Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 801–823 | Cite as

Teledildonics and New Ways of “Being in Touch”: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Use of Haptic Devices for Intimate Relations

  • Nicola LiberatiEmail author
Original Paper


The aim of this paper is to analyse teledildonics from a phenomenological perspective in order to show the possible effects they will have on ourselves and on our society. The new way of using digital technologies is to merge digital activities with our everyday praxes, and there are already devices which enable subjects to be digitally connected in every moment of their lives. Even the most intimate ones are becoming mediated by devices such as teledildonics which digitally provide a tactual stimulation allowing users to have sexual intercourse through them. The efforts made in order to provide such an intertwinement of our everyday lives and digital technologies are evident, but the effects produced by them are not clear at all. This paper will analyse these technologies from a phenomenological perspective in order to understand their effects on the constitution of the subjects and on our society at the intimate level.


Phenomenology Teledildonics Post-phenomenology Sex Hyperconnectivity Mixed reality 



The author is supported by the PostDoctoral Research Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) No. P14782. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the paper, as these comments led us to an improvement of the work.


  1. Al-Saji, A. (2010). Bodies and sensings: On the uses of husserlian phenomenology for feminist theory. Continental Philosophy Review, 43(1), 13–37. doi: 10.1007/s11007-010-9135-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, R. (2001). A history of the personal computer: The people and the technology. Oxford: Allan Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Benke, E. A. (1996). Edmund Husserl’s contribuition to phenomenolgy of the body in Ideas II, chap 8 (Vol. 2, pp. 135–160). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Billinghurst, M., Clark, A., & Lee, G. (2014). A survey of augmented reality. Foundations and TrendsHuman-Computer Interaction, 8(2–3), 73–272. doi: 10.1561/1100000049.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, M. (2007). Review: Love and sex with robots by david levy. New Scientist, 196(2629), 76. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62863-2,
  6. Brave. S., & Dahley, A. (1997). Intouch: A medium for haptic interpersonal communication. In CHI ’97 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, CHI EA ’97 (pp. 363–364). New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1145/1120212.1120435.
  7. Bray, P. (2000). Technology and embodiment in Ihde and Merleau-Ponty (Vol. 19). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  8. Campbell-Kelly, M., Aspray, W., Ensmenger, N., & Yost, J. R. (2013). Computer: A history of the information machine (3rd ed.). Boulder: The Sloan Technology Series, Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Craft, A. J. (2012). Love 2.0: A quantitative exploration of sex and relationships in the virtual world second life. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(4), 939–947. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9933-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Divínová, R. (2005). Psychological background of cybersexual activities: Qualitative survey of specific computer mediated communication (among czech users). In Abuse: The dark side of human-computer interaction (pp. 38–44) Antonella De Angeli, Sheryl Braman, Peter Wallis.
  11. Feenberg, A. (2005). Critical theory of technology: An overview. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 1(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
  12. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Furht, B. (ed.) (2011). Handbook of augmented reality. Springer.
  14. Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2014). In touch with the future: The sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geniusas, S. (2012). Origins of the horizon in Husserl’s phenomenology, contributions to phenomenology (Vol. 67). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, W. (1982). Burning chrome. Sydney: Omni Publications International Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. UK: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  18. Hansen, M. B. N. (2006). Bodies in code: Interfaces with digital media (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Husserl, E. (1966). Analysen zur passiven synthesis aus Vorlesungs- und Forschungsmanuskripten, 1918–1926, Husserliana (Vol. XI). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  20. Husserl, E. (1971). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. In Drittes Buch: Die Phänomenologie und die Fundamente der Wissenschaften., Husserliana, (Vol. V) The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  21. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  22. Ihde, D. (2003a). If phenomenology is an albatross, is postphenomenology possible?
  23. Ihde, D. (2003b). Postphenomenology - again? Working Papers n. 3.
  24. Ihde, D. (2009). Postpenomenolgy and technoscience. The Peking University lectures. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kantarci, B., & Mouftah, H. T. (2015). Sensing services in cloud-centric internet of things: A survey, taxonomy and challenges. In IEEE International conference on communication workshop (ICCW), 2015 (pp. 1865–1870). doi: 10.1109/ICCW.2015.7247452.
  26. Kimberly, S. Y., O’Mara, J., & Buchanan, J. (2000). Cybersex and infidelity online: Implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7(10), 59–74.Google Scholar
  27. Klevjer, R. (2012). Enter the avatar: The phenomenology of prosthetic telepresence in computer games. In J. R. Sageng, H. Fossheim, & T. Mandt Larsen (Eds.), The philosophy of computer games, philosophy of engineering and technology (Vol. 7, pp. 17–38). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4249-9_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kurzweil, R. (2006). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Penguin (Non-Classics).Google Scholar
  29. Kurzweil, R. (2010). How my predictions are faring.
  30. Kuwamura, K., & Nishio, S. (2014). Modality reduction for enhancing human likeliness. In Selected papers of the 50th annual convention of the artificial intelligence and the simulation of behaviour (pp. 83–89), London, UK.
