Sex Robots Michael Coghlan
Sex |Report

Why sex with robots is a complicated business

Talk (2)

Lydia Morrish

Lydia Morrish

"Hi Thibagaran, thanks for your commen..."
Thibagaran Baskaran

Thibagaran Baskaran

"Really interesting article Lydia, tha..."

The bedroom is a new battleground for the looming struggle between robotics and humans as a sex robot industry raises important ethical, moral and behavioral dilemmas.

The rise of sex robots may cure sexual dysfunction and unlock new sexual possibilities. But there could be a dark side: an acceptance of sexual violence and even greater objectification of women as a result of robots as sexualized, subordinate, playthings.

The pursuit of connection, stimulation and pleasure in our increasingly disconnected society can be complicated. We’re in a civilization that has built the means for sexting, dating apps, online porn and sex dolls. Now, sex robots are predicted to be the future.

WikiTribune spoke to a range of experts with conflicting ideas on what this may look like. On one hand, sex robots can solve loneliness and lack of sexual intimacy in old age. On the other, they may exacerbate sexual violence and the objectification of women.

From sex dolls to robots

There are already at least seven major players in the manufacturing of sex robots: Z-onedoll, BodAISynthea AmatusDoll Sweet, TrueCompanion, and Realbotix.

Europe’s first sex doll brothel in Barcelona offered “realistic” sex dolls that it claimed would “fulfill all your fantasies without limits.” Open in early 2017, it blurred the lines between masturbation and sex work. At the time of announcement, the company that made the dolls, LumiDolls, received an avalanche of media attention, with stories everywhere from Forbes, to HuffPo, to The Sun. A brothel in Dublin was also reported by Metro.co.uk to have a sex doll available for rent.

Other companies, largely in the U.S., are attempting to morph their sex doll products into fully fledged sex robots. Currently out there are busty silicone dolls that are bendable into the user’s shape but are not animatronic. However, there are at least two companies – Synthea Amatus and Realbotix – developing AI for sex dolls. Realbotix has launched a digital companion app that offers a girlfriend in your pocket, much like Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson, in the movie Her. There are some male sex dolls on the market, but to WikiTribune‘s current knowledge no signs of male sex robots yet.

Z-onedoll’s silicone robot is a hybrid of a robot and a doll, which can blink, move its eyes, and move its lips.

But in the running for the most advanced sex robot technologies is a “robotic head system” from California company Realbotix.

A robotic head in the RealBotix lab. Photo by: RealBotix. Used with permission from the Realbotix team.

The head moves and talks and can be combined with existing sex doll bodies for a more “lifelike” experience. The company is headed by the creator of RealDoll, Matt McMullen, who is also developing a life-size animated robotic body (link requires log-in). McMullen’s Abyss Creations sells around 400 of its realistic silicone sex dolls each year, and has done for 20 years, the company told WikiTribune in an email.

Developing a robot body that has sexual functionality and core body strength requires advanced technology, and according to a report on the BBC Future site there are not yet any sex robots that can stand up.

RealBotix users want humanoid robots that have “sexual functionality in bed” and can “walk in heels” and hug, according to a thread on Club RealDoll (link requires log-in), the company’s online forum. McMullen notified his followers on the thread that his team was developing a “working sensory system for the body [that] will be available much sooner than anticipated.”

The animated robotic head is currently available for pre-order, RealBotix’s Guile Lindroth told WikiTribune in an email. Several versions of the head, which is attachable by magnets to the company’s sex doll bodies, will set a buyer back $15,000 (£11,700) (The Guardian) when it goes on sale. “There may be more than one version with the more expensive ones having touch sensors, facial and object recognition and other features,” Lindroth said.

Can you call it a relationship?

“The success of dolls for sexual gratification has set a clear path for the role of robotics in the future of sex,” said Our Sexual Future With Robots, a report by the Foundation for Responsible Robotics (FRR), a think tank on ethical robotics, published in July 2017.

But human and robot relationships will not be real, but fictive, roboticist and co-founder of the FRR, Noel Sharkey, told WikiTribune.

“You can’t really call it a relationship if it’s one sided, so it’s a fantasy relationship.” Sharkey defines this as anthropomorphism, “a kind of a suspension of disbeliefs like you talk about with literature or a science fiction movie.”

Sharkey said that “most experts” think sexual intimacy with robots will lead to greater social isolation; “real” sexual relationships could become overwhelming compared to the ease of a relationship with a robot.

