CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Hanson, Kenneth R., Locatelli, Chloé C.·2022·Current Sexual Health Reports
DOI 10.1007/s11930-022-00331-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11930-022-00331-0

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Devlin K. Turned on: science, sex and robots. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2018. · DOI
  2. 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. · DOI
  3. Danaher J, McArthur N. Robot sex: social and ethical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2017. · DOI
  4. Ruberg B. Sex dolls at sea: imagined histories of sexual technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2022. · DOI
  5. Maras MH, Shapiro LR. Child sex dolls and robots: more than just an uncanny valley. J of Internet Law. 2017;21(5):3–21.
  6. 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. · DOI
  7. 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 · DOI
  8. 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. · DOI
  9. 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 · DOI
  10. 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 · DOI
  11. 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 · DOI
  12. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 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. · DOI
  14. 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. · DOI
  15. 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. · DOI · Paper page
  16. 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 · DOI
  17. 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 · DOI
  18. 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. · DOI
  19. 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. · DOI
  20. 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. · DOI
  21. 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. · DOI
  22. 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. · DOI
  23. Giard A. Duplicates of minors sold as “love dolls”: disturbance in sexual representation. Hybrid. 2017; 4. https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.823 · DOI
  24. 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. · DOI
  25. 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. · DOI
  26. 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. · DOI
  27. 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. · DOI
  28. 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. · DOI
  29. 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. · DOI
  30. 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. · DOI · Paper page
  31. 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. · DOI
  32. 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. · DOI
  33. 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. · DOI
  34. 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. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Reeves B, Nass CI. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press; 1996.
  36. 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. · DOI
  37. 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. · DOI
  38. 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
  39. 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. · DOI
  40. 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. · DOI
  41. 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. · DOI
  42. 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. · DOI
  43. 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 · DOI
  44. Zhou Y, Fischer MH. AI love you: developments in human-robot intimate relationships. Switzerland: Springer; 2019. · DOI
  45. Fan R, Cherry MJ. Sex robots: social impact and the future of human relations. Switzerland: Springer; 2021. · DOI
  46. Belk R. Artificial emotions and love and sex doll service workers. J of Service Research. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211063692 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 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. · DOI
  48. 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. · DOI
  49. 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 · DOI
  50. 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 · DOI
  51. 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. · DOI
  52. 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 · DOI
  53. Goldfeder M, Razin Y. Robotic marriage and the law. J L & Soc Deviance. 2015;10:137–76.
  54. Malinowska A. Sexbots and posthuman love. The International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc036 · DOI
  55. 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.
  56. 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. · DOI
  57. Kubes T. New materialist perspectives on sex robots: a feminist dystopia/utopia? Soc Sci. 2019;8(8):224. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8080224. · DOI
  58. 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. · DOI
  59. Rigotti C. Guardare i sex robots attraverso le lenti femministe. Filosofia. 2020;65:21–38. https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-8195/5076. · DOI
  60. Devlin K. The ethics of the artificial lover. In Liao SM, editor. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press; 2020. · DOI
  61. 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. · DOI
  62. 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. · DOI
  63. 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. · DOI
  64. Strengers Y, Kennedy J. The smart wife: why Siri, Alexa, and other smart home devices need a feminist reboot. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2020. · DOI
  65. 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. · DOI
  66. 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. · DOI
  67. 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. · DOI
  68. 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 · DOI
  69. 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. · DOI
  70. 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. · DOI
  71. 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. · DOI
  72. 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 · DOI
  73. 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 · DOI
  74. 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 · DOI
  75. 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 · DOI
  76. 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 · DOI
  77. 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. · DOI
  78. Karaian L. Plastic fantastic: sex robots and/as sexual fantasy. Sexualities. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607221106667 · DOI
  79. 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. · DOI
  80. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  81. 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. · DOI
  82. 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. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hanson, K. R., & Locatelli, C. C.
ORCID
Venue
Current Sexual Health Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-07-19
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
106-117
ISSN
1548-3592
DOI
10.1007/s11930-022-00331-0
Cited by
34
References
3
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2022-09-28)
Licence
Funders
Sasakawa Foundation UK

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review