  31. Levy, D. (2009). Love and sex with robots. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  32. Liberati, N. (2012). Between Leib and technology: A phenomenology of the living body’s constitution. Glimpse, 14, 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liberati, N. (2013). Improving the embodiment relations by means of phenomenological analysis on the “reality” of ARs. In 2013 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality—arts, media, and humanities (ISMAR-AMH) (vol. 0, pp. 13–17). doi: 10.1109/ISMAR-AMH.2012.6483983.
  34. Liberati, N .(2014a). Augmented reality and ubiquitous computing: the hidden potentialities of augmented reality. AI & SOCIETY (pp. 1–12). doi: 10.1007/s00146-014-0543-x.
  35. Liberati, N. (2014b). Leib and technologies: Relations and co-foundation. Investigaciones Fenomenológicas, 11, 165–184.Google Scholar
  36. Liberati, N. (2015a). Augmented “ouch!”. how to create intersubjective augmented objects into which we can bump. In IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality—media, art, social science, humanities and design (ISMAR-MASH’D) (pp. 21–26). doi: 10.1109/ISMAR-MASHD.2015.14,
  37. Liberati, N. (2015b). “Digital Materiality” and augmented reality. In A. D. Cheok (Ed.), Hyperconnectivity and the future of internet communication. Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Liberati, N. (2015c). Technology, phenomenology and the everyday world: A phenomenological analysis on how technologies mould our world. Human Studies,. doi: 10.1007/s10746-015-9353-5.Google Scholar
  39. Lunceford, B. (2013). Telepresence and the ethics of digital cheating. Explorations in Media Ecology, 12, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacKie, D. (1994). Virtual reality shapes the future: Cybersex, lies and computer games. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  41. Moring, A. (2006). Cyberqueer romances? Discourses of virtual reality, queer and romantic love in the powerbook and nearly roadkill. Phoebe, 18(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  42. Nelson, T. (1974). Computer lib/ dream machines. New York: Hugo’s Book Service.Google Scholar
  43. Neustaedter, C., Harrison, S., & Sellen, A. (Eds.). (2013). Connecting families. The impact of new communication technologies on domestic life. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Pandya, H. B., Champaneria, T. A. (2015). Internet of things: Survey and case studies. In 2015 international conference on electrical, electronics, signals, communication and optimization (EESCO) (pp. 1–6). doi: 10.1109/EESCO.2015.7253713.
  45. Penny, L. (2013). Cybersexism: Sex, gender and power on the internet. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Perera, C., Liu, C. H., Jayawardena, S., & Chen, M. (2014). A survey on internet of things from industrial market perspective. IEEE Access, 2, 1660–1679. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2389854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reyes, R. S. (2014). Cybersex, bodies, and domination: An immanent critique of cyber-technology and the possibility of emancipation. Filocracia, 1(2), 29–52.Google Scholar
  48. Rheingold, H. (1990). Teledildonics: Reach out and touch someone. Mondo, 2000(2), 52–54.Google Scholar
  49. Rheingold, H. (1992). Virtual reality. The revolutionary technology of computer-generated artificial worlds-and how it promises to transform society. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Rhodes, B. J., Minar, N., Weaver, J. (1999). Wearable computing meets ubiquitous computing: Reaping the best of both worlds. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on wearable computers, IEEE computer society, Washington, DC, USA, ISWC ’99 (pp. 141).
  51. Saadatian, E., Samani, H., Parsani, R., Pandey, A. V., Li, J., Tejada, L., Cheok, A. D., & Nakatsu, R. (2014). Mediating intimacy in long-distance relationships using kiss messaging. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(10–11), 736–746. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Samani, H. A., Parsani, R., Rodriguez, L. T., Saadatian, E., Dissanayake, K. H., & Cheok, A. D. (2012). Kissenger: Design of a kiss transmission device. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems Conference, ACM, New York, NY, USA, DIS ’12 (pp. 48–57). doi: 10.1145/2317956.2317965.
  53. Schiebener, J., Laier, C., & Brand, M. (2015). Getting stuck with pornography? Overuse or neglect of cybersex cues in a multitasking situation is related to symptoms of cybersex addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Selinger, E. (Ed.). (2006). Postphenomenology. A critical companion to Ihde. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  55. Selmi, G. (2012). Dirty talks and gender cleanliness: An account of identity management practices in phone sex work (pp. 113–125). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230393530_7.Google Scholar
  56. Springer, C. (1996). Electronic eros: Bodies and desire in the postindustrial age. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thomas, B. H. (2012). Have we achieved the ultimate wearable computer? In 2012 16th international symposium on wearable computers (ISWC) (pp. 104–107). doi: 10.1109/ISWC.2012.26.
  58. Tierney, J. (1994). Porn, the low-slung engine of progress. New York: The New York Times.Google Scholar
  59. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, University Park.Google Scholar
  60. Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wagner, M., Broll, W. (2014). I wish you were here - not! the future of spatially separated sexual intercourse. In AISB50 Proceedings.
  62. Washington, D. (2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. The national campaign to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancy &
  63. Wéry, A., & Billieux, J. (2015). Problematic cybersex: Conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Addictive Behaviors . doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.007,
  64. Wilcox, B., & Wilcox, S. (2011). Suzette, the Most Human Computer ( website).
  65. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online “Predators” and their victims—myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63(2), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yeoman, I., & Mars, M. (2012). Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures, 44(4), 365–371. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yulianto, B. (2015). Philosophy of information technology: Sex robot and its ethical issues. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 6(4), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Liberal StudiesChukyo UniversityNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations