ArticlePDF Available

Child Sex Dolls and Robots: More Than Just an Uncanny Valley

December 2017
Journal of Internet Law

Authors:

Marie-Helen Maras

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Lauren R. Shapiro

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Currently, there is a dual threat to children (and society) in the United States:— (1) the lack of explicit criminalization of the production, distribution, receipt, possession, use, or possession with intent of distribution of child sex dolls and robots; and (2)— the absence of clear guidelines, due to courts’ differing interpretation of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT Act) of 2003, which could potentially be utilized to prohibit some of the aforementioned activities.

Content uploaded by Lauren R. Shapiro

Content may be subject to copyright.

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

Child Sex Dolls

and Robots: More

Than Just an

Uncanny Valley

By Dr. Marie-Helen Maras

and Dr. Lauren R. Shapiro

Currently, there is a dual threat to children

(and society) in the United States: (1) the lack of

explicit criminalization of the production, distribu-

tion, receipt, possession, use, or possession with intent

of distribution of child sex dolls and robots; and

(2) the absence of clear guidelines, due to courts’ dif-

fering interpretation of the Prosecutorial Remedies

and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children

Today Act (PROTECT Act) of 2003, which could

potentially be utilized to prohibit some of the afore-

mentioned activities.

CHILD SEX DOLLS AND ROBOTS

In the United States, explicit graphic, gratuitous,

and sometimes even violent sex has become common-

place between (a) characters in non-pornographic

films, commercials, television shows, and videogames,

and (b) personal avatars in communication for inter-

net sites and cellphones.9 Objectification of children,

adolescents, and adults is inherent in free-market

competition by mainstream music (including videos),

film, car, and clothing industries. Many “show young

women in highly sexual ways,” although Coca-Cola

infamously uses a young, in-shape “pool-boy” sought

after by a sister, brother, and mother, portraying these

models “as sex objects rather than unique human

beings”10 to sell their products and services.11 Unlike

Hollywood movies and television shows, the rest of

these visuals do not come with the parental guide of

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rat-

ings and TV Parental Guidelines that warn of sexual

content, graphic nudity, and violence.12

The relaxed beliefs towards early exposure to

sexualized material also may be derived from the

successful promotion of pornography by the sex

industry, currently making multibillions of dollars

through films, services, and products.13 The advent

of pornography began simply, with hand drawings of

nudes alone or engaging in sexual acts that were sold

individually or in books. With the invention of still-

and movie-cameras, it progressed to graphic sexual

content in photographs and 2-dimensional films that

were available for viewing in theatres or for purchase

by mail or in stores. Currently, there are both 2- and

3-dimensional movies and interactive games available

for free (supported by advertisements or customers pay-

ing to remove them) or for purchase on the Internet.

Dr. Marie-Helen Maras is an Associate Professor at the

Department of Security, Fire, and Emergency Management at

John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She is also part of the faculty

of the MS program in Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity and

PhD program in Criminal Justice at John Jay College of Criminal

Justice. Dr. Lauren R. Shapiro is an Associate Professor at the

Department of Security, Fire, and Emergency Management at John

Jay College in New York.

Sexual abuse prevention campaigns teach children

that their bodies belong to them,1 yet they are exposed

to contradicting messages in our society, including

that children are possessions of their family2 and

disobedience to adults will be punished.3 Research

shows that 55 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls

are sexually abused by someone they know (i.e., fam-

ily, acquaintance).4 Hence, children whose “relative,

neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman” is a

pedophile5 are unlikely to resolve these discrepant mes-

sages to prevent their own sexual abuse.6 Consequently,

they rely on society to have mechanisms in place to

prevent and detect sexual abuse (i.e., child protection

services, mandatory reporters) and corresponding laws

against child sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation,

and child pornography to protect them.7 The state

has a judicially recognized “interest in preventing the

exploitation and sexualization of children” (derived

from the parens patriae doctrine) and “to protect chil-

dren from premature sexual stimulation by adults for

the adults’ gratification.”8

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

The sex industry also provides non-contact

services through live peep-shows, phone services

(including sexting), and websites that are designed to

allow customers to use their avatars for cybersex or to

talk to and/or watch a real person posing, engaging in

sexual activities, or self-stimulating sexually.14 New

technology also allows customers to receive stimula-

tion through a special device attached to their geni-

talia and controlled by the person on the screen that

mimics oral, vaginal or anal sex (e.g., cyberdildon-

ics).15 The sex industry also produces and sells objects

advertised to promote enhancement of adult sexual

pleasure, despite being regulated by state and federal

laws (e.g., commercial distribution).16 The sex toy

industry had its origin in creating simplistic devices that

simulate and stimulate genitalia (e.g., dildos, artificial

vaginas, vibrators) and fetish items that appeal to vari-

ous sexual desires (e.g., lashes, whips, feathers). Over

the past 20 years, it evolved to devise models that

either partially mimic humans (e.g., inflatable plastic

female dolls, rubber female torsos with breasts and

buttocks) or completely emulate humans and their

orifices (e.g., silicone sex dolls and artificial intel-

ligence sex robots).17

Adult sex dolls and robots have been developed

and are available on the market. They are “made of a

flesh-like, heat-retaining silicone with detailed facial

features and first-rate replications of female orifices.

The vagina, anus, and mouth are all designed to cre-

ate suction upon use.”18 Male sex dolls also are avail-

able, but have fewer appearance options than female

dolls.19 A buyer may custom-order sex dolls and

robots with specific preferences in terms of common

aspects, such as body type, hair color, skin tone, and

facial features, and additional features, such as spe-

cialized clitoris with hymen and “pressure-released

urination.”20

There also are sex robots that contain computer

software to enable automation in response to voice

and face, engage in conversation, and mimic “pro-

grammable personalities.”21 For example, one proto-

type adult sex robot, Roxxxy by True Companion,

was marketed as having different “programmable

personalities,” such as “Wild Wendy;” “S&M Susan;”

“Mature Martha;” “Frigid Farrah;” and “Young Yoko.”

The latter two are the most disconcerting. “Frigid

Farrah” has a setting in which she rejects all sexual

advances and thus encourages the user to rape her; the

marketing tagline of this personality is “if you touch

her ‘in a private area, more than likely, she will not be

to appreciative of your advance.’ ”22 Equally disturbing

is the “Young Yoko” setting, which is marketed with

the tagline “oh so young (barely 18) and waiting for

you to teach her.”23 The connotation is that the user

exerts control over the naïve robot to force it to learn

solely how to please the trainer sexually, completely

in contrast to her own sexual awakening as would be

found in human relationships. The harm to society of

these sex dolls and robots is their promotion of the

notions that women are “passive, ever-consenting sex

objects” and “consent is not a necessary part of sexual

interaction in cultures already struggling to teach that

‘no means no.’ ”24

Adult sex robots, such as the Real Doll

(Harmony) and Synthea Amatus (Samantha), and

True Companion’s Roxxxy, can move and speak.

These companies have created, are working on, and/or

are releasing adult sex robots that are life-like and of

the same materials as life-like dolls, with the addi-

tion of artificial intelligence and movement of the

dolls.25 Some “have moveable joints” and may have

motorized features, including moveable tongues and

toes, as well as “simulated respiration and heartbeats,

vocal reactions to genital penetration,” seemingly as

a means to induce the user to believe that the dolls

are enjoying the sexual activity.26 Adult sex dolls and

robots can perform a variety of sexual activities; one

robot known as Samantha purportedly can have

orgasms.27 Brothels in Japan, Austria and Germany

now offer clients sex with life-like adult dolls, where

the dolls can be dressed and positioned according to

the preferences of johns.28

Although life-like adult sex dolls have been in

existence for a while, what is relatively new are life-

like child sex dolls. Like their adult counterparts,

child sex dolls are realistic reproductions of young

(prepubescent) children in size and appearance with

anatomically correct genitals and anus, with all ori-

fices able to accommodate the length and width of

adult male genitalia. A known creator of such dolls

is Shin Takagi, a self-proclaimed pedophile, who

founded a company that sells them (Trottla) in Japan,

supposedly as an “alternative” to actual offending.29

The child sex dolls are designed to meet the various

desires, tastes and demands of customers. For exam-

ple, apart from custom design of the doll replicating

the requested ‘age’ and ‘sex’ of the child, customers

can also choose facial expressions, such as whether it

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

is happy, sad, angry, scared, etc.30 Moreover, although

not yet reported in the media, the likelihood is good

that the production of child sex robots capable of

moving, speaking, and performing sexual activities,

may be further along than adult robots due to their

smaller size and weight.31

Sex dolls and robots promote (the acceptance

of) non-consensual sex and rape, otherwise, set-

tings would not exist whereby the dolls and robots

express negative reactions when sexual advances

are made (e.g., Frigid Farrah setting on Roxxxy).

