Desire in Code: Legal Perspectives on Sex Robots and Consent
This academic article explores the intersection of sex robots, rape, and sexual consent, examining the legal and normative challenges they present. It argues that non-consensual and deceptive design in sex robots reinforces women's subordination and perpetuates rape culture and technology-facilitated violence. Rather than favoring prohibition, the paper proposes alternative designs embedding affirmative consent and examines the potential of the EU AI Act's codes of conduct to guide responsible development.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
This paper is for legal scholars, researchers, and policymakers examining the intersections of emerging technologies, artificial intelligence governance, gender equality, and sexual consent.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the legal and normative implications of sex robots, analyzing how their design intersects with theories of sexual consent, rape culture, and online and technology-facilitated violence against women. It examines the adequacy of the European Union's legal frameworks, particularly the AI Act, in regulating such technologies.
The text does not provide empirical datasets on sex robot usage or binding regulatory mandates specifically targeted at sex robots under existing technology laws.
- Sex robots reproduce stereotypical representations of female appearance and behavior, risking the normalization of gender-based subordination and violence.
- The legal classification of rape and sexual consent in human-robot interactions remains underexplored.
- Consent in user-sex robot interactions serves a symbolic function that shapes understandings of sexual consent in human relationships.
- Outright prohibition of sex robots ignores user autonomy and pluralistic values, making targeted design regulation a preferable alternative.
- Article 95 of the European Union's AI Act offers a mechanism through voluntary codes of conduct to promote affirmative consent programming.
1. Introduction 2. Conceptual Foundations of Sex Robots 3. Sex Robots and the Meaning of Rape 4. Toward an Alternative Design of Sex Robots 5. Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Designed for sexual interaction—primarily for a cisgender male, heterosexual market—sex robots risk reinforcing women’s subordination and oppression.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-25
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-25
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-25
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-25
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
While a detailed discussion of aspects, such as impact assessments, user interface design, or AI literacy, falls outside the scope of this paper
IV. Toward an Alternative Design of Sex Robots
screening score · 2026-10-25