The Ethical Concerns (and Encouragements) of The Use of Sex Robots

The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and EVE!

(December 2021)

---

Introduction

Sex robots, or ‘sexbots’, are ‘anatomically correct humanoids’ (Döring, 2020, p. 3), designed and manufactured with the ‘purpose of being used for sexual gratification’ (Earp & Sterri, 2021, p. 3). The humanlike appearance, and the inclusion of artificial intelligence within the design of sex robots, set them apart from sex dolls, which are not mechanical productions and not always serviced for sexual purposes. Sex robots of ‘today’ are not to be assumed as ‘concepts of future advanced sex robots’, beings with ‘sentience, consciousness, free will, morality, and possibly even the legal status of citizens’ (Döring, 2020, p. 3). The evolution of the sexbots is, in essence, the blending of ‘motorised’ sex toys, vibrators for example, artificial intelligence (in contemporary years) and sex dolls.

Sex dolls, for context, are ‘human-like, full-body, anatomically correct anthropomorphic dolls of different materials’ (Döring, 2020, p. 3), they have at least one ‘penetrable orifice’ and at least ‘one body part that can be inserted by its user’ (Döring, 2020, p. 3). Sex dolls do not have hardware, artificial intelligence and are not controlled by software/coding.

Historically sexbots (and sex dolls) are gendered, heavily conforming to gender stereotypes or conforming to hegemonic (patriarchal) standards of femininity and masculinity. Döring further explains that for gender sex robots, the binary terms fembot and malebot or gynoid and android are used (2020, p. 3).

Deviancy

There are three common types of sex robots, the ‘porn model’, the ‘rape model’ and, the ‘child model’. These types are commonly featured in ethical discourse and do not discourage the taboo nature of sex robots as ‘deviant’ forms of sex.

The latter types, ‘rape’ and ‘child’ models are understandably ethical concerns for sexbot production, sex industries and society overall. These models touch on extreme moral and ethical problems and are mainly prototypes in Japan currently, in 2016 sex dolls that mimicked five-year-olds had been ‘produced and marketed for at least a decade by a Japanese company’ (Carvalho Nascimento, et al., 2018, p. 235), so this phenomenon isn’t new.

As paraphrased by Earp and Sterri, these models may encourage fantasies, sexualise children and harm ‘the moral character’ of people who use such models (2021, p. 4). Questions of consent and morality are drawn into the discussion of such models, hence why they are not available in the mainstream, compared to the likes of the ‘porn model’. The possibility (in terms of the technology being produced) of these models cause concerns in the social spheres of sexual discourse, as well as the social fearing or misunderstanding of sex tech/robotics.

One particular case study was featured in the BBC Three documentary ‘Sex Robots and Us’, in which a Tokyo sex story manufacturer admitted that the age of the sex robot was ‘left to the customers imagination’ (Corner, 2018), causing an emotional reaction from the presenter who had already raised concerns for the petiteness and adolescent-like features of the doll.

There are arguments that sexbots programmed to be raped, or children, service as ways of containment for illegal and immoral behaviours. The availability of these products are examples of both the ability of sex tech and some liberal ideology of human progress, however not through economic growth but technological advancement. The classical liberalist ‘harm theory’ suggests that whilst the sketchy morals of programming such robots may lead to questionable assumptions about the user, there isn’t anything technically illegal occurring whilst using the sexbots. As sexbots currently do not have consciousness or rights, it cannot be argued that the sexbots are harmed during the sexual acts performed unto it.

Due to these associations with sex robots, the product is often saw as a piece of deviancy or perversion. ‘Deviancy’ is often used in place of sexual acts that are not with humans of a consenting age and status. ‘Perversion’, in this context, suggests desires that stray from somethings ‘proper purpose’: reproduction. These terms are important in discussing sex robots, as the sexual act with such a product is purely self-pleasurable, is it not for reproductive purposes and does not engage with another human person.

Misogyny

Sexbots often adhere to penetrative sex and cis-gendered men are usually the target demographic for distribution, as sexbot aesthetic design is rooted within the porn industries ‘overwhelming focus on heterosexual male desires’ (Hanson, 2021) and offer alternatives to mainstream male sex toys, which are stigmatised or comically viewed, in comparison to the legitimisation or acceptance of female sex toys. The practice and development of gendered sexbots is rooted, and relishes, in misogynistic ideology.