Sex dolls and robots can be used as a way to express

violent desires, independently or in conjunction

with sexual activity. One sex doll repairman indi-

cated that an owner had “ripped the leg off” the

female doll and “her calves, from below the knee,

had what looked almost like knife puncture wounds.

Hundreds of them.”32 Some of the dolls/robots were

destroyed in grotesque ways, such as “hacked to

pieces,” “jaw … behind her neck. Her hands ripped

off … left breast hanging by a thread of skin,” “cleav-

age between her buttocks was torn into a ragged

crevasse,” “her vagina and anus were a giant gaping

hole,” and “he put her feet behind her head and

reamed that doll … violently.”33

Sex dolls and robots are “specifically designed

for personal interactions that will involve human

emotions and feelings,” but these are one-way rela-

tionships.34 Current technology for these sex dolls

and robots does not include the capacity for even

mimicking human emotional distress in response to

aggression aimed at them. That is, when the user’s

violent actions result in visible tears of the vagina

or anus or in severing of a limb, these consequences

are not paired with obvious vocal signs of pain

and agony nor verbal cries for help. Hence, the

aggressor may become habituated to the effects of

applying sexual and physical harm on a nonconsen-

sual partner and escalate the attacks (as would be

expected in a rape-culture). Those who would argue

against societal harm from the expression of aggres-

sion against life-like dolls and robots need only

look at what happened in Austria at a technology

expo where Samantha was exhibited. Despite being

‘molested,’ such as it’s breasts and torso mounted by

multiple men to the point of breaking it’s fingers

and causing thousands of euros damage from ‘soil-

ing,’ when asked politely “How are you?” Samantha

responded, “Hi, I’m fine.”35

THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE:

MIND THE GAP

There are no US laws that explicitly prohibit

child sex dolls and robots. However, there are laws

that protect children by prohibiting child sexual abuse

(e.g., sexual activities with children) and child sexual

exploitation (e.g., use of a child for sex in exchange

for remuneration of some kind).36 Laws against child

pornography,37 which include “the visual, audio,

written, or other form of portrayal of sexual activity

of a … [minor] that is designed to sexually arouse a

viewer” also exist.38 In order to determine whether

child sex dolls and robots should be prohibited by

US law, one needs to understand the legal landscape

criminalizing child pornography, obscene materi-

als, and obscene virtual representations of children

engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

CAN A CHILD SEX DOLL AND ROBOT

BE CONSIDERED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?

To address this question, it is important to deter-

mine the classification of child sex dolls and robots.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8), child pornography is

defined as

any visual depiction, including any photo-

graph, film, video, picture, or computer or

computer-generated image or picture, whether

made or produced by electronic, mechanical,

or other means, of sexually explicit conduct,

where—(A) the production of such visual

depiction involves the use of a minor engaging

in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual

depiction is a digital image, computer image,

or computer-generated image that is, or is

indistinguishable from, that of a minor engag-

ing in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such

visual depiction has been created, adapted, or

modified to appear that an identifiable minor

is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The production of child pornography causes pri-

mary harm to children. Here, the harm experienced

by the child is the direct result of child pornogra-

phy, such as the harm experienced from the sexual

exploitation and the emotional distress, physical and

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

psychological harm, and other adverse consequences

experienced in the making of the child pornography.

In Osborne v. Ohio, the court held that “[t]he materi-

als produced by child pornographers permanently

record the victim’s abuse. The pornography’s exis-

tence causes the child victims continuing harm by

haunting the children in years to come.”39 The direct

harm caused to children in the original production

of the material, as well as the risk of further harm to

children (due to the revictimization from redistribut-

ing the material), are the primary reasons why child

pornography is considered illegal in United States.40

Due to the primary harm caused to children, the court

in New York v. Ferber concluded that child pornog-

raphy should be considered illegal on both state and

federal levels, and that the government could legally

intervene to protect children in this regard.41

Child sex dolls and robots are not consid-

ered as a form of child pornography because these

objects are not real children and cannot, by way of

extension, experience direct or continuing harm.

Nevertheless, child sex dolls and robots could be

classified as “virtual child pornography” as originally

defined by the Child Pornography Prevention Act

(CPPA) of 1996 as,

any visual depiction, including any photo-

graph, film, video, picture, or computer, or

computer-generated image or picture, whether

made or produced by electronic, mechanical,

or other means, of sexually explicit con-

duct, where … such visual depiction is, or

appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually

explicit conduct … or … such visual depiction

is advertised, promoted, presented, described,

or distributed in such a manner that conveys

the impression that the material is or contains

a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexu-

ally explicit conduct.

The phrases “appears to be” and “conveys the impres-

sion” enables the criminalization of content and

objects that do not involve real children.

Child sex dolls and robots are realistic virtual

representations of children, which may or may not

have been created with an image of a real child. As

such, these objects have anatomically correct parts

and orifices that could be used by pedophiles to insert

a penis, finger, tongue, or object in them to simulate

sexual activity, sexual assault, and sexual abuse as

listed under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A) as, “actual or

simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-

genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal,

whether between persons of the same or opposite

sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic

or masochistic abuse.” Even by themselves, these

life-like child sex dolls and robots are physiologically

identical to real children and thus, would meet the

legal definition of “sexual explicit conduct” under

18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), which includes: “lascivious

exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a child.”

As the Department of Justice noted in its “Citizen’s

Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography:”

“the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does

not require that an image depict a child engaging

in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may

constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently

sexually suggestive.”42 For these reasons, it may be

concluded that child sex dolls and robots are clearly a

form of virtual child pornography.

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,43 the majority

opinion countered the government’s points, which

sought to justify the prohibition of virtual child por-

nography, in the following ways.44 First, it denied any

causal connection between virtual child pornography

and future commission of pedophilic acts, thereby

also negating the “indirect harm” claim. Second, it

disclaimed the notion that virtual child pornography

spurred actual child pornography and sexual exploita-

tion. For these reasons, the court in Ashcroft struck

down CPPA as unconstitutional concluding that only

child pornography that depicted a real child could be

prohibited by law.45

The next issue to consider is whether child sex

dolls and robots as virtual child pornography cause

harm to children and society, as was suggested by the

government in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In

Ashcroft, the court rejected the government’s conten-

tion that “virtual child pornography whets the appe-

tites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in

illegal conduct”46 and concluded that “the govern-

ment ‘cannot constitutionally premise legislation

on the desirability of controlling a person’s private

thoughts.’ ”47 Evidence from social science research is

introduced next to address whether the government’s

original assertions of harm are accurate in 2017.

Research has shown that the distinction between

contact and non-contact child sex offenders is

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

tenuous at best;48 the contact sex offense rates of

those viewing child pornography online varied.49 It

would be unethical to determine whether a causal

connection between child pornography or virtual

child pornography and child sexual abuse exists

through empirical research.50 That is, investigators

would not risk potential harm to children by forcing

pedophiles to view content and then gather evidence

of child sexual abuse. However, empirical data has

shown a positive correlation between pornography

and sexual offenses against children, such as child

molestation,51 and between child pornography and

child molestation.52 For example, findings from one

study revealed that approximately half (43 out of

100) of the offenders charged with child pornography,

also were charged with a child sex offense.53 A posi-

tive correlation between crimes committed against

children and child pornography has been reported by

state-based Internet Crimes Against Children task

forces in Pennsylvania and Texas.54 Overall, research-

ers, the government, the judiciary,55 and Congress

recognize the nexus between child pornography and

sexual offenses committed against children.56

Studies on child sex offenders have shown that

child pornography is a strong diagnostic indicator of

pedophilia.57 The consumption of child and virtual

child pornography does not prevent pedophiles from

future offending. Instead, viewing child pornography

(actual and virtual) is considered to be a progressive

addiction that serves as a gateway to child sexual

abuse. Specifically, passive viewing of child pornogra-

phy often becomes insufficient for the perpetrator as

he or she becomes desensitized to it.58 The perpetra-

tor escalates to the next level by masturbating to the

image (i.e., actively sexually self-stimulating), seek-

ing out more extreme versions of child pornography,

and/or by acting out impulses (e.g., sexually abusing

a child) in order to receive the same (original) level

of stimulation and gratification.59 Sullivan and Beech

suggest that while not all child sex offenders who mas-

turbate to child pornography sexually abuse children,

this activity increases their risk of doing so because

of the pairing of their fantasy (i.e., sexual abuse of a

child) with masturbation and subsequent orgasm (i.e.,

reward for this act), which ultimately conditions and

reinforces their behavior.60 For these reasons, the use

of even virtual child pornography increases the risk of

harm to real children.61 As the court held in Turner

Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC, “[a] fundamental

principle of legislation is that Congress is under no

obligation to wait until the entire harm occurs but

may act to prevent it.”62

Similar arguments can be made for the use of

child sex dolls and robots. Recent arrests and convic-

tions of pedophiles in the United Kingdom for import-

ing child sex dolls revealed that the perpetrators also

possessed scores of child pornography in digital format

in their homes.63 These cases of intercepted child

sex dolls evidence the offenders’ desensitization and

overwhelming desire that escalated them from being

viewers of child pornography (an illicit act in and

of itself) to being engagers of sex acts with child sex

dolls. Accordingly, in these cases, child pornography

did “whet the appetite of the perpetrators” as their

“thoughts” (fantasies about sex acts with children)

became “behaviors” (through buying and importing

the child sex doll to perform sex acts with it).

