Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Sex Dolls to Sex Robots and Beyond: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Research on Human-like and Personified Sex Tech

  • Sexual Technology (N Döring and P Renaud, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 28 September 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Developments in human-like and personified sex tech require familiarity with a range of technologically sophisticated sex toys. Most sex toys approximating full-sized human bodies are inanimate, but recent advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and digital interfaces are being incorporated into sex toy designs with the aim of providing humanized sexual and emotional experiences for users. This narrative review of scholarship on sex dolls, sex robots, and other forms of personified sex tech covers theoretical debates, recent empirical findings, and identifies gaps for future research in this field.

Recent Findings

Review of 87scholarly books, articles, and essays reveals several trends in the field. First, despite continued calls for empirically driven work, the bulk of research on sex dolls, sex robots, and personified sex tech continues to be theoretical. In some cases, theoretical models discussing how people might be affected by human-like and personified sex tech have outpaced the technological capabilities of sex toy manufacturers. Another trend is the noticeable focus on developments and users in North American and European countries. Finally, sex doll ownership is primarily researched and theorized in ways that center heterosexual men as the primary users. While empirical research shows that single middle-aged heterosexual men use sex dolls and sex robots more than women, developments in personified sex tech may push the industry in new directions.

Summary

Current debates about sex dolls, sex robots, and personified sex tech frame such devices around the potential for escalation and harm reduction. Although more empirical attention is being paid to users’ motivations and experiences, a dearth of research directly addresses these debates. More research is needed to refine theoretical assertions about the potential benefits and harms of human-like and personified sex tech. Specifically, robust quantitative data and samples from outside of Western contexts are needed to better assess how such technologies affect users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Döring N, Pöschl S. Sex toys, sex dolls, sex robots: our under-researched fellows. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e18551. https://doi.org/10.2196/18551.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Levy D. Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relationships. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 2007. 

  3. Devlin K. Turned on: science, sex and robots. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2018.

  4. Ferguson A. The sex doll: a history. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland & Company; 2010.

  5. Richardson K. Sex Robot matters: slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technol Soc Mag. 2016;35(2):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2016.2554421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Danaher J, McArthur N. Robot sex: social and ethical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2017.

  7. Ruberg B. Sex dolls at sea: imagined histories of sexual technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2022.

  8. Maras MH, Shapiro LR. Child sex dolls and robots: more than just an uncanny valley. J of Internet Law. 2017;21(5):3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Björkas R, Larsson M. Sex dolls in the Swedish media discourse: intimacy, sexuality, and technology. Sex Cult. 2021;25:1227–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09829-6. This study empirically examines the discursive linkage between intimacy and technology in Swedish media.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Appel M, Marker C, Mara M. Otakuism and the appeal of sex robots. Front. Psychol. 2019; 10(569). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00569

  11. Ray P. ‘Synthetik love lasts forever’: sex dolls and the (post?)human condition. In: Paranjape M, Banerjee D, editors. Critical Posthumanism and Planetary Future. Springer; 2016.

  12. Cheok A, Devlin K, Levy D. Love and sex with robots: second international conference. London: Springer. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8

  13. Cheok A, Levy D. Love and sex with robots: third international conference. London, Springer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76369-9

  14. Hanson KR. The silicone self: examining sexual selfhood and stigma within the love and sex doll community. Symbolic Interaction. 2022;45(2):189–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.575. This study analyses a sample of sex doll owners’ understanding of their sex practice as it relates to stigma, gender ideologies, and sexual diversity

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dubé S, Santaguida M, Anctil D, Zhu CY, Thomasse L, Giaccari L, Oassey R, Vachon D, Johnson A. Perceived stigma and erotic technology: from sex toys to erobots. Psychology & Sexuality. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2022.2067783. This study examines how perceived stigma shapes men and women’s desire to own and use sex tech

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cox-George C, Bewley S. I, sex robot: the health implications of the sex robot industry. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2018;44(3):161–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2017-200012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Langcaster-James M, Bentley GR. Beyond the sex doll: post-human companionship and the rise of the ‘allodoll.’ Robotics. 2018;7(4):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics7040062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Döring N, Mohseni MR, Walter R. Design, use, and effects of sex dolls and sex robots: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e18551. https://doi.org/10.2196/18551.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Szczuka JM Hartmann T Krämer NC. Negative and positive influences on the sensations evoked by artificial sex partners: a review of relevant theories, recent findings, and introduction of the sexual interaction illusion model. In: Zhou Y, Fischer MH, editors. AI Love You. Springer; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_1