The ethical concerns of a ‘porn model’ is regarding feminist understandings of the male gaze. Common models adhere to the gender binary, gender aesthetics in the binary sense and, therefore hegemonic beauty standards (large breasts, petite bodies, light skin tone). The focus on phallic sex further perpetuates heteronormative ideals towards sex and what is socially acceptable forms of sex- the technology doesn’t even advance alternative practices of sex. Even through use of robotics, society cannot move past what we find comforting in traditional social/biological binaries of penetrative/vaginal intercourse.

Sexbots fetishize and commodify the female form, a long running theme in the media. What sexbots offer that pornographic and filmic representations cannot, is the ‘embodiment’ of a girlfriend, friend/companion, and sexual partner/slave in ‘one entity’ (Carvalho Nascimento, et al., 2018, p. 240). To clarify, a subservient, never-abandoning, sexual possession.

The commodification of the female form as object could have further ramifications in the psyche of women, as they no longer are ‘competing’ with models, celebrities, or influencers as the beauty standard, they now have to exist against engineered, ‘perfect’ sex objects, who ‘ever-consent’. The ‘female sex doll is man’s ultimate sexually idealized woman’ (Döring, 2020, p. 9), a sexbot adds to this by its programmed encouragement and enjoyment of the sex it receives.

The normalisation of sex being readily available for men who use sexbots may transfer negatively if they try to have ‘organic sex’ (sex with a human woman). Users may expect sex to be in the same image as what they have with a conscious-less sex robot, especially if users have not had organic sex prior to using a sexbot.

With the rise of both extreme incel culture (involuntary celibate) and gynecide (the killing of women and girls), sexbots could perpetuate further gender hatred and sexual aggression towards to women. The control of a sexbot mirrors the patriarchal obsession with possession or objectification of women. The non-consensual sex with a sexbot may ‘affect men’s ability to identify and understand consent in sexual interactions with women’ (Earp & Sterri, 2021, p. 11) and therefore potentially increase sexual violence and rape.

Play

The commercialisation of sex robots has three major benefits. Firstly, to show the progression of digital immersion in the everyday routine. Secondly, the technical progress/evolution of robotics, artificial intelligence, and the potential for conscious beings. Thirdly, the de-stigmatisation of non-traditional methods of sex or sexual lifestyles.

The technology for sexbots is fusion of the research from the ‘erotic toy industry’ and ‘robotics and AI’ (Carvalho Nascimento, et al., 2018, p. 235) developments. The technology used for sexbots are ‘androids (or robots developed to look and act like humans) and hybrid cyborgs (which are characterized as organisms endowed with organic parts and biomechanical parts)’ (Carvalho Nascimento, et al., 2018, p. 235). These fields are critical in the ‘next step’ for human/robot relations, it may even be the start of robots/cyborgs with consciousness, citizenship, and socio-political rights.

Sex in the ‘age of robot’ (Döring, 2020, p. 4) will look and feel different to the ideas (instinctive or social) of sex we are accustomed to. Porn VR and virtual sex (video chat, sexting, ‘smart’ sex toys) lack physical touch (and smell or taste) with the digital sex partner. The physicality of the sexbot with its reactive sensors to ‘talk back’ offer a fully immersed sense of sex, compared to digital, non-present sexes.

‘Digisexuality’ refers to the exploration of sexuality through technology. It is contested as to whether it refers to wanting to have sexual relations via technology or wanting relations with technology (or is both). Digisexuality is a ‘new sexuality’ (Döring, 2020), it may replace the want for sex between human beings in favour of ‘inanimate objects’ (Earp & Sterri, 2021).

As technology becomes moreso integrated into our lives, sexting, video chat, ‘smart’ sex toys (responsive sex toys) (McGowan, 2019) and, obviously, porn are becoming normalised as integral to forming and maintaining relationships in a digital age. (This sexuality is an example of the three benefits of sexbots.) The use of such technology de-stigmatises different desires and wants from sex/relationships. It encourages non-human relations but in a direction that encourages intimate relationships with robots, perhaps eventually evolving our relations beyond user and service.