The thrill to the pedophiles of physical recipients

of their lustful desires, the child sex dolls in these

cases, is consistent with recent evidence showing

that the effect of a robot was considered to be “more

persuasive and engaging when physically present

than onscreen.”64 Moreover, the offenders’ pairing

of “thought” (fantasy about sex act with child)

with “inappropriate action” (sex act with child doll

or robot) creates “muscle memory,” whereby their

body will remember the act and stimuli associated

with it. With each repetition, the pedophile’s needs

increase, as does his desires for more extreme versions

to achieve the same level of gratification. In sum-

mary, this evidence supports the notion that virtual

child pornography in the form of child sex dolls and

robots does incite lust in pedophiles and propels them

towards future offenses with real children.

CAN CHILD SEX DOLLS AND ROBOTS BE

CONSIDERED OBSCENE MATERIAL?

This question is best addressed by examining

what are considered obscene materials to deter-

mine whether child sex dolls and robots fit in

this category. To be obscene, the object must be

“patently offensive representations or descriptions

of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual

or simulated,”65 which erodes moral standards and

“has a tendency to injure the community as a whole,

to endanger … public safety, or to jeopardize … the

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

state’s right to maintain a decent society.”66 For these

reasons, the court in Roth v. United States67 concluded

that “obscenity is not within the area of constitu-

tionally protected speech” and undeserving of First

Amendment protection.68

Three countries—United Kingdom, Australia,

and New Zealand—already have determined that

child sex dolls are obscene and by way of extension,

child sex robots also would be considered obscene

in these countries.69 Another Western country—

Canada—is in the process of evaluating them70 and

the United States should follow suit. Originally, the

test to determine obscenity applied in Roth v. United

States was: “[w]hether to the average person, applying

contemporary community standards, the dominant

theme of the material as a whole, appeals to the

prurient interest.”71 To appeal to a prurient interest,

the “material [must] hav[e] a tendency to excite lust-

ful thoughts.”72 However, the obscenity test used in

Roth was subsequently replaced by the Miller test. The

plurality of the court in Miller v. California73 estab-

lished three criteria to determine whether material

is obscene. According to Miller, the material must:74

(1) appeal to prurient interest; (2) be considered

patently offensive according community standards; and

(3) lack scientific, literary, artistic or political value.75

Thus, in order for child sex dolls and robots to be

considered obscene in the United States, these objects

must satisfy the three conditions of the Miller test.

The first condition to satisfy is, do they appeal to

prurient interest? To address this question, two psycho-

logical theories that form the basis of clinical therapy

with pedophiles will explain how child sex dolls and

robots would “excite lustful thoughts.” Both theories

address bi-directional causal links between thoughts

and actions. An information processing model76

describes the cognitive processes involved when

pedophiles engage in sexual activities with child sex

dolls and robots. Child sexual abuse and/or exploita-

tion schema (i.e., internal representations of how to

use a child for one’s own gratification) are formed

from various sources,77 including media exposure

to child or virtual child pornography and personal

or others’ experiences of sexual abuse/exploitation

of a child. Schemas are modified with subsequent

exposure and experiences,78 creating a complex con-

ceptual framework of how to select, seduce (groom),

and sexually abuse/exploit children, and, likely, how

to avoid detection. Thus, when the pedophile is

in the presence of a child, whether a real one or a

close approximation (i.e., child sex doll or robot),

the schema will be activated and, through a process

known as spreading activation, all related thoughts

and behaviors also will be triggered.79 Specifically, a

single thought (e.g., this girl-doll is attractive) sparks

other, semantically (categorically) similar thoughts

in a domino-like process (e.g., I want to undress

her, I want to touch her, etc.), and when primed

with a specific related concept (e.g., sexy, arousing),

this process happens rapidly. Research with non-

pedophile college aged adults demonstrated the

strength of ‘barely legal models’ exposure had on

response latencies: they responded most rapidly for

the pairing of an underage female model photograph

with the word “arousing,” “sexy,” and “erotic.”80

Pedophiles would predictably have intricate schemas

for offending and a cognitive association network that

could be easily primed, allowing them to ruminate on

other ideas involving harm to children.81

Social learning theory82 can also explain how pru-

rient interests would form and be maintained through

the use of child sex dolls and robots. In Ashcroft, the

government’s warnings that virtual child pornography

would lead to future sexual abuse or exploitation of

minors was rejected by the court. However, psycholo-

gists applying the four tenets of this theory to explain

pedophilia thoughts and actions would support the

government’s position. Consistent with the first

tenet, pedophiles learn sexual abuse and exploitation

of children through watching and exchanging child

porn; real and virtual social interactions with other

pedophiles who have, share, and promote the same

or similar values, attitudes, and beliefs; and from

performing these acts on children (sometimes for the

purpose of producing child pornography), and theo-

retically now on child sex dolls and robots.

The second tenet of social learning theory would

involve pedophiles’ use of their support systems to

help them neutralize the shame and minimize nega-

tive emotions that mainstream society associates with

child sexual abuse and exploitation.83 Case in point,

it was a pedophile, Shin Takagi, who developed and

encouraged other pedophiles to use his child sex

dolls.84 Pedophiles are able to engage purposefully in

sexually deviant behaviors through cognitive distor-

tions that allow them to “deny, justify, minimize, and

rationalize … [their] actions.”85 Even when the victim

is crying and bleeding from the sexual assault, the

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

pedophile is oblivious to the child’s pain and does not

experience the normally associated negative feelings

of shame, guilt, and anxiety.86 That is, the pedophile

is in denial of the emotional and physical damage

suffered by the victim87 and interpret the child’s

behaviors as initiating sexual contact or expressing

pleasure from it.88 These cognitive distortions provide

rationalizations, reduce the pedophile’s guilt associ-

ated with the desire and assault, and minimalize the

fear of being caught, allowing the cycle of abuse to

continue.89

In accordance with the third tenet of social learn-

ing theory, pedophiles receive two types of rewards

that increase the performance of abuse and exploita-

tion of children.90 One is praise from other pedophiles

when they share pictures/films and/or describe their

sexual abuse and exploitation of children, therein

contributing to the “normalizing” of these actions and

thoughts.91 Another is from the physical arousal and

pleasure obtained from watching and performing the

sexual acts on children. For example, child sex dolls

and robots that have recordings of pleasure sounds,

when combined with the pedophile’s orgasm through

sexual activity with them will positively reinforce the

message that children enjoy sexual activities with

adults. Child sex dolls are (and child sex robots will

be, if not already) created in such a way that perpetra-

tors will believe that the sex doll (or robot) is a real

child.

The ultimate goal of manufacturers is to make

the sex dolls and robots look and feel as realistic as

possible (this is what the creators of adult sex dolls

and robots have claimed; e.g., creator of Samantha).

Child sex dolls and robots have realistic, soft skin,

inviting the pedophile to touch, caress, hold, and

otherwise provide pleasant tactile experiences for

them. Therein lays the problem. “Human beings

have strong intrinsic tendencies towards building

basic communicative functions and attachment rela-

tionships through touch.”92 It is through touch that

people “organize and direct … social experience” and

these tactile interactions provide people with “com-

plex, relational feelings of intimacy.”93 Hence, con-

trary to the notion that the use of child sex dolls and

robots will have a decreasing effect on pedophilic

impulses, desires, and urges, these anthropomorphic

objects will provide pedophiles with ways to engage

in complex sex acts that in and of themselves will

be reinforcing. “The primacy of bodily interaction,

with many channels of tactile or proprioceptive

feedback the robot may give and receive”94 would

make it extremely desirable and highly addictive for

pedophiles.

Recent research has shown the implications of

touch between humans and robots, indicating that

“even basic forms of touching, whether by or of a

robot, may arouse a person.”95 In a recently presented

study, 10 adults equipped with sensors were asked to

point or touch 13 accessible (e.g., hands, head) or

non-accessible (e.g., genitals, buttocks) body parts

on a 23-inch, artificially looking, NAO robot. These

non-offending adults were aroused and hesitated lon-

ger in response to the request to touch ‘intimate’ parts

of the robot as compared to non-intimate parts.96

It could be deduced that the arousal of pedophiles

touching or otherwise interacting sexually with child

sex robots would be the same or greater.

Even more alarming is when child sex dolls and

robots have a ‘voice,’ whether pre-recorded or record-

able, or in the case of AIs, programmed, to ‘stroke the

ego’ of the user. Like their adult counterparts, they

would provide positive reinforcement by telling the

user how much they enjoy any and all acts performed

on them, including violence and forced sex with one

or multiple adults. For the pedophile who already is

convinced that the child enjoys sexual contact,97 the

doll or robot is confirming this belief through verbal

statements, such as “I like it when you touch me

there.” However, even the use of child sex dolls and

robots without recordings can be harmful as children

are not physically or cognitively able to resist sexual

advances by adults. The child sex dolls and robots

do not provide distress cues, a firm “no,” or attempts

to escape, all of which could be interpreted by pedo-

philes as consent.98

Psychiatrists are concerned that pedophiles, who

have several social, cognitive, and emotional deficits

(i.e., inability to recognize distress or to empathize

with victims),99 would not be able to discern sexual

contact as part of the fantasy with child sex dolls and

robots from the reality with actual children.100 This

is because it is the act itself, not the ‘object,’ that

reinforces the fantasy for the pedophile. Moreover,

the positive reinforcement of programmed child sex

dolls and robots to have an ‘orgasm’ (as adult ones are

now capable of doing) may solidify for the pedophile

their current misconception that children like and

desire sexual relations.101 Therefore, child sex dolls

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

and robots’ ability to incite lustful thoughts combined

with the pedophiles’ cognitive distortions helps them

to maintain illicit desires through reward as part of

fantasy engagement and sexual release.

There is no question that both the passivity of

the silent realistic looking child sex doll and robot

and the active acceptance of the assault by the

recorded or programmable ones indicating pleasure

increase lust in the pedophile. Specifically, the ‘silent’

child sex doll or robot fails to provide the needed

socio-emotional and cognitive feedback that would

break the impoverished empathy/cognitive distor-

tion cycle of the pedophile and inhibit its use.102 The

positive vocalizations (and physical reactions, such

as orgasm) of the child sex doll or robot confirms for

the pedophile that his act of rape is enjoyable for the

“child” and encourages future abuse. Hence, both of

these types of child sex dolls and robots serve the pur-

pose of appealing to prurient interests. This is particu-

larly problematic given that real child orifices cannot

accommodate the adult male genitalia the way the

child sex dolls/robots do, ultimately leading to chok-

ing, broken teeth, and tears in the throat; bleeding

and tears in perianal region, vagina, and anus; and

damage to internal organs (when the vagina and anus

fails to accommodate the adult penis).103

The fourth and final tenet of social learning

theory indicates that pedophiles learn their abusive/

exploitive thoughts and behaviors through imitation

of modeled behaviors of the adult abusers in child

and virtual child pornography. The frequency of these

behaviors will be modulated by the pedophile’s per-

ception of past and future (anticipated) rewards given

to the pedophilic model in the child/virtual child

pornography photos and film (i.e., through vicarious

reinforcement, such as pleasure from the child abuse/

exploitation).104 Moreover, pedophiles who watch

virtual child models display arousal and pleasure

derived from their sexual activities with adults will

be further encouraged to emulate the abuse/exploita-

tion. In this way, these false reactions feed into the

pedophile’s current misperceptions of their own child

victim’s emotional responses to his/her abuse/exploi-

tation; thus, cognitive distortions allow pedophiles to

perceive even real child models as exhibiting pleasure

regardless of the emotion actually portrayed (i.e., fear,

distress). Additional support for pedophile’s disinhibi-

tion to child sexual abuse and exploitation is evident

in research examining men’s reactions to violent

pornography (e.g., woman aroused and enjoying

being raped), which demonstrated exposure encour-

aged them to emulate these behaviors.105 Repeated

exposure to depicted violent sexual activity also pro-

duced profound effects in which viewer’s perceived

distress towards the actresses was reduced, as was their

judgments of harm to women from intimate partner

violence.106 In these ways, child and virtual child por-

nography provides incentives through observation to

imitate the portrayed child abuse/exploitative behav-

iors. By extension, imitation of abuse/exploitation of

children will be endorsed through the use of child sex

dolls and robots.

The second condition to satisfy is, are they consid-

ered patently offensive according to community standards?

Patently offensive describes materials that are clearly

or evidently offensive to the public who views them.

For example, child pornography, such as sexually

explicit material with actual minors or sexual inter-

action between adults and minors, was determined

by a group of college students (35 men, 125 women)

to be neither socially acceptable nor legitimate.107

Additionally, research shows that society would per-

ceive sex with a child sex doll or robot to be sex

rather than masturbation. According to a study of 198

adults’ beliefs about sex robots, although 71 percent

agreed that “no law prevents sex with a robot,” only

22 percent agreed that “minors could legally have sex

with robots” and only 30 percent agreed that “sex

with a sex robot is not really sex and does not count as

sex.”108 Similarly, although 62 percent of these adults

agreed that “one cannot rape a sex robot,” only 42

percent agreed “any action (e.g., hitting) is allowed

with a sex robot.” These results indicate that society

does not believe sex robots were simply objects, oth-

erwise they would not be opposing actions that could

potentially result in physical damage.109

In the last few years, dolls resembling children

have been created to the extent that some are almost

indistinguishable from real ones. For example, the

reborn doll is so realistic a police officer in Keene,

New Hampshire, broke the window of a vehicle after

he saw what appeared to him to be an infant in a

locked car.110 As noted earlier in this article, child

sex dolls and robots are similarly realistic and empiri-

cal research supports the notion that society would

likely believe that these “lifelike dolls, unlike vibra-

tors, are simulated humans” and “all of the stimuli

are telling you it’s human.”111 In two related studies

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

(Study 1: N = 57 men, 43 women, M age = 33.25,

Range 20-61 years; Study 2: N = 114 men, 84 women,

M age = 34.24, Range 18-63 years), adults were asked

to indicate the appropriateness of various interactions

with sex robots.112 Men had more lenient beliefs about

the appropriate use of sex robots than did women

for many of the suggestions (e.g., for sex offenders; for

group sex such as mixed human-robot group sex; for

pornographic movies; to engage in unusual sex prac-

tice such as rough sex or sadistic behavior). However,

when asked about “appropriate physical forms for sex

robots … child forms are opposed strongly by both.”113

The idea that child sex dolls and robots would be

used for adults’ sexual gratification is a difficult iso-

morphism to suppress. Therefore, the fact that they

look like human children, combined with the primary

purpose of their orifices being to accommodate an

adult penis, are what makes child sex dolls and robots

patently offensive.

The third condition to satisfy is, do they lack

scientific, literary, artistic or political value? There is no

scientific value in child sex dolls and robots. Naïve

theories have been proposed that pedophiles’ use of

child sex dolls and robots may substitute for their

desire to attack real children. Similarly, the chair of a

Welsh charity, the Specialist Treatment Organization

for the Prevention of Sexual Offending (StopSO),

which focuses on the prevention of sexual offending

through therapy, stated to the media that child sex

dolls could be used in a controlled environment to

deter pedophiles from offending against children in

real life.114 However, there is no evidence to support

“therapeutic” use of child sex dolls and robots as a

means for decreasing pedophiles’ desire to use real

children to satisfy their own sexual desires. Instead,

the psychiatric community is concerned that pedo-

philes’ use of child sex dolls and robots will contribute

to their interpreting sex with children as acceptable–

rather than as child sexual abuse and/or child sexual

exploitation. Jon Brown, who is the head of develop-

ment at the National Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), stated “There is no

evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called

child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from

committing contact offences against real children.”115

The argument that giving perpetrators of child

sexual abuse access to child sex dolls and robots as

a way for them to express their impulses and desires

and prevent them from doing this with real children

is fundamentally flawed. The use of these child sex

dolls and robots in treatment of rapists and sexual

abusers would normalize sexual assault and abuse.

According to Dr. Tucker, “it would be dangerous for

a pedophile to use a young-looking doll” because

it would “rehearse offending behavior … reinforcing

his fantasies with orgasm.”116 Moreover, it would be

impossible to conduct scientific research to determine

the use of child sex dolls and robots as part of therapy

with pedophiles. This is because patients will be able

to purchase (or produce on a 3D printer) and use

them at home, invalidating the data from their use

in therapy.