  20. González-González CS, Gil-Iranzo RM, Paderewski-Rodríguez P. Human-robot interaction and sexbots: a systematic literature review. Sensors. 2020’ (21):216. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010216

  21. Harper CA, Lievesley R. Sex doll ownership: an agenda for research. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(10):54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01177-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cassidy V. For the love of doll(s): a patriarchal nightmare of cyborg couplings. ESC English Studies Canada. 2016;42(12):203–15. https://doi.org/10.1353/esc.2016.0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van Voorst R. My adventures with Nick and Hannah: anthropological explorations into sexdolls and the potential implications for human intimacy. J of Future Robot Life. 2022;3(1):49–62. https://doi.org/10.3233/frl-210004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown R, Shelling J. Exploring the implications of child sex dolls. In: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Aust N Z J Criminol. 2019. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi570 Accessed 18 May 2022.

  25. Chatterjee BB. Child sex dolls and robots: challenging the boundaries of the child protection framework. Int Rev Law, Comput Technol. 2020;32(1):22–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2019.1600870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Giard A. Duplicates of minors sold as “love dolls”: disturbance in sexual representation. Hybrid. 2017; 4. https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.823

  27. Gordon JS, Nyholm S. Kantianism and the problem of child sex robots. J of Applied Phil. 2022;39(1):132–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jecker NS. Nothing to be ashamed of: sex robots for older adults with disabilities. J of Medical ethics. 2021;47(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Eichenberg C, Khamis M, Hübner L. The attitudes of therapists and physicians on the use of sex robots in sexual therapy: online survey and interview study. J of Medical Internet Res. 2019;21(8):e13853. https://doi.org/10.2196/13853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yasir Arafat SM, Kar SK. Sex during pandemic: panic buying of sex toys during COVID-19 lockdown. J of Psychosexual Health. 2021;3(2):175–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/26318318211013347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Aoki BY, Kimura T. Sexuality and affection in the time of technological innovation: artificial partners in the Japanese context. 2021; 12(5):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050296This article examines how the significance of sex dolls within Japanese culture challenge ideas about human relationships.

  32. Harper CA, Lievesley R, and Wanless K. Exploring the psychological characteristics and risk-related cognitions of individuals who own sex dolls. The J of Sex Research. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2031848This study compares a sample of current sex doll owners to non-owners to assess their psychological similarities and differences.

  33. Devlin K, Locatelli C. Guys and dolls: sex robot creators and consumers. In: Bendel O, editor. Maschinenliebe. Springer Gabler; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29864-7_5This study compares sex doll owners’ stated desires to how RealdollX is advertised to highlight the importance of emotional fulfilment for users.

  34. Middleweek B. Male homosocial bonds and perceptions of human-robot relationships in an online sex doll forum. Sexualities. 2021;24(3):370–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720932383. This study examines how gender ideology shapes the conversations among sex doll owners in online forums.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Giard A. The stereotype of the woman-object in Japan: playing with dolls, playing the failed man. Hermés, La Revue. 2019;83(1):196–8. https://doi.org/10.3917/herm.083.0196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nast HJ. Into the arms of dolls: Japan’s declining fertility rates, the 1990s financial crisis and the (maternal) comforts of the posthuman. Soc Cult Geogr. 2017;18(6):758–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1228112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER. Computers are social actors. CHI ’94: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing. Chicago, United States; 1994.

  38. Reeves B, Nass CI. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press; 1996.

  39. Nass C, Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J of Social Issues. 2000;56:81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Banks J, Van Ouytsel J. Cybersex with human- and machine-cued partners: gratifications, shortcomings, and tensions. Technol, Mind, and Behav. 2020;1(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Szczuka JM, Krämer NC. There’s more to humanity than meets the eye: differences in gaze behavior toward woman and gynoid robots. Front Psychol. 2019;10(693):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hartman T. Parasocial interaction, parasocial relationships, and well-being. In: Reinecke L, Oliver MB, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-being: International Perspectives on Theory and Research on Positive Media Effects. Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group. 2017

  43. Nyholm S, Frank L. It loves me it loves me not: is it morally problematic to design sex robots that appear to love their owners. Techné Res Philosophy Technol. 2019;23(3):404–24. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2019122110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bendel O. Surgical, therapeutic, nursing and sex robots in machine and information ethics. In: van Rysewyk S, Pontier M, editors. Machine Medical Ethics. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Sci Eng Springer. 2014.

