One may define a “sex robot” as an autonomous machine of which the primary function is to provide sexual pleasure (Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016). However, it is widely suggested by scholars of artificial intelligence and robotics that sex robots under this definition do not yet exist (Lin et. al, 2011; Richardson, 2016). The current field of what people would consider to be sex robots is comprised of not much more than advanced sexual toys (Richardson, 2016). Sex toys, in their function, are objects that are used for an individual’s sexual pleasure. These toys can include traditionally-defined machines, such as vibrators, and can also include objects in a variety of shapes for different purposes (Levy, 2007; Maras and Shapiro, 2017). “Sex robots,” as they are known now, are most comparable to machinal sex toys, some with artificial intelligence systems and human-like physical features. In other words, the current state of “sex robots” can be more accurately described as “sexy robots,” with a handful including advanced mechanical processes (Lin et. al, 2011; Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016).

​

Roxxxy, a robot created by the company TrueCompanion, is billed as a sex robot. She has an artificial intelligence program, and can converse with her “partner.” Her movement is incredibly limited, but, through an internal cooling system, she is able to mimic human touch. Additionally, she has touch sensors which enable her to “feel” (Chapman, 2010; Lin et.al, 2011; Maras and Shapiro, 2017). Roxxxy, therefore, is fairly close to people’s general idea of a “sex robot”— however, though she may be similar in touch and response to a human woman, her limited movement and inability for autonomy in her designated tasks cause her to be, at most, a highly developed sex toy rather than a sex robot (Chapman, 2010; Lin et. al, 2011). The human interest in developing sex robots is exemplified in multiple robots currently being developed by various companies for sexual use; other sex robots aside from Roxxxy include “Samantha” and “Harmony,” which are also programmed to have coherent conversations and mimic human movement (Maras and Shapiro, 2017).

​

Issues regarding the development of sex robots vary. For one, the use of sex robots for pleasure may impair a person’s empathy (Richardson, 2016). Sex robots, if one can assume that they will be designed to be human-like (like the current sex-toys being labeled as robots are) can potentially alter an individual’s capacity to view and interact with other people in an appropriate manner (Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016). Individual users of sex robots may feel freer to harm the robots because they can be seen as objects. For example, the sex robot Samantha, when presented at a conference, was physically abused by the conference’s attendees. When asked how she was doing, Samantha, not being aware of what had occurred, gave no indication that she understood that she was in any way harmed (Maras and Shapiro, 2017). This, in addition to displaying the lack of consciousness in current models of “sex robots,” displays the lack of empathy an individual can have for an object, even if that object appears and acts human-like. People may then be more likely to display aggressive and unempathetic traits towards other human individuals, especially if they subconsciously ascribe inanimate traits towards these other individuals (Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016).

​

With many of the current “sex robot” models being presented as female, it can be inferred that autonomous sex robots, when created, will mainly be female, as well, catering to mostly male clientele (Richardson, 2016). As such, sex robots may particularly influence male perception of females. With a sex robot being an object (or being seen as an object) that is solely used to provide a service for an individual, a person’s ability to understand the difference between the reactions of a robot versus the reactions of a human in any situation which may regard the exchange of power is likely to be muddled, and will certainly contribute to changing societal expectations and norms for humans (particularly women) (Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016). As men utilizing sex bots would not then have to interact with women in such a way (in the commodification of sex, as through prostitution), sex as a business then shifts from an understanding in which a human woman is a person providing a service, and should be treated with basic human decency and respect in this transaction, to the understanding that a sex robot is used only for an individual’s pleasure, with all focus on satisfaction for the buyer. Therefore, the safety of the robot is not thought of at all (Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016). One model of Roxxxy, for example, is said to have the programmed personality of a sexually inexperienced young woman, then encouraging the user to train Roxxxy how to please that individual, without there being a mutual relationship as evident in consensual sexual relations between humans. Another model of Roxxxy is programmed to be unreceptive to sexual advances, which then pushes the user to effectively sexually assault the robot (Maras and Shapiro, 2017).  

​

Another important issue in the discussion of sex robots is situated under the topics of sex work and robot rights. The development of new technologies has, historically, changed the face of the labor force (Lin et. al, 2011; Richardson, 2016). Therefore, using an example that was previously stated, there exists a fear that legal prostitution as a business model may fall out of fashion due to the development of these sex robots, and the extraction of the humanity and respect needed within the interaction for it to be the experience as it exists today (Levy, 2007).

​

Additionally, there are moral issues with the development of sex robots as a replacement for pornography or sex work (fields of work which contend with moral issues regarding their products and services, already) (Richardson, 2016). The development of robots made to look like children are an unfortunate effect of the current interest in the creation of sex robots. Child sex robots, while not actually being underage children, would be detrimental to society in the potential neutralization of pornographic material which depicts child-like beings, which would ultimately harm human children (Maras and Shapiro, 2017).

​

The introduction of sex robots is, perhaps, an inevitable future. Conscious or subconscious sexual desire is often a facet of scientific and technological pursuits (Levy, 2007). Therefore, a future where fully autonomous, artificially intelligent robots solely for sexual/emotional/romantic needs may not necessarily be out of the question. If and when this future occurs, women and children are likely to be the main victims of the societal change that will ensue (Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016). Developers in this field must (perhaps soon) wrestle with philosophical and sociological analyses and debate, especially with regards to the impact of true sex robots on interpersonal relationships, viewpoints on gender, and regulations on sections of the workforce (Lin et. al, 2011; Maras and Shapiro, 2017; Richardson, 2016).