Record STMT-WC34E2BAdvisory

The Relational Sexual Self, Interhuman Sexuality & Sex Robot Ethics

Position paper Institutional policyGlobalin force

This academic reply paper responds to a commentary on prior research concerning the queering of sex robots through queer Lacanian psychoanalysis and new materialism. The authors address claims regarding the ontological status of the relational sexual self and the ethical sensitivities required for translating 'designing for friction' into practice. They discuss considerations of user consent, trauma-sensitivity, and the transferability of interhuman sexual ethics to human-robot interactions.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

SpringerIndustry

Publisher

Legal forceAdvisory

Under whose authorityInstitutional policy

Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsGeneral publicAI developers and providersAI deployers and users

Researchers, philosophers of technology, and designers interested in the ethics and theoretical foundations of sex robots.

Sectors

Research and science · philosophy of technology and robotics research

What the document contains

What's covered

The paper discusses the ontological status of the relational sexual self in relation to sex robots, the ethical implications of introducing design friction, and the necessity of safeguards like consent mechanisms and safewords.

What's missing

The document does not provide binding regulatory standards, technical specifications for robot manufacturing, or legal frameworks for enforcement.

Key takeaways

The relational sexual self is understood on both an ontological level and the level of subjective sexual desire.
Integrating philosophies from diverse traditions, such as Japanese philosophy, can help reshape the conceptual foundations of human-robot intimacy.
Introducing design friction in sex robots demands careful consideration of psychological safety, consent, and trauma-sensitivity.
Frictionless sex robot design acts as a narcissistic echo chamber that prevents users from critically examining preconceived desires.
Future research must investigate whether human-human sexual norms can be transferred to human-robot interactions or if distinct ethical frameworks are necessary.

Outline

· 1 Introduction
· 2 The Relational Self
· 3 Interhuman Sexual Ethics and Sex Robots
· 4 Conclusion

Issued31 March 2026

Length2,138 words · 5 pages

FormatNot recorded

Scopeglobal

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

2/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

friction raises a question of (moral) responsibility: who is responsible if a system designed for friction causes harm to the user?

3 Interhuman Sexual Ethics and Sex Robots

screening score · 2026-10-24

Fairness

1/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

how do the axes of gender, heteronormativity, race, disability and ageism intersect in imagining sex robot design and use differently?

4 Conclusion

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Oversight

2/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

a safeword and an immediate shutdown of the robot if desired

3 Interhuman Sexual Ethics and Sex Robots

screening score · 2026-10-24

Privacy

0/5

Protection of personal data and private life

None

screening score · 2026-10-24

Transparency

0/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

None

screening score · 2026-10-24

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

None

screening score · 2026-10-24

Impact Assessment

2/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

highlight ethical risks regarding consent and trauma-sensitivity in moving ‘designing for friction’ from theory to practice

1 Introduction

screening score · 2026-10-24

Topics

Physical AI Governancesupporting

sex_robots robot_ethics queer_theory human_robot_interaction consent