  45. Fosch-Villaronga E, Poulsen A. Sex care robots: exploring the potential use of sexual robot technologies for disabled and elder care. Paladyn, J of Behav Robotics. 2020;11(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Koumpis A, Gees T. Sex with robots: a not-so-niche market for disabled and older persons. Paladyn, J of Behav Robotics. 2020;11(1):228–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Massa N, Bisconti P, Nardi D. The psychological implications of companion robots: a theoretical framework and an experimental setup. International J of Social Robotics. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00846-x

  48. Zhou Y, Fischer MH. AI love you: developments in human-robot intimate relationships. Switzerland: Springer; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Fan R, Cherry MJ. Sex robots: social impact and the future of human relations. Switzerland: Springer; 2021.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Belk R. Artificial emotions and love and sex doll service workers. J of Service Research. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211063692

  51. Yeoman I, Mars M. Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures. 2012;44(4):365–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bendel O. Love dolls and sex robots in unproven and unexplored fields of application. Paladyn, J of Behav Robotics. 2021;12(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Galaitsi SE, Hendren CO, Trump B, Linkov I. Sex robots—a harbinger for emerging AI risk. Front Artif Intell. 2019; 2(27). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2019.00027

  54. Scheutz M, Arnold T. Are we ready for sex robots? 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Christchurch, New Zealand. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451772

  55. Kaufman EM. Reprogramming consent: implications of sexual relationships with artificially intelligent partners. Psychol Sexual. 2020;11(4):372–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1769160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Döring N. Sexpuppen und sexroboter aus psychologischer und therapeutischer perspective. In: Bendel O, editor. Maschinenliebe. Springer Grabler; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29864-7_16

  57. Goldfeder M, Razin Y. Robotic marriage and the law. J L & Soc Deviance. 2015;10:137–76.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Malinowska A. Sexbots and posthuman love. The International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc036

  59. Locatelli C. Rethinking “sex robots”: gender, desire and embodiment in posthuman sextech. J of Digital Social Research. In press. This article theorises the importance of viewing sex tech as including physical sex toys and digital interfaces.

  60. Benedikter R, Gruber M. The technological retro-revolution of gender: in a rising post-human and post-Western world, it is time to rediscuss the politics of the female body. In: Loh J, Coeckelberg M, editors. Feminist Philosophy of Technology. Springer; 2019.

  61. Kubes T. New materialist perspectives on sex robots: a feminist dystopia/utopia? Soc Sci. 2019;8(8):224. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8080224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kubes R. Bypassing the uncanny valley: sex robots and robot sex beyond mimicry. In: Loh J, Coeckelberg M, editors. Feminist Philosophy of Technology. Springer; 2019.

  63. Rigotti C. Guardare i sex robots attraverso le lenti femministe. Filosofia. 2020;65:21–38. https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-8195/5076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Devlin K. The ethics of the artificial lover. In Liao SM, editor. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press; 2020.

  65. Devlin K, Belton O. The measure of a woman: fembots, fact and fiction. In: Caves S, Dihal K, Dillon S, editors. AI Narratives: A History of Imaginative Thinking about Intelligent Machines. Oxford University Press; 2020.

  66. Moran JC. Programming power and the power of programming: an analysis of racialised and gendered sex robots. In: Loh J, Coeckelbergh M, editors. Feminist Philosophy of Technology. Springer; 2019.