But robots can help those who are already socially isolated, like elderly and lesser-abled people. Sex dolls and robots can also help treat sexual trauma or act as a form of therapy for people suffering from erectile dysfunction or sex-related social anxiety, Sharkey explained. But he was unsure how big the sex robot market would become.

“It could be a small fetish niche market for lonely people, or it could be a very large market,” the roboticist said.

“Our bottom line is that we are going to have fully functioning affordable sex robots on the market soon and we should be prepared.”

A poster of robots
Scientists and sexologists predict a future where bedfellows are replaced with robots. Photo by: Michael Coghlan via Flickr used under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA 2.0

Can you call it love?

Many mainstream media headlines, such as one from the tabloid Express that cites “sex robot takeover,” would have it that robots are set to take over society, in our offices and bedrooms.

But the mainstream media has completely overreacted about the take-over of sex robots, Devlin said. “Yes [sex robots have been hyperbolized by the press]. Complete overreaction,” she told WikiTribune. “But everyone loves a story about sex, robots, and a threat to human existence … Clickbait!”

Sex robot manufacturer McMullen doesn’t think robots can and will totally replace human connections. “No matter how advanced we’re able to make both the robot and AI itself, you can never replace a real, human connection,” he said in a podcast on the future of sex.

But he believes they will become more normalized in the future.

“It’s inevitable that sex dolls and sex robots will be no longer looked at as different,” McMullen remarked in an interview. “We just have to come to terms with each other and say, ‘Okay that’s for you and this is for me.’”

“If the doll makes you happy, that’s all there is.”

A Real Doll sex doll. Before founding Realbotix, Matt McMullen founded and created the Real Doll company. Photo by: Real Doll. Used with permission from the Real Doll team.
A Real Doll sex doll. Before founding Realbotix, Matt McMullen founded and created the Real Doll company. Photo by: Real Doll. Used with permission from the Real Doll team.

But men are more likely to take the plunge with sex-bots. Men were “consistently” at least twice more likely than females to want intimacy with robots, according to an FRR poll of men and women in the UK, U.S., the Netherlands and Germany. Why this is, the FRR didn’t determine. So the likelihood of a sex robot “takeover” is slim.

Women could be less interested in sex with robots because of the heteronormativity of the doll and robot industry, said Devlin. She said that the sex robotics industry hasn’t caught up with advances made by sex toys, apps and digital sexual content.

“What we’re seeing with sex robots is simply an evolution of sex dolls,” Devlin told WikiTribune. “From a design and innovation point of view, that’s pretty rubbish.” She said the technology is there to play with and there is no need for robots to look human, but the sex robots that are being produced are ultra-real and humanoid. She sees the future of sex robots being best if they looked more like robots, perhaps without skin color or fake hair.

“The vast majority of current sex ‘robots’ are made by men, for men. But if we imagine sex robots as embodied, interactive sex toys, maybe we can change the market?”

Emily Witt, the author of Future Sex, told WikiTribune she wouldn’t want “a giant doll in my house.” Witt does imagine a world where sex robots are used for masturbation, but not love. “Could you manufacture the person that you fall in love with?” she asks. She said she doesn’t think she could have “thought up” her boyfriend.

Violence against robots

The last few months have been a watershed moment for violence against women, as accusations of sexual misconduct, harassment and rape across multiple industries dominated headlines. Some critics of sex robotics argue that the same notions of power and vulnerability between the perpetrator and victim of sexual abuse could intensify if it becomes normal for people to use lifelike objects as sexual playthings.

One such skeptic is ethicist Dr Kathleen Richardson, founder of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, who believes sex robots will cultivate gender inequality and encourage men to think of women as objects. She is one of many campaigners who want robots for sex banned (The Guardian).

The Campaign Against Sex Robots states: “We believe in the benefits of robots and technologies to our society and human cultures, but want to ensure that robotics develops ethically and that we do not reproduce inequalities with their development that could further reinforce disturbing human lived experiences.”

In a research paper on the parallels between prostitution and sex robots, Richardson argued against AI expert David Levy’s views in his book Sex, Love and Robots. She refuted Levy’s argument that the future of human-robot relations will be based on exchanges that take place in the sex work industry. “Levy shows that the sellers of sex are seen by the buyers of sex as things and not recognized as human subjects,” Richardson wrote. But this is neither ethical or safe, she said.

The FRR’s Sharkey said that there was no question that “creating a pornographic representation of women’s bodies in a moving sex machine, would objectify and commodify women’s bodies.”

The fear of a future where women are increasingly objectified as a result of robots is understandable, given sex doll company TrueCompanion’s sex robots. Names for TrueCompanion’s dolls range from ‘Young Yoko’, who is “barely 18,” to ‘Frigid Farrah,’ a play on a pop-culture trope of women uninterested in sex.

Sharkey told WikiTribune that many people, including therapists, have said violence against sex robots, “will change the level of acceptance and maybe change our norms and actually make people want the violence more.” Acting it out might encourage violent people further, he added. “I think it’s a very dangerous route to go down altogether and I’m not sure what can be done about it.” But sex robot machinery “cannot grant consent or be raped any more than a soap dish can be raped,” Sharkey’s report quipped.

Levy predicted in his book that humans would have sex with, fall in love with and marry robots by 2050, and that if “natural human desire can be satisfied for everyone who is capable of loving, surely the world would be a much happier place.”

Perhaps the truth is that we can only contemplate, not be certain about, our future with sex robots. That in itself is stimulating.


Started by

United Kingdom
Lydia is a staff journalist at WikiTribune, where she writes about politics, women's rights, inequality, sexual politics and more. Previously she headed up the women’s rights and political content at Konbini for over two years. In 2016, she made ‘Building Big’, a documentary about bigorexia and male body image. Her work has also been published in Dazed & Confused, Refinery29, Vice, Lyra, Banshee and Buffalo Zine. She is based in London.

History for stories "Why sex with robots is a complicated business"

Select two items to compare revisions

22 March 2018

( tax ) .. - Tag The Verge created; 17:24:47, 22 Mar 2018.. Linh Nguyen (talk | contribs)‎ ( created )

22 January 2018

21 January 2018

14 January 2018

15:41:37, 14 Jan 2018 . .‎ Antoine Rault (Updated → Fix a typo)

12 January 2018

22 December 2017

17:05:10, 22 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ricky Bromley (Updated → Synthea Amatus added twice.)

21 December 2017

15:58:58, 21 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → robot doll)
15:50:17, 21 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Wording)

20 December 2017

16:49:34, 20 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Removed empty line)
16:48:31, 20 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Moved images)
16:38:28, 20 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → )
16:36:51, 20 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → Edit)
15:14:50, 20 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → editing)

19 December 2017

16:48:20, 19 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Photo, captions)
16:38:39, 19 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Update)
14:56:14, 19 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → Editor's notes)
14:36:05, 19 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → Trim)
12:52:21, 19 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → Edit)

15 December 2017

17:08:33, 15 Dec 2017 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → Minor edit)
12:47:59, 15 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → )
12:33:36, 15 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → sex doll sales)
12:18:10, 15 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → update)

14 December 2017

20:17:45, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → standfirst)
16:59:14, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → )
15:30:42, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → update)
15:28:49, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → image caption)
15:28:16, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → banning sex robots)
15:15:26, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → update)
14:41:18, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → update)
11:01:07, 14 Dec 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Updating)

02 December 2017

• (view) . . Comment: With his new proposal, FCC chair Ajit Pai seeks to end net neutrality debate‎; 00:53:52, 02 Dec 2017 . . Charles Anderson (talk | contribs)‎‎ ( Comment -> The claim that investment trended down under Title II rules for two years in a row is based on data that the FCC Fact Sheet(http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf) cites from https://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry/broadband-industry-stats/investment (actual PDF at https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/Broadband%20Investment%20Trending%20Down%20in%202016.pdf). This is from USTelecom, a trade association representing various telecom/broadband companies (full list at https://www.ustelecom.org/who-we-are/ustelecom-members). Specifically, the FCC doc says "broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that that’s happened outside a recession in the Internet era" which, based on the doc, apparently means 2006 - present, and claims capital expenditures are as follows: 2014 - $78.4 bilion 2015 - $77.9 billion 2016 - $76.0 billion The freepress report you cite says those numbers are selective and uses the Census Bureau's Annual Capital Expenditures Survey to come up with the following (from tables 4a and 4b at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/aces/2015-aces-summary.html, summing the categories "Wired telecommunications carriers, cable and other program distribution, broadband internet services providers", "Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite)", and "Telecommunications resellers, satellite, and other telecommunications": 2014 - $86.631 billion 2015 - $87.184 billion The same report also has several quotes from industry execs that (the report asserts) show they're saying to their investors that Title II doesn't hurt investment, but I would want to chase down authoritative transcripts in context before I would necessarily assert that. As an aside, the investment numbers can't really prove one way or the other whether Title II hurts investment, because there could be other factors, i.e. it's just correlation not causation, which is part of the reason why I'm hoping (Pai, ISPs, etc.) will explain the *mechanics* of how it would hurt investment, since those are still fuzzy to me and I don't want to entirely discount them based on vagueness, even if I am skeptical. )

