David Knox and Stacy Huff
East Carolina University
I. Joyce Chang
University of Central Missouri
Introduction
The use of robots for sex has entered mainstream culture. Time magazine reviewed
recent television programs (Humans, Westworld, Black Mirror) and asked, “Is it ethical to
have sex with a robot?” (D’Addario, 2017). This question suggests that the use of a life-like
robot for sex is questionable and creepy rather than an alternative masturbatory activity.
This study provides data on attitudes of undergraduates toward the use of robots for sex and
suggests a more positive view.
The concept of sex dolls (also referred to as love dolls) dates back to the 17th century
and can be seen in Mughal paintings in India. Sex dolls were sold commercially through
catalogs in Paris as early as 1908 (Bloch, 1910/2015). Sex doll advertisements in the United States first appeared in 1968 in pornographic magazines, when selling sexual devices
through the mail became legal (Beck, 2014).
The early sex dolls of the 20th century were largely blow-up dolls made with thin
plastic or rubber. In 1996, Abyss Creations developed a life-size sex doll that resembles the
face, skin, and figure of a real woman. Although the doll’s initial function was to serve as a
sex partner, some owners have used the RealDoll for non-sexual purposes. For example, the
movie Lars and the Real Doll featured the RealDoll as a girlfriend whom the owner
introduced to family/friends, took to parties, etc. Another sex doll, Flexidoll
(http://www.flexidolls.com/tour/), is the latest version of sex dolls promoted as being
“beautiful and boneless”, capable of contorting their body into any position desired by the
consumer.
The primary motivation for having a sex doll is to aid one’s sexual pleasure via
masturbation. When another human is not available, a sex doll may be a satisfactory
alternative to interpersonal sexual activity (Burr-Miller and Aoki, 2013). However, owning
and using a sex doll is stigmatized and viewed as evidence that one is unable to attract a real
sexual partner. Such stigmatization may lessen over time. David Levy (2007), author of
Love & Sex with Robots, predicted that by 2050 robots will evolve to “make themselves
romantically attractive and sexually desirable to humans.”
Scholars have raised concerns about using sex dolls that resemble humans. One fear
is that using human-like alternatives may only further demean some shy young men with
inadequate interpersonal competence (Hughes-d'Aeth, 2013). In addition, the use of sex
dolls who are obedient and always available for pleasure may further objectify and exploit
women.
Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 33
© 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality
Review of Literature
One of the most comprehensive studies about sex dolls was conducted by Valverde
(2012) who wrote her master’s thesis on “the modern sex doll-owner.” She interviewed
Abyss Creation’s founder Matt McMullen who revealed that his company ships ten dolls a
week, (90% female dolls and 10% male dolls), each costing at least $5,000. “There are 11
different body types and 31 faces to choose from. In addition, there are 30 styles and shades
of nipples; skin and lip-type; hair and eye color; pubic hair (trimmed, natural, full, shaved);
eyebrows (fake, human hair); removable tattoos, piercings, etc.” (Gurley, 2015). The newer
humanoid sex robot versions talk, respond to questions, have movement, and simulate a real
woman. See http://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000003731634/the-uncannylover.html to observe an example of a female sex doll who talks. As might be expected,
members of the sex doll community often wish to remain anonymous for fear of judgment,
persecution, and psychiatric labeling. However, as part of Valverde’s study, some sex doll
owners were willing to respond to questions about sex doll use thorough an anonymous
questionnaire.
Valverde (2012) collected her data via an online survey from 61 members of an
“online doll-owner community forum.” Of those who completed the survey, 88% were male
(12% female) and almost 90% (87%) were heterosexual. The average age of the sex doll
owner was 43 with ages ranging from 20 to 69. Slightly less than three-fourths (71%) of the
respondents were single. with 65% earning between $30,000 and $90,000 annually. The
primary purpose of owning a doll, reported by 70% of the respondents, was for sex. Indeed,
41% of the doll owners said that the doll was their primary sex partner. Thirty percent of doll
owners said that the primary purpose was for companionship; 17% used the doll for sex with
a partner. Doll ownership/use was not without negative feelings - over a third (37%)
reported that they felt shame, guilt or embarrassment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this paper was to identify social psychological variables related to the
acceptance/use of a sex doll and humanoid robot in the context of physical and emotional
intimacy. How are gender, religion, and sexual values (independent variables) related to sex
doll acceptance and use (dependent variable)?
Methods and Sample
A 34-item survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board at a large
southeastern university in the USA. An email including an Internet link to the survey was
sent to undergraduates in the sexuality/marriage/family courses of the first author. No
incentives for participation in the survey were provided. The survey included Likert type
questions, which asked students about their being open to using a sex doll or humanoid robot
in the context of interpersonal sex. The term “sex doll” was defined as a sex toy with
features resembling a human partner and unable to interact or communicate. The term
humanoid robot was defined as a machine with an appearance resembling a real human;
Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 34
© 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality
humanoid robots can interact and communicate with humans if they are programmed to do
so.