The use of realistic child sex dolls and robots in

treatment is anathema to cognitive-behavioral ther-

apy which seeks to remove undesirable thoughts and

behavior (i.e., sexual contact with children for one’s

own gratification). For example, therapists would

attempt to desensitize patients from having pleasure

responses associated with thoughts and behaviors of

harming children. Clinicians also would reinforce

societal beliefs that desire for and sex with children

is wrong and harmful. In contrast, encouraging pedo-

philes to have sexual activity with realistic looking

child sex dolls and robots would increase their inap-

propriate thoughts and behaviors towards children

and reconfirm their beliefs that child sexual abuse and

exploitation is ‘normal’ and acceptable. Therapists, in

contrast, work towards dispelling the cognitive distor-

tions pedophiles use to justify their behavior, which

downplays the seriousness of their conduct and acts

to minimize the impact of their behavior.117

The reality is most treatment for pedophilic

disorder is court-ordered and as such has extremely

low success.118 The majority of pedophiles are never

caught and rarely go into treatment voluntarily, so

they offend repeatedly. Even when arrested and con-

victed, their reoffending rates of “10–50 percent” are

likely under representing those who are still offend-

ing.119 That is, pedophiles are able to keep offending

and have no need to change their abuse because it is

still satisfying for them. Instead, they have increased

their ability to avoid being caught, most likely by

using nonverbal victims as evidenced by the increase

in sexual abuse of infants and toddlers.120

Accordingly, the view that creating an anthropo-

morphic child sex doll and robot to enable offenders

to act on their impulses to rape and abuse children as

therapeutic is nonsensical and irrational. Child sex

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

dolls and robots normalize sexual assault, violence,

and domination, they do not supplant it or inhibit it.

These robots and dolls are made in the images

of children, thus dehumanizing them by reducing

them to objects. Pedophiles already dehumanize

their child victims as a means of rationalizing their

abuse and exploitation.121 Dehumanization enables

individuals to view others as undeserving of moral

and ethical considerations and it prevents individuals

from empathizing with those it views as subhuman

or unhuman.122 Child sex dolls and robots are the

utmost embodiment of the reduction of children to

a sexual object for the gratification and pleasure of

their owner/user.

A similar line of argument comes from feminist

critique of pornography; in general, it is the “eroti-

cization of inequality.”123 Men and women can (and

should) be equal in consenting sexual activity. In

contrast, “child pornography, actual or virtual, cannot

depict children as equal partners in sexual activity

with adults, nor can it establish a relation of equality

between the adult viewer and the viewed child.”124 In

fact, science supports the notion of children’s cogni-

tive, social, and physical immaturity that makes them

unequal to adults and the need for society to protect

them against harm.125 Hence, even virtual child

pornography, which contains the “sexualization” of

the adult-child relationship is harmful,126 because

“sexualizing children for adult viewers is necessarily

sexualizing inequality.”127 It “depicts an adult’s exploi-

tation of his power over the child” and “the child is

incapable of consenting to the activity depicted.”128

But even worse is the use of realistic child sex dolls

and robots because they extend the adult-child sexual

relationship by making it feel less like fantasy and

more like reality.

Empirical research also would negate the benefits

of pedophiles’ use of child sex dolls and robots to pre-

vent future offending. First, exposure to pornography

increases the watchers’ desire to have sex.129 That is,

the visual and auditory stimulation of adults engag-

ing in sexual activity does not decrease or satisfy the

watchers’ sexual interest. Additionally, exposure to

violent pornography increases the watchers’ desire

to engage in violent sexual activities as they inter-

pret the actress’ reactions in the film as enjoying the

violent actions.130 Studies on sex offenders further

reveal that pornography predisposes, legitimizes, and

normalizes men to abuse, develops and reinforces

faulty belief systems of abuse and victims of abuse,

and reduces inhibitions about committing abuse.131

Second, the thrill of novelty decreases over time

with repeated engagement. A biological explanation

for this phenomenon is that watching pornography

decreases dopamine in the synapses, which requires

higher levels in order to provide the same response.

Pedophiles who watched child pornography indicated

that they needed more severe material with each

viewing.132 Similarly, the assault, rape, and sexual

abuse of the child sex doll or robot will no longer

be satisfying. This is known as the Coolidge effect133

and refers to a phenomenon in mammals, particularly

males, such that arousal and desire for intimacy with

the same partner declines over time. However, inter-

est is renewed when a new partner is introduced.134

In other words, the use of a particular child sex doll

or robot will eventually not be able to satisfy the

pedophile’s perverse sexual desires. They will need to

change dolls or robots to keep up their fantasy and

satisfaction, but the cost of the dolls (e.g., $5000-

50,000) is prohibitive.135 Therefore, when given the

option of using a child sex doll/robot or real child,

pedophiles will choose the latter as the child does not

require purchase and, being new, becomes the optimal

solution to their boredom with the child sex doll

and/or robot.

In contrast to the court’s conclusion in Ashcroft,

the psychology field would conclude that pedophile’s

use of child and virtual child pornography and child

sex dolls and robots appeal to prurient interest, are

patently offensive, and lack scientific value. The pedo-

philes continue to desire and require more child and

virtual child pornography and any approximations,

such as child sex dolls and robots. The court indi-

cated: “If virtual images were identical to illegal child

pornography, the illegal images would be driven from

the market by the indistinguishable substitutes. Few

pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real

children if fictional, computerized images would suf-

fice.”136 This notion, that the nonreal child formats

(whether virtual child or dolls/robots) do not sate the

pedophiles’ desires, endorse the need for legislation to

limit all avenues that promote abuse and exploitation

of children.

A barrier to the use of the Miller test for pros-

ecutions for visual depictions of sexual explicit

activities of minors deemed obscene is that it does

not criminalize mere possession of these depictions

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

just the distribution, transfer, and receipt of it. The

reason why possession was not criminally prohibited

was not the result of the Miller test, but the ruling

in Stanley v. Georgia, which declared that the pos-

session of obscene material in the home cannot

be prohibited.137 In justifying the prohibition in

criminalizing possession of obscene material in the

home, the court argued “privacy of one’s own home”

outweighed government interest in “protecting the

individual’s mind from the effects of obscenity.”138

Mere possession of obscene materials was, thus, not

proscribed—with the exception of child pornography

(that involves real children).139 The possession, as

well as the receipt, distribution and production, of

obscene virtual representations of children engaging

in sexually explicit conduct is prohibited under the

PROTECT Act of 2003. The question that follows is:

Are child sex dolls and robots similarly proscribed

under this Act?

CAN CHILD SEX DOLLS AND ROBOTS

BE CONSIDERED OBSCENE VIRTUAL

REPRESENTATIONS OF CHILDREN

ENGAGING IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT

CONDUCT UNDER THE PROTECT ACT?

The Congressional response to the decision in

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was the drafting

and passage of the PROTECT Act of 2003. This

Act amended the definition of “child pornography”

in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8) to include “a digital image,

computer image, or computer-generated image that

is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engag-

ing in sexually explicit conduct.”140 The requirement

that the prosecution show that an actual child was

used in the production of virtual child pornography

was relaxed by the court after the passage of the

PROTECT Act of 2003.141

The PROTECT Act also created a new obscen-

ity offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, the obscene

virtual representations of children engaging in sexu-

ally explicit conduct. Particularly, Section 504 of the

Act amends 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) by criminalizing

the pandering (i.e., production, distribution, receipt,

or possession with intent of distribution) of obscene

visual depictions of children engaging in sexually

explicit conduct. Particularly, this section of the Act

is violated by

any person who … knowingly produces, dis-

tributes, receives, or possesses with intent

to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind,

including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or

painting, that—(1)(A) depicts a minor engag-

ing in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is

obscene; or (2)(A) depicts an image that

is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging

in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic

abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-

genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal,

whether between persons of the same or oppo-

site sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic,

political, or scientific value; or attempts or

conspires to do so.142

This section includes a scienter requirement (i.e., a

person knowingly engages in the illicit act) and crimi-

nalizes the pandering of any form of visual depiction

of a minor engaging in sexually explicit activities

considered obscene under the Miller test, as well as

the pandering of any form of visual depiction “that

is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in” sexually

explicit activity that does not meet the Miller test.

Section 504 of the Act also amends 18 U.S.C.

§ 1466A(b) by criminalizing the possession of obscene

visual depictions of children engaging in sexually

explicit conduct. Specifically, this section of the Act

is violated by

Any person who … knowingly possesses a

visual depiction of any kind, including a draw-

ing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexu-

ally explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to

be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality,

sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual inter-

course, including genital-genital, oral-genital,

anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between

persons of the same or opposite sex; and

(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or

scientific value; or attempts or conspires to

do so.143

This section also includes a scienter requirement

and criminalizes the possession of any form of visual

depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit

activity considered obscene under the Miller test, as

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

well as the knowing possession of any form of visual

depiction “that is, or appears to be, of a minor engag-

ing in” sexually explicit activity that does not meet

the Miller test.

