Sexbots: The Future of Fornication?
Sex robots are here to stay. Public health professionals need to be involved in the development, design, and research of sexbots and their impact on health.
Read Time: 4 minutes
Published:
Robots are the future of sex. Fitted with artificial intelligence, these hyperrealistic sexbots are programmed to engage in simplistic conversations, imitate basic emotions, and perform sexual acts with humans. This latest trend may seem like a dystopian reality, but sexbots are being created by companies like Realbotix in California, True Companion in New Jersey, and Synthea Amatus and AI-Tech internationally. Although the technology is relatively rudimentary, experts predict that within a century sexbots will have artificial consciousness, and perhaps robot personhood, legal status, and rights.
The market for sexbots is potentially huge. According to a 2017 YouGov poll of 1,146 US adults, 1 in 4 men and 1 in 10 women would consider having sex with a robot. Approximately 50% of adults surveyed believed it was important the robot resemble a human.
If people are having sex with robots that resemble humans, we must consider how this will impact human-to-human interactions and behaviors. This begins in the design phase where predominantly male consumers can customize sexbots to their preferences and fantasies. Sex robots tend to be white or Asian with hypersexual female bodies that reinforce unhealthy beauty ideals like extreme thinness, breasts and butts of extreme proportions, and flawless fair skin. This design of hypersexual female sexbots profoundly impacts users’ expectations of women’s bodies and sexual performance.
Customization does not stop at users selecting the physical appearance. Consumers can even customize sexbots to have specific personalities.
Customization does not stop at users selecting the physical appearance. Consumers can even customize sexbots to have specific personalities.
True Companion offers “Frigid Farah” who is “very reserved and does not always like to engage in intimate activities.” Sexbots like Frigid Farah are programmed to be passive and explicitly fail to consent to sex, which enables users to simulate rape.
Sexbot companies program sex robots to either give passive consent by always being willing to participate in sexual activity or to explicitly deny consent. Both cases perpetuate rape culture and the belief that ideal sex partners are always ready for sex, and those that do not provide consent can still be dominated through force. And while some argue that sexbots are simply extravagant sex toys, their purposefully humanlike functions and appearance affirms beliefs that female bodies are objects to be used for sexual gratification, consensual or otherwise.
Sexbot companies program sex robots to either give passive consent by always being willing to participate in sexual activity or to explicitly deny consent.
Supporters of sexbots argue they can be used therapeutically by sex offenders, providing them an outlet to redirect their sexual aggression and abuse towards robots rather than humans. However, sexual aggression is an expression of power rather than sexual desire. Critics of therapeutic sexbot use argue it ignores power dynamics involved in sexual violence and will likely be ineffective because robots will not satisfy a sexual offenders’ desire to control another person. They believe that it may actually increase sexual violence perpetration. It would be unethical to prescribe sex offenders a sexbot as therapy without empirical research illustrating its effectiveness and the parameters and contexts for its use.
Sex robots are here to stay, so public health professionals must become involved in the industry. We need to understand the nuances of consent and the potential impacts of technology on individual and population sexual health outcomes. We need to be intimately involved in the development, design, and research of sexbots and their impact on health. As tech companies develop sexbot artificial intelligence, they will play a greater role in determining what constitutes consent. Public health must inform these processes and hold companies accountable for their design choices.
Public health professionals, sexual health educators, and sexual and intimate partner violence advocates should neither ignore sex robots nor should they demand that they be banned. We must lead the conversation about how sexbots can be safely integrated into our sex lives.
Feature image: Ars Electronica, Samatha / Sergi Santos, Synthea Amatus SL (ES), photo by Tom Mesic, used under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
