Experts doubt ‘sexbots’ will reduce the rate of sex crime.

‘Sexbots’ ─ lifelike robots specifically created for sexual gratification ─ are set to expand the US$30 billion sex tech industry.

The specification of sexbots can be tailor-made according to personal preference, and their use has often been defended on the health-related grounds of ‘harm reduction,’ and their supposed ability to curb the incidence of sex crimes and sexual violence against women and children.

To try and explore the reported health related pros and cons of sexbots further, and answer some of the questions clinicians will inevitably be faced with, researchers have trawled a comprehensive research database, carried out internet searches, and discussed the issues with various different experts.

They could not find a single study on the health implications of sexbots, but their research threw up four key themes: safer sex; therapeutic potential; treatment for paedophiles; changing societal norms.

It is thought that sexbots might have the potential to eliminate sex trafficking, tourism, and prostitution and encourage safer sex with the provision of sexbots made of washable bacteria resistant fibres.

But this is somewhat fanciful, suggest the authors, adding that it is not clear who would bear responsibility for condoms and cleaning protocols.

“It is speculative whether the development of a sexbot marketplace will lead to lesser risk of violence and infections, or drive further exploitation of human sex workers,” the team at the UK’s King’s College London wrote.

The idea that sexbots could be used to treat relationship difficulties, erectile dysfunction, and enforced celibacy as a result of ill health, aging, disability, or loss of a partner is plausible, they suggest.

But equally, these devices might make existing problems worse and are hardly likely to satisfy intimacy needs and reciprocate desire.

It has also has been suggested that sexbots might be used to ‘treat’ paedophilia or prevent sexual violence by providing an acceptable outlet for these urges. However, the experts say they might instead help to normalise sexual deviancy or act as a practice ground for violence, including rape.

They found that the lack of evidence is hardly likely to dampen market forces.

“The overwhelming predominant market for sexbots will be unrelated to healthcare. Thus the ‘health’ arguments made for their benefits, as with so many advertised products, are rather specious,” they write.

“Currently the precautionary principle should reject the clinical use of sexbots until their postulated benefits, namely ‘harm limitation’ and ‘therapy’ have been tested empirically,” they conclude.

The study is accessible here.