Accessibility (and Sexual Freedom)

Sex is a positive right and, some suggest, a basic human need. Sexbots as ‘alternate’ avenues for sexual experiences, compared to dolls or toys, offer the potential for sexual freedoms for people with disabilities or older demographics, groups of people often forgotten or ignored as sexually active/needing individuals. This is usually due to these demographics falling out of the heteronormative spheres of comfortability or acceptability. To deny sexual experiences, due to misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, fear, or awkwardness, is infringing upon the right of an individual to experience very human and ‘normal’ actions.

The freedom of creation of a sexbot could be to produce ergo-dynamic, therefore equitable, sexbot shapes. Such as lighter dolls for people in wheelchairs, ‘instructing’ AI for first time users or people with no sexual experiences or courage, specific skin feels for those who are sensitive to materials, these small features of sexbots can be tweaked for the individual experience. They offer new means to representation of different bodies and needs, and this would help de-stigmatise non-heteronormative bodies, sex, and existence.

Sexbots diminish isolation and encourage sexuality for disabled people/older people, this may be because ‘sex robots provide interactivity, AI, and partly autonomous behaviour’ (Döring, 2020, p. 4). The development of such bots would have to grant a ‘degree of independence and responsiveness’ (Di Nucci, 2011, p. 7) so that the user can sufficiently use the sexbot without the aid of a healthcare assistant.

The elderly and the disabled are largely thought as society’s ‘most vulnerable’ (Di Nucci, 2011, p. 8), arguably robots should be kept away from such groups, but this is wholly unfair and ableist/ageist. Sex robots can be ‘controlled and monitored’ (Di Nucci, 2011, p. 12), they offer a service that grants such ‘vulnerable’ people the right to their own sexuality and de-stigmatise or de-fear the ideas of the sexual needs/wants/lives of the elderly or the disabled.

Conclusion

The virtue of ‘sex equalling procreation’ has long been corrupted, therefore the only lacking thing with a sexbot is organic sex parts, but the same can be said for sex toys that have been normalised as sexual aids. Sexbots, like any form of digital sex, may become normalised in the everyday routine, or sexual routines, of those who use them and only differ slightly to the areas that have immersed socially since the rise of internet accessibility, smartphones, and alternate reality technology.

The commodification of women’s bodies (and children’s bodies) is an ethical concern regardless of sexbots. The social sexualisation of the non-male prevails if the patriarchal order isn’t disrupted or questioned, the hyper-sexualisation of robots will occur if progressed still under this ideology. The concerns for these gendered and age-play bots may not change anything in the short term, as they have been the major points of ethical discourse concerning sex robots, but they may manage the future of sex dolls or help manage the perception of why they are made and used.

Technicization and digitalization (Döring, 2020, p. 4) are ‘fundamental social processes that affect all areas of life, including human sexualities’ (Döring, 2020, p. 4). The use of sexbots is somewhat necessary in the development between human/robot relations and the normalisation may gradually reduce fears of AI and robotics, as well as alternate ideas of sex, and increase understanding or attention to the progress of robotics.

Bibliography

- Carvalho Nascimento, E. C., Silva, E. d. & Siqueira-Batista, R., 2018. The “Use” of Sex Robots: A Bioethical Issue. Asian Bioethics Review, 10(3).

- Corner, N., 2018. Mail Online. [Online] Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5567457/The-dark-sex-robots-discovered-eye-opening-TV-documentary.html [Accessed 15 December 2021].

- Döring, N., 2020. Design, Use, and Effects of Sex Dolls and Sex Robots: Scoping Review. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 22(7), p. 3.

- Di Nucci, E., 2011. Sexual rights and disability. Journal of medical ethics, 37(3).

- Earp, B. & Sterri, A., 2021. The Ethics of Sex Robots. In: The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2-14.

- Hanson, K., 2021. The Silicone Self: Examining Sexual Selfhood and Stigma within the Love and Sex Doll Community. [Online] Available at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.apollo.worc.ac.uk/doi/10.1002/symb.575 [Accessed 15 December 2021].

- McGowan, E., 2019. Bustle. [Online] Available at: https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-digisexuality-exploring-sexuality-through-tech-is-becoming-more-common-19304613 [Accessed 15 December 2021].