In United States v. Whorley,144 the defendant was

charged and convicted pursuant to the PROTECT

Act for knowingly receiving and possessing obscene

materials—cartoons, particularly Japanese anima-

tion (i.e., anime), which depicted minors engaging in

sexually explicit conduct. In United States v. Kutzner,

the defendant, Steven Kutzner, was charged with the

possession of hundreds of images of virtual child

pornography—depicting child cartoon characters,

some of which were the children of the popular US

television cartoon series “the Simpsons” (namely,

the children of the Simpson family, Lisa, Bart, and

Maggie).145 He pled guilty to possession of obscene

materials and received 15 months’ imprisonment.146

In McFadden v. Alabama, the court ruled that

collages and montages that included nude images

of children alongside adult genitals were obscene.147

Likewise, in Hotaling v. United States,148 the court held

that the mere possession of morphed pornographic

images of minors was proscribed, even when no real

children engaged in the sexual activities depicted in

the image. In this case, images were created whereby

the heads of children were digitally transposed onto

images of women’s bodies engaging in sexual activi-

ties. Given the court’s position on morphing, the cre-

ation of child sex dolls in the image of children based

on a child’s photograph would be prohibited by law.

The technology to create a sex doll based on a pho-

tograph of a person has been available since 1902.149

Currently, buyers are able to send pictures (i.e., actual

images of adults and children) to the manufacturer

and request that an adult sex doll be created in the

image, as well as a child sex doll in the image and

stature of a child.150 With respect to the latter, Shin

Takagi’s company, Trottla, is capable of creating such

custom-made child sex dolls.151

The courts in United States v. Ryan152 and United

States v. Mees153 upheld the constitutionality of the

sections of U.S.C. § 1466A that criminalized the

possession of obscene materials that did not involve

real children. Courts have varied, however, in their

interpretation of the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1466A(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2). In United

States v. Handley,154 customs officials intercepted a

package that contained obscene materials, including

Japanese comics (i.e., manga), which depicted minors

engaging in sexually explicit activities among other

obscene drawings and cartoons (e.g., some depicted

bestiality). The court in Handley held that visual

depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit

activity could be proscribed only if they are obscene

and involve real minors.155 The Handley court noted

that these conditions are not included in 18 U.S.C.

§ 1466A(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2) and as

such, these subsections were viewed as unconstitu-

tional. While the Handley court ruled these sections

of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A were overbroad, a later court

refused to enforce this ruling. Specifically, in United

States v. Dean,156 the court upheld the defendant’s

conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2)

and did not find this subsection of the law over-

broad. Given the divergence of the opinions of the

courts regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1466A(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2), there

is a glaring lacuna in existing legislation and case law

that could be used to prosecute those who pander and

possess child sex dolls and robots. Consequently, it is

unclear whether the pandering and possession of child

sex dolls and robots, apart from those created from the

images of real children, would be prohibited by US law.

The United States is by no means unique; the

same gap in law exists in the United Kingdom. In

fact, the possession of child sex dolls, and, by way

of extension, child sex robots, are not considered

illegal according to UK law. The perpetrators of

recent cases involving child sex dolls in the United

Kingdom have been charged with the importation

of obscene materials. In the United Kingdom, the

importation of indecent or obscene articles are pro-

hibited by the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876.

Since March 2016, at least 123 child sex dolls being

sent from China and Hong Kong have been seized

by UK Border Force agents.157 One of these sex dolls

belonged to Andrew Dobson, who was arrested and

received two years and eight months imprisonment

for importing “an indecent or obscene article,” a

child sex doll resembling a four-year-old girl, from

Hong Kong.158 Another child sex doll belonged to

Dean Hall, who was sentenced to a 12-month sus-

pended prison sentence, required to register as a sex

offender for 10 years, and given a 10-year sexual harm

prevention order, along with community service and

mandatory rehabilitation.159 Andrew Larkins also

attempted to import a child sex doll; for his crime,

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

he was sentenced to a 24-month suspended prison

sentence, given a 10-year sexual harm prevention

order, and was required to register as a sex offender for

10 years.160 Likewise, Simon Glerum was found guilty

of importing a “an indecent or obscene article”161 and

received a suspended 12-month prison sentence and

a five-year sexual harm prevention order, and was

required to complete 20 days in rehabilitation and

complete a sex offender treatment program.162

In all of the above-mentioned cases, the child

sex dolls were intercepted by authorities before they

arrived to the homes of those who purchased them.

At least when the child sex doll or robot arrives

through the mail, the government could be alerted to

the potential danger, especially if delivered to a regis-

tered sex offender. However, if the child sex dolls fail

to be intercepted by authorities, criminals may evade

prosecution for the possession of these dolls given the

absence of existing legislation that can explicitly pro-

scribe these items and the lack of clarity on whether

existing laws could be used to criminalize these items.

What is more, once this technology can be produced

at home (with, e.g., a 3D printer, which is already

capable of making sex toys), the government will

have lost most of its ability to protect children. An

argument that could be made is that the child sex

dolls and robots had to be purchased for a perpetra-

tor to have them in his or her possession. However,

this only encourages perpetrators to seek alternative

avenues of creating these child sex dolls and child

sex robots themselves to avoid criminal sanction.

Criminals are well-known for adapting to criminal

justice measures and modifying their behaviors to

enable them to avoid these measures.163 Alarmingly,

the development of such child robots through 3D

printers is currently underway. Nanotechnology engi-

neer and adult sex robot creator (known for his devel-

opment of the sex robot “Samantha”), Sergi Santos,

has indicated that he intends to breed with the sex

robot to create a baby using a 3D printer to allow its

birth.164

WHY SHOULD THE EXISTENCE

CHILD SEX DOLLS AND ROBOTS

MATTER?

Child sex dolls and robots are the embodi-

ment of the uncanny valley—the negative emotional

response (e.g., revulsion and uneasiness) experienced

by individuals when they encounter an entity that is

close to human but not human.165 However, the mere

existence and look of child sex dolls and robots, is

not the only thing that makes166 (and should make)

humans wary of them, it is their potential use and its

implications for society.

Society needs to be concerned when single/

divorced child sex doll and robot owners abandon

attempts to have social relationships with human

partners. Psychoanalytic self-psychology indicates

that people use dolls as self-objects to feed their

narcissistic experiences.167 Adult sex dolls and robots

are advertised as providing sexual and non-sexual

companionship168 and meeting the needs of lonely

individuals (primarily men) to meet their unfilled

sexual needs and desires. While these sex dolls and

robots are promoted as a “cure” for loneliness, they

result in the opposite; these objects further isolate

humans by removing them from contact with other

human beings. The reality is that the creation of ana-

tomically correct life-like dolls and robots serve one

purpose—to be sex objects for their owners. If com-

panions were sought to teach individuals about social

relationships, then non-anatomically correct dolls

and robots would suffice and could be utilized—not

dolls and robots with orifices that are designed to fit

adult male penises. Companionship involves a two-

way relationship, which does not exist with dolls and

robots. These objects merely provide a one-way rela-

tionship and are designed purely to satisfy the owner’s

needs. One-sided relations distort reality when faced

with humans who could never meet the standards set

by these owners for a potential partner (who is always

young, beautiful, never talks back or says negative

things, etc.). Owners also will habituate to sexual acts

on child dolls and robots, deluding them into believ-

ing it is the norm. Therefore, sex dolls and robots

have the potential of altering individuals’ views and

perceptions of relationships, ultimately, having them

interact with humans as they would with the dolls

and robots.

Child sex dolls and robots actively promote and

silently endorse the notion that children are owned,

objects, and have no legal rights for independence,

thereby making them particularly ideal for sexual

abuse by pedophiles, contradicting society’s obliga-

tion to protect them.169 These objects reinforce views

that children are compliant, obedient, ever-available

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

and submissive when it comes to sex, and if they

are not, they should be. Sex robot enthusiasts have

publicly expressed the desire for such a robot (albeit

adult versions).170 Sex dolls and robots can be totally

controlled by their owner; thus, the voice the doll

or robot has is the voice given by the person who

controls it. For example, some sex doll owners have

created social media accounts for their sex dolls, such

as Twitter, and post about what their dolls would

purportedly say.171 The owner of the robot creates

the robot’s personality. Beyond the initial settings

of the robot based on the owner’s preferences, the

robot will learn about the preferences, wants, desires,

and needs of its owner and cater to him. This is the

way current adult sex robots are marketed. A case

in point is Harmony: “Harmony smiles, blinks and

frowns. She can hold a conversation, tell jokes and

quote Shakespeare. She’ll remember your birthday, …

what you like to eat, and the names of your brothers

and sisters. She can hold a conversation about music,

movies and books. And of course, Harmony will have

sex with you whenever you want.”172

Further support that amendments to laws are

needed to prevent the creation, importation, pos-

session, and use of child sex dolls and robots is

based on psychological research on people’s rela-

tionships with dolls and robots (i.e., relational arti-

facts). People attempt to have a relationship with

relational artifacts beginning with virtual creatures/

toys (AIBOs, Furbies, My Real Babies, Tamagotchis,

etc.) in 1997.173 Research shows that “relational

artifacts provoke strong feelings’ ” in both children

and adults.174 Individuals consider them to be ‘alive’