The survey included two questions about sex dolls: understanding (“I can understand
how someone would prefer having sex with a life-like sex doll”) and openness (“I am open to
the idea of having a sex doll for personal use”). Six questions were about the use of a
humanoid robot: Falling in Love ( “I think it is possible to fall in love with a humanoid
robot”), No Headache (“Humanoid robot would never have a ‘headache”.), Marriage (“I
think people should be able to marry their humanoid robots”), Sexual Need (“I think the
development of humanoid robots to meet sexual needs is a good idea”) , Stigmatization
(“The use of humanoid robots for having sex is stigmatized) and Intimacy (“I could develop
feelings of intimacy for a humanoid robot”). Demographic questions regarding gender, race,
religious commitment etc. preceded questions about robot acceptance and use.
A total of 345 respondents completed the survey. The majority of respondents (81%)
were female, white (70% white, 15% black, 8% Latino, 3% Biracial, 3% Asian, and 1%
other) and heterosexual (90%). Almost three-fourths (72%) were either first or second-year
undergraduates. Almost half (48%) were emotionally involved in a committed or engaged
relationship, 37% were not seeing anyone/not involved, and 14% were casually dating
different people.
The data were analyzed by SPSS (version 21) statistical software.
Findings
The respondents varied in terms of how they felt about their acceptance and use of a
sex doll. The majority of the respondents were not in favor of the use of a sex doll. Over
two thirds (68%) could not understand how anyone could think of having sex with a doll, less
then one in five (17%) strongly agreed or agreed that they “could understand how someone
would prefer having sex with a life-like sex doll over a human” and 15% were neutral about
the idea.
When the respondents were asked if they personally would be open to having sex
with a doll, 8% said yes, 13% were neutral and 79% strongly disagreed or disagreed. Only
one male of the 345 respondents reported having had sex with a doll. (Sex Doll Buying Guide)
Regarding perceptions of stigma for having sex with a sex doll, almost a third (32%)
strongly agreed or agreed that there was a stigma, 41% were neutral about the existence of stigma and 28% strongly disagreed or disagreed that there was a stigma. Finally, concerning
the development of humanoid robots to meet sexual needs being a good idea, 11% thought it
was a good idea, 14% were neutral and 76% thought it was a bad idea. Analysis of the data
included identifying the variables of gender, religious and sexual values (independent
variables) in relation to sex robot acceptance (dependent variable).
Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 35
© 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality
Gender Differences
When asked to rate the statement “I am open to the idea of having a sex doll for
personal use”, men (M= 2.09, SD= 1.11) were significantly more open to having a sex doll (p
< .01) than women (M=1.70, SD= 0.95) . When respondents were asked if they could
develop feelings of intimacy for a humanoid robot, men (M= 1.67, SD=0.89) were
significantly more accepting ( p < .05) than women (M=1.39, SD=0.74). Table 1 illustrates
dependent variables by gender.
Table 1: Dependent Variables: Means and Standard Deviation
M SD p
Sex Doll Preference
“I can understand how someone would prefer having sex
with a life-like sex doll over a human.”
Men 2.31 1.30 n.s.
Women 2.05 1.13
Open to Sex Doll
“I am open to the idea of having a sex doll for personal
use.”
Men 2.09 1.11 p < .01
Women 1.70 0.95
In Love with Robot
“I think it is possible to fall in love with a humanoid
robot.”
Men 2.02 1.19 n.s.
Women 2.15 1.13
Robot: No “headache”
“A humanoid robot would never have a "headache" and
would always be available for sex
Men 3.05 1.41 n.s.
Women 2.73 1.28
Marry Robots
“I think people should be able to marry their humanoid
robots if they want to”
Men 1.98 1.15 n.s.
Women 1.75 1.03
Robots for Sex Need
“I think the development of humanoid robots to meet
sexual need is a good idea.”
Men 2.19 1.13 n.s.
Women 1.98 1.04
Robot Stigmatization
“The use of “humanoid robots for having sex is
stigmatized.”
Men 3.02 1.34 n.s.
Women 3.08 1.32
Robot Intimacy
“Feeling I could develop feelings of intimacy for a
humanoid robot.”
Men 1.67 0.89 p < .05
Women 1.39 0.74
Note: n.s. (not significant)
Religion
Participants identified themselves as being in one of three religious groups: religious,
spiritual but not religious, or neither. While respondents did not identify their specific
religious background, most students at this southeastern university were from predominately
Christian backgrounds. Those who identified as being religious were far less accepting than
those who were either spiritual or not religious. These findings support the research of
Jeremy Hsu (2014) found that religious fundamentalists tended to view humanoid robots
as being more “creepy overall.” The explanation for a religious association with a negative
Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 36
© 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality
view of robots is that robots are counter to the belief that a Supreme Being made humans.
The Judeo-Christian monotheistic doctrine states that only God can give life, and human
substitutes are to be shunned (Kim and Kim, 2013).
