or continued employment depends on it, the absence of a complaint does not prove freedom of choice. The person may remain silent because they fear losing income, a career or the ability to support a family.

An imbalance of power makes it possible to present coercion as a voluntary agreement. A person may formally say “yes”, but if refusal will result in punishment, dismissal or deteriorating living conditions, the choice cannot be regarded as fully free.

Payment for a sexual service does not in itself exclude voluntary consent. An adult may make a conscious decision to sell sexual services. Consent disappears, however, when threats, blackmail, violence, the withholding of documents, control over money or dependence on someone capable of punishing refusal are present.

Consent must relate to a specific act and a specific situation. Consent to one meeting does not mean consent to every subsequent meeting. Consent to one form of contact does not extend automatically to other acts. A person must retain the ability to stop what is happening and change their decision.

If someone secretly purchases sexual services, exposes a partner to a health risk and conceals the expenditure, this is not freedom but a breach of trust. The person exercises an individual choice while depriving the partner of the information needed to protect their health, money and personal boundaries.

If two adults have defined their boundaries in advance and accepted them voluntarily, the existence of other sexual contacts does not by itself make their relationship a betrayal. The breach lies not in the number of partners but in deception, a concealed risk or crossing agreed boundaries.

Some people will choose strict monogamy. Others will permit particular contacts outside the couple. A third group will reject sexual exclusivity. None of these models is free if it is imposed through fear, dependence or social pressure.

The World Health Organization connects sexual health with safety, respect and freedom from coercion, discrimination and violence. Sexual well-being involves more than the absence of disease; it also requires the possibility of safe relationships founded on respect for the rights of everyone involved. World Health Organization: Sexual health

These are the criteria that will distinguish freedom from exploitation in 2050: adulthood, free and informed consent, the ability to refuse, accurate information, protection of health and responsibility towards other people.

Freedom does not abolish rules. It requires rules that are clear, accepted voluntarily and equally binding on everyone involved.

 

Sexual freedom will not necessarily destroy the family

The modern family often combines a sexual relationship, a romantic connection, the upbringing of a child, shared housing, property and financial obligations. The end of a sexual or romantic relationship is therefore perceived as the end of the entire family.

The contractual family will be able to separate these elements. It will preserve strict responsibility towards the child without turning the sexual lives of adults into a lifelong obligation that cannot be discussed or revised.

This does not require the rejection of monogamy. Many people will continue to choose complete fidelity and regard sexual exclusivity as an essential part of the family. Monogamy, however, will become a voluntarily accepted agreement rather than the only model society attempts to impose on everyone regardless of personal wishes and actual behaviour.

Consciously chosen fidelity may prove more stable than a formal prohibition. A person will understand not only that other relationships are prohibited, but also why that condition was accepted, where the boundaries lie and what consequences follow a breach of the agreement.

Other couples will be able to establish different terms. They may permit isolated sexual contacts but reject continuing parallel relationships. They may allow physical sex but regard emotional intimacy as a breach. They may abandon sexual exclusivity while retaining complete financial and parental responsibility.

The sexual agreement may be changed separately without destroying agreements concerning the child, housing, property and financial obligations. A change must be made by mutual consent and before a new relationship begins. It cannot be used afterwards to justify deception that has already occurred.

The end of a sexual relationship must not automatically mean the end of a family. Two people may cease to be sexual and romantic partners while continuing to be parents, fulfil financial obligations and make joint decisions concerning their child.

Infidelity or the arrival of a new partner must not destroy the system through which the child is raised. A child must not lose housing, financial support, contact with a parent or a sense of security because of a conflict arising from the adults’ sexual relationship.

A new partner of one parent does not cancel the obligations of the other parent and does not acquire those obligations automatically. Parental responsibility must continue regardless of how many new relationships either adult forms.

Under this model, the family is not defined only by the continuation of a sexual relationship between the parents. Its foundation becomes continuing care for the child, fulfilment of accepted obligations and the preservation of a stable support system.

Sexual freedom will not necessarily increase the number of relationships or compel people to abandon fidelity. It will allow adults to choose openly the rules that correspond to their real behaviour and stop preserving the family through silence and concealed breaches of obligations.

This is how the contractual family and new forms of sexual freedom can become parts of one model: strict, long-term responsibility towards the child combined with honestly agreed relationships between adults.

 

We can predict the direction, but not every form

We do not know exactly which technologies, medical possibilities and forms of relationships will exist in 2050. Many of them currently lie beyond our understanding and imagination.

It is impossible to predict particular devices or the names of future services. What matters in a forecast, however, is not an individual invention but the direction of change. That direction is already visible in human behaviour, demography, medicine, economics and society’s understanding of the family.

Sex is gradually becoming separate from having children. Modern contraception and reproductive medicine allow these decisions to be made independently of each other. By 2050, the link between them will become even less binding.

Parenthood is separating from formal marriage. Having a child no longer means that the parents must be spouses, sexual partners or live together for the rest of their lives. The foundation of the family will be not the duration of the parents’ romantic relationship, but their responsibility towards the child.

Emotional intimacy is separating from physical presence. A person can maintain a continuing intimate relationship with someone in another country and feel closer to them than to someone living nearby.

A person’s sexual image is becoming separate from their physical body. Appearance, voice and patterns of behaviour will be capable of being reproduced and used without the physical body or the person’s direct participation.

Commercial sex will no longer be understood only as a physical service provided by a woman to a man. Adult women, men and transgender people of different ages and sexual preferences will participate in this market. They will act not only as providers but also as clients.

Fidelity is separating from the marriage certificate. Registration of a marriage will no longer be treated as proof that two people understand sexual and emotional exclusivity in the same way.

The family will cease to be an indivisible collection of obligations. Parenthood, jointly owned property, financial responsibility, sexual relationships and romantic intimacy will become separate agreements. A change in one must not automatically destroy all the others.

Freedom will become the norm not because morality and responsibility will disappear. It will become the norm because the previous single model will no longer be capable of describing people’s real behaviour.

This does not mean that everyone will abandon monogamy by 2050. Many people will continue to choose one partner and maintain complete sexual fidelity. Others will choose different forms of relationships. The central change will be recognition of the right of adults to establish their own boundaries.

Fidelity will remain, but it will no longer be treated as automatic. It will become a voluntarily accepted and openly stated obligation. Its value will be determined not by a social demand but by a person’s informed choice.

An agreement will not amount to permission to do anything whatsoever. It will have to define consent, boundaries, conditions for protecting health, the use of shared money, responsibility towards the child and the obligation to disclose information capable of affecting the other partner.

The principal boundary between freedom and betrayal will be neither the number of partners, their sex nor the form of sexual contact. That boundary will be honesty, voluntary consent and compliance with the accepted agreement.

The family will not disappear in 2050. It will become more diverse and will cease to depend on the compulsory continuation of a sexual relationship between adults. Responsibility towards the child will become stricter, while relationships between partners will become freer and more honest.

 

Freedom will become the norm, and fidelity a term of the agreement.

 

Iv.Spolan
Author of the model “The Fundamental Law of Political Economy”