and have an emotional attachment that encourages

companionship. Children with various virtual toys

(different from transitional toys, like teddies, which

have a static role as opposed to the latter that have

an active role shaping children’s emotional connec-

tion) and the elderly in nursing homes bonded with

robot baby dolls.175 Adult owners of AIBO pet robot

dogs or handlers of IED-defusing robot dogs not only

anthropomorphized them, but also developed intense

(one-sided) ‘relationships’ with them.176

Unlike animal sexuality, the goal of which is

purely reproductive, human sexuality predominantly

occurs for “pleasure and bonding.”177 Many men who

own multiple sex dolls and robots have a preference for

one over the rest and have married her.178 Although

some sex doll and robot owners are single, many are

married to real women. A Spanish company, Synthea

Amatus, sells a sex robot that has a ‘sex’ and ‘family’

mode. Married men with families have incorporated

them into their family unit, allowing the sex robot to

engage sexually with the couple in the bedroom and

to sit on the couch to talk with their children. Arran

Squire, the co-creator of Samantha, brings the robot

home and has it interact with his children, who, at

the time of his disclosure of these interactions, were

3-years-old and 5-years-old.179 By including adult or

child sex dolls and robots into family interactions,

children will be at risk for sexual exploitation and

abuse. The fact that the parents are accepting of the

robot may signal to the child that the behaviors that

the robot is communicating and/or engaging in are

acceptable as well. The sex doll or robot can discuss

sexual interactions with the child and expose them

to sexual activities. In this manner, children may

learn sexualized behavior from the sex doll or robot.

In essence, the sex doll or robot can ‘teach’ the child

how to please an adult and socialize the child through

interactions and discussions explaining that sexual

acts with adults are normal behavior (i.e., groom

them).

Robots can learn human behavior and adopt

norms, values, and beliefs introduced to them and

learned by them. Programmable child sex dolls

and child AI robots do not mimic the thoughts and

actions of children. They learn through observa-

tion and mimicking the behaviors of the owner and

learn the owner’s concept of desirable behavior (i.e.,

adult-child sexual activity), which is not necessarily

consistent with societal beliefs (i.e., sexual abuse and

exploitation of children is wrong). This informa-

tion can then be communicated to real children, if

they reside in the home where the child sex doll or

robot is and/or if they are brought by the pedophile

to interact with the doll or robot. Accordingly, five

different types of harm could result from children’s

exposure to and interactions with child sex dolls

and robots: (1) harm from showing age inappropri-

ate sexually-related objects/images (sex toys/people

engaging in sex, adult/child or child/child sex);

(2) harm from sexual exploitation; (3) harm from

exposure to sexually-related activities (seeing guard-

ians’ or parents’ sexual interactions with the sex doll

or robot); (4) harm from ‘teaching’ age inappropriate

behaviors (i.e., grooming them to engage in sex acts

and learning sexualized behavior from them through

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

modeling); and (5) harm from teaching children

beliefs that are not held by mainstream society (cor-

rupting them).

The mere existence and use of child sex dolls

and robots in themselves are dangerous for a number

of reasons. First, they give false belief to society that

‘real’ children will be safe from pedophiles. Second,

they prevent pedophiles from the responsibility of

trying to control their urges or even to prevent them-

selves from engaging in their harmful thoughts and

actions (e.g., rape of children). In fact, they encour-

age pedophiles through rewards and pleasure from

their use to continue pedophilic practices and to seek

confirmation of such practices from other pedophiles.

It also solidifies their child abuse/exploitation sche-

mas and related concepts. Third, they fail to provide

pedophiles with accurate emotional feedback from

aggressive actions, particularly ones that would result

in emotional and physical damage if performed on a

real child. Fourth, they facilitate pedophiles’ progres-

sion from mere desires and thoughts to combining

desires, thoughts, and actions. The assumption that

the child sex doll or robot will suffice as the receiver of

this combination is unfounded by scientific research

and knowledge. Fifth, they normalize the thoughts

and behaviors towards children considered by society

to be undesirable and dangerous, including that chil-

dren are objects to be used for sexual gratification.

In the absence of therapy, perverted sexual impulses

will not be explicitly censored and thus will continue

and evolve. Sixth, they make enticing models for the

grooming and training of real children in sexual abuse

and exploitation. Finally, they encourage pedophiles

to abandon emotional connections with humans in

favor of one-side relationships that further exacerbate

their ability to understand how their warped belief

system and actions affect children’s well-being.

The scientific community today has evidence

that would support the original claim of various

harms from virtual child pornography, directly and

indirectly, and we propose by extension, from child

sex dolls and robots. The arguments that child sex

dolls and robots can serve as substitutes/replacements

for using real children, could be implemented as

therapeutic cures to the harming of real children, or

the actions performed by the pedophiles on the child

sex dolls or robots do not in themselves cause harm,

are all flawed. Even if real children are not involved

in the production of child sex dolls and child sex

robots they could be harmed thereafter by users of

these objects. As Jon Brown, the head of develop-

ment at the UK National Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), rightly points out,

“there is a risk that those using these child sex dolls

or realistic props could become desensitized and their

behavior becomes normalized to them, so that they

go on to harm children themselves, as is often the

case with those who view indecent images.”180 If the

declaration made by the court in New York v. Ferber

that “safeguarding the physical and psychological

well-being of a minor”181 and preventing the “sexual

exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a

government objective of surpassing importance,”182

then child sex dolls and robots should be prohibited

outright by law.

NOTES

1. Mary DeYoung, “The good touch/bad touch dilemma,” Child

Welfare, 67:10 (1988), 60-68.

2. Jonathan Montgomery, “Children as property?” Modern Law

Review, 51:3 (1988), 323-342.

3. Brian Starks and Robert Robinson, “Who values the obedient

child now? The religious factor in adult values for children

1986-2002,” Social Forces, 84:1 (2005), 343-359.

4. David Finkelhor, “Early and long-term effects of child sexual

abuse: An update,” Professional Psychology: Research & Practice,

21:5 (1990), 325-330.

5. The term “child sex offender” will not be used because there are

some individuals who are not pedophiles but commit sex offenses

against children for other reasons (e.g., easy to overpower).

6. Harvard University, “Pessimism about Pedophilia,” Harvard

Health Publications, July 2010, https://www.health.harvard.edu/

newsletter_article/pessimism-about-pedophilia.

7. Lauren R. Shapiro and Marie-Helen Maras, Multidisciplinary

investigation of child maltreatment (Burlington, MA: Jones &

Bartlett Learning, 2015).

8. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982); Robin R.

Wilson, “Sex play in virtual worlds,” 66 Washington & Lee Law

Review 1127, 1133–1134 (2009), http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.

edu/wlulr/vol66/iss3/9, accessed 10/22/2017.

9. Carolyn C. Ross, “Overexposed and under-prepared: The effects

of early exposure to sexual content,” Psychology Today, August 13,

2012, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/real-healing/201208/

overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content.

10. Lindsay Schlegel, “These recent trends against objectifying ads

give us hope for media,” Culture, August 25, 2017, https://verilymag.

com/2017/08/britain-regulations-objectifying-ads-france-ban-too-thin-

models-women-not-objects-madonna-badger-news-08282017.

11. Ross, supra n.9.

12. Both France and the United Kingdom have specific guidelines for

ads to prevent ‘sexist and discriminatory ads’ that promote gender

stereotypes, sexually objectify women, or promote an unhealthy

body image. See Women in the World, “Britain to ban all ads that

objectify women or promote gender stereotypes,” New York Times,

July 19, 2017, http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/07/19/

britain-to-ban-all-advertisements-that-objectify-women-or-promote-gender-

stereotypes/.

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

13. Jane Pritchard, “The sex work debate,” International Socialism 125

(January 5, 2010), http://isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/.

14. Robin Fretwell Wilson, “Sex play in virtual worlds,” Washington

and Lee Law Review, 66:3 (2009), 1127-1174.

15. Marie-Helen Maras, Cybercriminology (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2016).

16. Michael J. Hooi, “Substantive due process Sex toys after

Lawrence Williams v. Morgan, 478 F. 3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007),”

Florida Law Review, 60:2 (2008), 507.

17. Sarah Valverde, “The modern sex doll-owner: A descriptive

analysis” (Thesis presented to California State Polytechnic

University at San Luis Obispo, 2012).

18. Veronica Cassidy, “For the love of doll(s): A patriarchal night-

mare of cyborg couplings,” English Studies in Canada, 42:1-2

(2016), 204.

19. Valverde, supra n.17 at 12.

20. Id. at 9.

21. Id. at 10.

22. Beth Timmins, “New Sex Robots With ‘Frigid’ Settings Allow

Men to Simulate Rape” The Independent, July 19, 2017, http://

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sex-robots-frigid-settings-rape-

simulation-men-sexual-assault-a7847296.html.

23. Id.

24. Helen Heath, “Using/abusing fembots,” Overland, 225

(Summer 2016), https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-225/

feature-helen-heath/.

