Speaking with the author of the “Logging onto Love” series about sex robots, the ethics of their manufacturing and usage, and their impact on society and human-human relationships.

Improper Walls (IW): Kate, what does a machine need to be or have in order to be considered a sex robot?

Kate Davis (KD): There are different interpretations of how a sex robot can and should be defined, but broadly speaking, sex robots are imagined as mechanical dolls that have a human-like form and are designed with the intention of humans having sexual activity with them. Sex robots have most notably been built upon the work of Matt McMullen and his company RealDoll.

IW: Under current legislation, are there any limitations, a code of ethics for engineers, to what can be manufactured? Does it depend on each country’s legislation, or does the European Union have any protocol for manufacturing, distributing or importing sex robots?

KD: Currently, there are a range of active debates around the development of sex robots, but mostly within the academic community. They include claims on both the potential risks and benefits of having sex robots and the ways they could help or hinder interpersonal relationships. In terms of legislation, the manufacturing and distribution of child-like sex dolls or robots are prohibited by law within the EU; however, I am not aware of any regulation of adult sex dolls or robots at this stage.

IW: When it comes to human rights, what do you see as a difference between sex robots, porn and other sex toys?

KD: The most notable difference between sex robots, porn, and other sex toys, is that sex robots are being marketed as ‘companions’ and as a substitute for human-human relationships. This narrative views humans and objects as interchangeable and reflects the increasing demand for an ‘easier’ and ‘controllable’ life facilitated by automation and artificial intelligence. One of my main concerns is the question of consent–is the simulation of consent the same as actual consent? Could “sex” with a robot undermine someone’s understanding of consent? I would argue that if sex robots are to be considered to occupy a meaningful relational role in people’s lives, to substitute a human being and therefore be treated as such, then the question of consent is paramount.

IW: Sex robots are often presented as companions to people with disabilities, lonely people who otherwise struggle to create or maintain relationships, or even as therapeutic tools for people suffering from sexual deviance like pedophilia. The latter is particularly taboo in our society, and it is, therefore, challenging to have an open discussion about it. What is your opinion on that—do you think sex robots carry any potential to fulfill these intentions?

KD: Those claims are currently speculative. Careful empirical research would need to be conducted to understand whether sex robots could benefit people with disabilities or help those who struggle to form and sustain human relationships. However, I don’t agree that sex robots should be defended on the basis of the imagined sad, lonely man who has unmet sexual needs and lacks a companion. The matter of sex robots being used as a therapeutic tool for treating pedophilia is definitely an issue that needs to be further investigated and deliberated. I don’t have the clinical knowledge to form much of an opinion; however, there is a risk that if child-like sex robots were to be used in that way, then it might reinforce and normalize pedophilic behavior.

IW: Acknowledging the above-mentioned problems, what are the alternatives to sex robots as their treatment?

KD: That is not an easy question to answer! I would like to think that, as people and as a society, we can come up with more creative solutions than manufacturing child-like dolls or robots to substitute for human children. I also think that having an open discussion about issues such as this is extremely important and should include public opinion.

IW: Do you see any ‘harm reduction’ way to apply to sex robots that would bring the industry closer to the discussed advantages instead of reinforcing misogyny?

KD: Although sex robots are likely to remain a niche market, they are desirable precisely because they offer men complete dominance and an entirely one-way relationship. I don’t believe that there would be much of an appetite for a sex robot that does not come in a hyper-sexualized form and that has the ability to say “no”.

Kate Davis is a multimedia artist based in London, working across photography, moving image, and installation. She holds an MSc in Digital Anthropology from University College London and a BA (Hons) in Commercial Photography from Arts University Bournemouth. Kate has a research-led practice, taking a stylized and experimental approach, which often incorporates a feminist perspective. Understanding the impact modern technologies have on human interaction and intimacy provides the central motivation for her work. She is interested in investigating and documenting the implications and consequences of emerging technologies from the fields of AI, robotics, and virtual reality for future intimacies and the self.

INTERVIEW WITH KATE DAVIS: ON ETHICS OF ROBOTIC SEX DOLLS