30 November 2017

• (view) . . Comment: With his new proposal, FCC chair Ajit Pai seeks to end net neutrality debate‎; 23:44:07, 30 Nov 2017 . . Timothy Bond (talk | contribs)‎‎ ( Comment -> The claim that investment trended down under Title II rules for two years in a row is based on data that the FCC Fact Sheet(http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf) cites from https://www.ustelecom.org/broadband-industry/broadband-industry-stats/investment (actual PDF at https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/Broadband%20Investment%20Trending%20Down%20in%202016.pdf). This is from USTelecom, a trade association representing various telecom/broadband companies (full list at https://www.ustelecom.org/who-we-are/ustelecom-members). Specifically, the FCC doc says "broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that that’s happened outside a recession in the Internet era" which, based on the doc, apparently means 2006 - present, and claims capital expenditures are as follows: 2014 - $78.4 bilion 2015 - $77.9 billion 2016 - $76.0 billion The freepress report you cite says those numbers are selective and uses the Census Bureau's Annual Capital Expenditures Survey to come up with the following (from tables 4a and 4b at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/aces/2015-aces-summary.html, summing the categories "Wired telecommunications carriers, cable and other program distribution, broadband internet services providers", "Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite)", and "Telecommunications resellers, satellite, and other telecommunications": 2014 - $86.631 billion 2015 - $87.184 billion The same report also has several quotes from industry execs that (the report asserts) show they're saying to their investors that Title II doesn't hurt investment, but I would want to chase down authoritative transcripts in context before I would necessarily assert that. As an aside, the investment numbers can't really prove one way or the other whether Title II hurts investment, because there could be other factors, i.e. it's just correlation not causation, which is part of the reason why I'm hoping (Pai, ISPs, etc.) will explain the *mechanics* of how it would hurt investment, since those are still fuzzy to me and I don't want to entirely discount them based on vagueness, even if I am skeptical. )

08 November 2017

03 November 2017

27 October 2017

15:01:05, 27 Oct 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Bold intro)

Talk for Story "Why sex with robots is a complicated business"

Talk about this Story

  1. Other

    Really interesting article Lydia, thanks for writing it!

    Just some thing I thought were particularly interesting, ‘…even greater objectification of women as a result of robots as sexualized, subordinate, playthings.’ I wonder how valid is this claim given sex robots are not women. Maybe I’m being biased but I can’t (or won’t?) imagine that the way someone treats a robot can be linked to the way someone treats another human being. As gross as Sharkey’s soap dish comparison is, I can’t find fault in that sentiment.

    ‘The head moves and talks and can be combined with existing sex doll bodies for a more “lifelike” experience.’

    As the line between ‘life like’ and ‘living’ blurs, the possible applications of sex robots are only going to bring more and more complicated situations. You mentioned sex robots being used to treat social anxiety and erectile dysfunction but I wondered what you’d think about, say, paedophiles, being rehabilitated with specifically designed sex robots?

    I haven’t researched this but it we take that there is no link between behaviour with a robot and behaviour with a human being, Is there a line that should be drawn between a silicone and and a flesh and blood human being?

    1. Rewrite

      Hi Thibagaran, thanks for your comment.

      Robots are not women, but the ones detailed in the piece that are being developed at the moment are “female presenting”. So they appear as women, speak like women (if they have a voice element) and are therefore treated as women. I think the concern comes from the treatment of robots as women, which some say could enhance gender bias against women.

      There is also the pedophile narrative, which is interesting but there was not enough space to include that in this piece – it’s a piece all on its own. I think there is a guy in Japan making “child” sex dolls for pedophiles, to stop them offending. Whether it can stop, or influence, child abuse, isn’t my place to say but there are theories.

      I think we’ll be seeing some form of legislation in the future about relationship robotics, and there are people out there already calling for legislation.

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive news, alerts and updates

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later