  67. Hancock E. Should society accept sex robots? Changing my perspective on sex robots through researching the future of intimacy. Paladyn, J of Behav Robotics. 2020;11(1):428–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Strengers Y, Kennedy J. The smart wife: why Siri, Alexa, and other smart home devices need a feminist reboot. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2020.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Atanasoski N, Vora K. Why the sex robot becomes the killer robot: reproduction, care, and the limits of refusal. Spheres J for Digital Cultures. 2020;6:1–16. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/13850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Döring N, Krämer N, Mikhailova V, Brand M, Krüger THC, Vowe G. Sexual interaction in digital contexts and its implications for sexual health: a conceptual analysis. Front Psychol. 2021;12(769732):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769732. This study conceptualizes the various forms sexual interaction can take in digital contexts

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Döring N, Pöschl S. Love and sex with robots: a content analysis of media representations. Int J of Soc Robotics. 2019;11:665–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00517-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Andreallo F. Human-robot companionship: cultural ideas, limitations, and aspirations An analysis of sex robot marketing videos. Int J of Social Robotics. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00865-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Andreallo F, Chesher C. Prothetic soul mates: sex robots as media for companionship. M/C J; 22(5). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.1588

  74. Su NM, Lazar A, Bardzell J, Bardzell S. Of dolls and men: anticipating sexual intimacy with robots. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 2019;26(3):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301422.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Nordmo M, Næss JØ, Husøy F, Arnestad MN. Friends, lovers or nothing: men and women differ in their perceptions of sex robots and platonic love robots. Front Psychol. 2020;11(355):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Oleksy T, Wnuk A. Do women perceive sex robots as threatening? The role of political views and presenting the robot as a female-v -male-friendly product. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;117:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Troiano GM, Wood M, Harteveld C. “And this, kids, is how I met your mother”: consumerist, mundane, and uncanny futures with sex robots. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: USA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376598

  78. Ma J, Tojib D, Tsarenko Y. Sex robots: are we ready for them? An exploration of the psychological mechanisms underlying people’s receptiveness of sex robots. J Bus Ethics. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05059-4

  79. Marečková A, Androvičová R, Bártová K, Krejčová L, Klapilová K. Men with paraphilic interests and their desire to interact with a sex robot. J of Future Robot Life. 2022;3(1):39–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/frl-210010.This study compares two samples of adults with transgressive sexual interests to a control group to assess whether certain groups would be likely to use sex robots to fulfil their sexual desires

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zara G, Veggi S, Farrington DP. Sexbots as synthetic companions: comparing attitudes of official sex offenders and non-offenders. Int J of Social Robotics. 2022;14:479–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00797-3. This study compares sex offenders to non-offenders to assess the likelihood of using sex robots for harm reduction

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Holmes LG, Nilssen AR, Cann D, Strassberg DS. A sex-positive mixed methods approach to sexting experiences among college students. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021; 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106619

  82. Hanson KR. Becoming a (gendered) dating app user: an analysis of how heterosexual college students navigate deception and interactional ambiguity on dating app. Sex Cult. 2021;25:75–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09758-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Karaian L. Plastic fantastic: sex robots and/as sexual fantasy. Sexualities. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607221106667

  84. Dubé S, Anctil D. Foundations of Erobotics. Int J of Soc Robotics. 2021;13:1205–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00706-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Gesselman AN, Kaufman EM, Marcotte AS, Reynolds TA, Garcia JR. Engagement with emerging forms of sextech: demographic correlates from a national sample of adults in the United States. The J of Sex Research. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.2007521

  86. Gesselman AN, Druet A, Vitzthum VJ. Mobile sex-tech apps: how use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(9):e0238501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Ronen S. Gendered morality in the sex toy market: entitlements, reversals, and the irony of heterosexuality. Sexualities. 2021;24(4):614–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720914601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this project was received from the Sasakawa Foundation UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology, University of Wyoming, Department 3197 | A&S Building 208, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

    Kenneth R. Hanson

  2. Department of Digital, Humanities King’s College London Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Chloé C. Locatelli

Authors
  1. Kenneth R. Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chloé C. Locatelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth R. Hanson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Information

All reported studies/experiments with human subjects performed by the authors were performed in accordance with all applicable ethical standards including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Technology

The original online version of this article was revised: Reference 84 in the original article unfortunately is incorrect.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hanson, K.R., Locatelli, C.C. From Sex Dolls to Sex Robots and Beyond: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Research on Human-like and Personified Sex Tech. Curr Sex Health Rep 14, 106–117 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00331-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00331-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation