Chapter 38 Exercises

Exercise 38.1 — AI Companion Evaluation (Individual or Pair, 45–60 minutes)

Option A (Experiential): If your instructor and institution approve, spend 15–20 minutes interacting with a freely available AI companion or conversational AI. (If no AI companion is available, use any freely available large language model in "companion" mode or simply a standard conversational AI.)

Then answer the following: 1. What did you find yourself wanting from the interaction? What did the AI provide well? What did it fail to provide? 2. Did you find yourself attributing any mental states to the AI (wanting something, understanding you, caring about your response)? What caused this? 3. What does your experience in this interaction tell you about what you want from human relationships?

Write a 400–500 word reflection.

Option B (Literature): Read at least one published account from a Replika or Character.AI user (journalism, academic research, or published personal essay) describing their experience. Then answer questions 1–3 above based on the user's account rather than your own experience.

Exercise 38.2 — Asexuality and the Textbook (Critical Analysis, 500–700 words)

Section 38.6 argues that asexuality "challenges the foundational assumptions of the field" and of this textbook. Write an analytical essay that:

1. Identifies THREE specific assumptions this textbook has made throughout its thirty-eight chapters that do not hold for asexual or aromantic readers (provide specific examples from chapters — don't be vague)
2. For each assumption, describes how it might be modified, supplemented, or complicated to include asexual/aromantic experiences
3. Argues whether this requires wholesale revision of the textbook's framework or additions/supplements to an existing framework

Your argument should be based on the material in Section 38.6 and ideally on at least one external source about asexuality.

Exercise 38.3 — Ethical Thought Experiment: Love Drugs (Small Group Discussion, 40 minutes)

Read the following scenario and discuss the questions that follow:

Imagine that in 2030, a pharmaceutical company releases "Connexin" — a daily pill that, according to clinical trials, increases oxytocin and vasopressin signaling and produces a measurable 30% increase in reported relationship satisfaction scores in long-term couples, with no significant side effects identified in three-year follow-up. The company markets it as "the commitment pill."

Discuss in groups: 1. Would it be ethical to take Connexin without telling your partner? To take it with your partner's full knowledge and consent? To take it without your partner, hoping they'll notice the change? 2. Would it be ethical for employers to offer Connexin to employees in customer-facing roles (to increase rapport)? For courts to recommend it for couples in contested divorces involving children? 3. Does it matter whether the 30% satisfaction increase is "real" satisfaction or chemically induced satisfaction? Is there a meaningful difference? 4. How does the "love drugs" question relate to practices we already accept — couples therapy, antidepressants that affect relationships, relationship counseling?

Report your group's most contested disagreement to the class.

Exercise 38.4 — Relationship Recession Analysis (Short Paper, 600–800 words)

Section 38.5 presents four proposed mechanisms for declining relationship and marriage rates: economic precarity, heightened partner standards, social skill attrition, and reduced social obligation.

Write a short analytical paper that: 1. Evaluates the evidence quality for each mechanism (strong evidence, suggestive evidence, primarily speculative) 2. Argues which mechanism you find most compelling and why, based on the evidence 3. Identifies a type of study that would most effectively distinguish between your favored mechanism and the next-most-compelling alternative

Use the methodological tools from Chapter 3 (longitudinal designs, natural experiments, cross-cultural comparison) in your analysis.

Exercise 38.5 — Personal Futures (Reflective Writing, Individual)

This exercise is modeled on the closing scene of Chapter 38. It is for your own reflection and will not be submitted, though your instructor may invite voluntary sharing.

Think forward ten years. Write a brief (300–400 word) description of the relationship structure or context you envision for yourself: - Are you in a committed long-term partnership? Multiple partnerships? Not seeking partnership? - What would it feel like to have the kind of relationship you want? - What do you know about yourself — from this course, from your own experience — that would help you get there? - What is one thing you want to be more deliberate about in your romantic and relational life going forward?

Then: what did this course most change about how you think about attraction, desire, and relationships? Write 2–3 sentences.

Exercise 38.6 — Synthesis Essay (Long Paper, 1,000–1,500 words)

This is the course capstone exercise.

Write an essay that synthesizes your learning from this semester by addressing the following prompt:

The course's central argument is that critical scientific literacy about attraction and desire does not make romance impossible but makes it more honest. Develop this argument using at least FOUR concepts or findings from different parts of the course (early chapters, middle chapters, and later chapters), and apply it to a specific question about your own life, a relationship you have observed, or a broader social phenomenon you find important.

Your essay should: - Draw on at least four specific concepts, studies, or theoretical frameworks from the course (cited by chapter/theorist) - Demonstrate synthesis rather than summary — showing how the concepts connect to each other and to your central argument - Apply the course material to something real and specific rather than staying entirely abstract - Acknowledge at least one place where the research is uncertain or contested

This is an opportunity to show what you have actually learned — not just what facts you can recall, but how you think about these questions now compared to before the course began.