Sexual Value
Respondents self-identified their sexual value as absolutist (sexual intercourse before
marriage is wrong, 13.2%), relativist (sexual intercourse justified if the person is in love,
56.8%) or hedonist (do what feels good, 30%). Compared to relativists and hedonists,
absolutists were significantly (p < .001) more likely to hold negative views regarding sex
robots. Table 2 illustrates dependent variables by sexual values.
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviation, ANOVA and Post Hoc Comparisons by Sexual Value
Variable
M SD F Post Hoc
Comparison
Sex Doll Preference Absolutism (A) 1.63 1.09 6.21** A < H **
Relativism (R) 2.06 1.12
Hedonism (H) 2.38 1.21
Open to Sex Doll Absolutism (A) 1.56 0.95 3.71* A < H *
Relativism (R) 1.72 0.94
Hedonism (H) 2 1.08
In Love with Robot Absolutism (A) 2.07 1.06 n.s. n.s.
Relativism (R) 2.04 1.13
Hedonism (H) 2.31 1.21
Robot: No "headache" Absolutism (A) 2.41 1.34 3.51* A < H *
Relativism (R) 2.77 1.29
Hedonism (H) 3.04 1.27
Marry Robots Absolutism (A) 1.39 0.73 8.09*** A < H**
Relativism (R) 1.73 0.97 R < H*
Hedonism (H) 2.12 1.22
Robots for Sex Absolutism (A) 1.51 0.81 7.29*** A < H ***
Relativism (R) 2.01 1.05 A < R*
Hedonism (H) 2.26 1.12
Robot Stigmatize Absolutism (A) 2.85 1.42 4.28* R < H*
Relativism (R) 2.94 1.26
Hedonism (H) 3.4 1.35
Robot Intimacy Absolutism (A) 1.41 0.77 n.s. n.s.
Relativism (R) 1.41 0.74
Hedonism (H) 1.54 0.84
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 37
© 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality
Discussion
Results from this study revealed that the majority of respondents could not understand
how anyone could have sex with a “life-like” sex doll rather than a human. This response is
not surprising, as the use of sex dolls or robots is stigmatized by mainstream culture in the
U.S. Sex dolls or robots are thought of as a non-human, silicone form devoid of love,
warmth, and intimacy. In effect, the use of robots for sex is stigmatized since there is the
cultural belief that humans should prefer “the real thing.”
Implications
There are two implications of the data. First, low acceptance (8%) for sex doll use by
these undergraduates reflects the culture in which the behavior occurs. U.S. culture dictates
the social scripts operative in regard to how sex dolls will be viewed - negatively, dolls are
not credible objects for sex.
Second, in spite of the negative cultural view of sex dolls as a masturbatory aid, they
might be reconsidered as a credible alternative. In the spirit of positive sexuality, with
diversity as one of its primary tenets, sex dolls (like vibrators) are used in private by the
individual to enhance sexual pleasure. The researchers suggest this is not creepy but healthy
sexuality.
The idea of sex dolls being used for one’s sexual pleasure (a basic human need) is
already recognized in Japan as some companies rent sex dolls and rooms to customers.
Alternatively, a customer may rent a doll for the night or weekend and take it home. Sounds
like the person is looking forward to a sex-positive evening!
References
Beck, Julie. (2014). A (straight, male) history of
sex dolls. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive
/2014/08/a-straight-male-history-ofdolls/375623/
Bloch, Iwan. (1910/2015). The sexual life of our
time in its relations to modern civilization.
(M. Eden Paul, Trans.).London: Dalton.
(Original work published 1910)
Burr-Miller, A.; Aoki, E. (2013). Becoming
(Hetero) Sexual? The Hetero-Spectacle of
Idolators and their Real Dolls. Sexuality
& Culture. 17, 384-400
D’Addario, D. (2017). When a most human isn’t actually human. Time.
February 27-March 6, 2017, p. 104
Gurley, G. (2015, May). Is this the dawn of the
sexbots? (NSFW). Vanity Fair. Retrieved
from
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/0
4/sexbots-real doll-sex-toys
Hughes-depth, T. (2013). Psychoanalysis and the
scene of love: Lars and the real girl, In the
mood for love, and Mulholland Drive.
Film & History, 43, 17-33
Hsu, J. (2014). How Religious See Robots.
[Web log comment] Discover Magazine.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesi
CK-cyborg/2014/12/01/religious-see robots/#.V5ZthvkrKUk
Kim, Min-Sun & Kim, Eun-Joo. (2013)
Humanoid robots as “The cultural
other”: are we able to love our Creations?
AI & Society 28(3):309-318
Levy, D. (2007). Love and Sex with Robots: The
evolution of human-robot relationships.
New York: Harper Collins
Valverde, S. (2012). The modern sex doll-owner:
A descriptive analysis. (Master’s Thesis)
Department of Psychology, California
State Polytechnic University, San Luis
Obispo. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/vie
wcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=these
s
No comments:
Post a Comment