25. Jenny Kleeman, “The race to build the world’s first sex robot,”

The Guardian, April 27, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/

technology/2017/apr/27/race-to-build-world-first-sex-robot.

26. Valverde, supra n.17 at 10.

27. Sophie Gallagher, “The world’s first talking sex robot can

make terrible dinner conversation,” The Huffington Post UK,

April 4, 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/talking-sex-

doll-harmony-20-realdoll_uk_58e357d7e4b0d0b7e16424b9; Sophie

Gallagher, “This robotic sex doll isn’t just looking for a one

night stand, she wants to meet your parents,” The Huffington

Post UK, March 22, 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/

entry/silicon-samantha-robotic-sex-doll-artificial-intelligence_uk_

58d10070e4b00705db524e04.

28. Koen Berghuis, “Brothel buys second doll because first one called

‘Fanny’ is more popular than its actual working girls,” The Mirror,

August 21, 2017, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brothel-

buys-second-sex-doll-11026656; Harvey Day, “First sex doll-only

brothel opens in Germany following success of Austrian outlet as

bizarre trend breeds across Europe,” DailyMail, October 18, 2017,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4993528/First-sex-doll-

brothel-opens-Germany.html.

29. Roc Morin, “Can Child Dolls Keep Pedophiles

from Offending?” The Atlantic, January 11, 2016,

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/

can-child-dolls-keep-pedophiles-from-offending/423324/.

30. Id.

31. The larger models’ battery drains quickly because of the size of

the dolls and robots.

32. Tanya Sweeney, “Sex robots: even better than the real thing?”

The Irish Times, October 29, 2017, https://www.irishtimes.com/

life-and-style/people/sex-robots-even-better-than-the-real-thing-

1.3065661.

33. Meghan Laslocky, “Just like a woman,” Salon, October 11, 2005,

https://www.salon.com/2005/10/11/real_dolls/.

34. Matthias Scheutz, “The Inherent Dangers of Unidirectional

Emotional Bonds Between Humans and Social Robots,” In

P. Lin, K. Abney, and G. Bekey (Eds.), Robot Ethics: The Ethical

and Social Implications of Robotics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

2012), 205.

35. David Moye, “Sex robot molested at electronics festival, creators

say,” The Huffington Post, September 29, 2017, https://www.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-sex-robot-molested_us_

59cec9f9e4b06791bb10a268.

36. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252.

37. 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.

38. Maras, supra n.15.

39. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110-111 (1990).

40. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 761 (1982).

41. Id.

42. Department of Justice, “Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law

on Child Pornography,” https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/

citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography.

43. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

44. Id. at 250.

45. Section 2256(8)(B) of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of

1996.

46. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 234.

47. Id., citing Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969).

48. David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod, Child pornography:

Patterns from the NIBRS (Washington, D.C.: US Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, 2004).

49. Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor, and Ray Blanchard, “Child

pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedo-

philia,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115:3 (2006), 610-615.

50. Carissa Byrne Hessick, “Disentangling Child Pornography from

Child Sex Abuse,” Washington University Law Review, 88:4

(2011), 875.

51. Neil Malamuth and Mark Huppin, “Drawing the Line on

Virtual Child Pornography: Bringing the Law in Line with the

Research Evidence,” NYU Review of Law & Social Change 31:4

(2007), 794; Ron Langevin and Suzanne Curnoe, “The Use

of Pornography During the Commission of Sexual Offense,”

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology 48:5 (2004), 572.

52. United States Senate, Hearing before the Committee on the

Judiciary, “Stopping Child Pornography: Protecting our Children

and the Constitution: Before the Senate Comm. On the

Judiciary,” 107th Congress, Second session (statement of Ernie

Allen, Director, The National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children, October 2, 2002); Seto, Cantor, and Blanchard, supra

n.49 at 605.

53. Seto, Cantor, and Blanchard, supra n.49 at 605.

54. Supra n.52.

55. Note: Not all courts agree on this matter.

56. Drew A. Kingston, Paul Fedoroff, Philip Firestone, Susan Curry,

and John M. Bradford, “Pornography Use and Sexual Aggression:

The Impact of Frequency and Type of Pornography Use on

Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders,” Aggressive Behavior

34:4 (2008), 341-351; “Enhancing Child protection laws After

the April 16, 2002 Supreme Court Decisions, Ashcroft v. Free

Speech Coalition,” Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Crime,

Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Homeland Security

Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Congress, 2002; United

States v. Lebovitz, 401 F. 3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir. 2005),

Megan Westenberg, “Establishing the Nexus: The Definitive

Relationship between Child Molestation and Possession of Child

Pornography as the Sole Basis for Probable Cause,” University of

Cincinnati Law Review 18:1 (2012), 347-352.

57. Seto, Cantor, and Blanchard, supra n.49 at 610-615.

58. Bernadette H. Schell, Patrick C.K. Hung, Miguel Vargas Martin,

and Luis Rueda. “Cyber child pornography: A review paper of the

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

social and legal issues and remedies—a proposed technological

solution,” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12:1 (2007), 45-63.

59. Id.; Ann Wolbert Burgess, Cheryl Regehr, and Albert R. Roberts,

Victimology: theories and applications (Burlington, MA: Jones and

Bartlett, 2010), 374; Maras, supra n.15.

60. Joe Sullivan and Anthony R. Beech, “Assessing Internet sex

offenders,” In Martin C. Calder (Ed.), Child sexual abuse and the

Internet: tackling the new frontier (Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House,

2004), pp. 69-83.

61. Suzanne Ost, ‘‘Children at risk: legal and society perceptions of

the potential threat the possession of child pornography poses to

society’’ Journal of Law and Society 29:3 (2002), 436–460.

62. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 212 (1997).

63. BBC News, “Andrew Dobson jailed for ‘child-like’ sex doll

import bid,” June 23, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-

stoke-staffordshire-40383627; Colin Adwent, “Bury St Edmunds

man spared jail over child sex doll and 35,000 indecent images

of children,” East Anglian Times, July 22, 2017, http://www.

eadt.co.uk/news/bury-st-edmunds-man-spared-jail-over-child-sex-

doll-and-35-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5117046; Norfolk

Constabulary, “Norwich man sentenced for importing obscene

doll,” August 25, 2017, https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-

news/norwich-man-sentenced-importing-obscene-doll; Lizzie Deadren,

“Man sentenced for importing childlike sex doll from Hong Kong,”

The Independent, September 29, 2017, http://www.independent.

co.uk/news/uk/crime/simon-glerum-child-sex-doll-guilty-sentence-jail-

latest-court-trial-essex-hong-kong-indecent-obscene-a7973876.html.

html; BBC News, “Childlike sex doll man given suspended prison

term,” September 29, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-

essex-41444602; National Crime Agency, “Ex-school governor

and church warden guilty in landmark child sex doll ruling,” July

31, 2017, http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/1163-ex-

school-governor-and-church-warden-guilty-in-landmark-child-sex-doll-

ruling; Reuters Staff, “Briton convicted of importing child sex

doll in landmark case,” Reuters, July 31, 2017, https://www.reuters.

com/article/us-britain-crime-doll/briton-convicted-of-importing-child-

sex-doll-in-landmark-case-idUSKBN1AG1JS; BBC News, “child

sex doll an obscene item, judge rules,” July 31, 2017, http://www.

bbc.com/news/uk-40776622; BBC News, “Ex-school governor who

imported child sex doll is jailed,” September 8, 2017, http://www.

bbc.com/news/uk-41203239; Crown Prosecution Service, “Prison

sentence for child sex doll importation,” September 8, 2017,

http://www.cps.gov.uk/southeast/cps_southeast_news/prison-sentence-

for-child-sex-doll-/; Francesca Gillett, “Paedophile who bought

life-size child sex doll on internet spared jail,” Evening Standard,

September 1, 2017, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/paedophile-

who-bought-lifesize-child-sex-doll-on-internet-spared-jail-a3625356.html.

html; BBC News, “Brian Hopkins, smuggler of child sex doll,

given suspended sentence,” September 1, 2017, http://www.bbc.

com/news/uk-england-devon-41130328.

64. Jamy Li, “The benefit of being physically present: A survey of

experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent

robots and virtual agents,” International Journal of Human-

Computer Studies, 77:C (2015), 23–37.

65. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 25 (1973).

66. Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 69 (1973).

67. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

68. The First Amendment holds: “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Other

forms of unprotected speech include: intellectual property—

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S.

539 (1985); fighting words—Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315

U.S. 568 (1942); false statement of facts—Gertz v. Welch, 418

U.S. 323 (1974); true threats—Watts v. United States, 394 U.S.

705 (1969); incitement to violence—Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395

U.S. 444 (1969); and obscene speech—Roth v. United States,

354 U. S. 476 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

69. Morin, supra n.29; Press Association, “Man who tried to import

childlike sex doll to UK is jailed,” The Guardian, June 23, 2017,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/man-import-

childlike-sex-doll-uk-jailed; CDPP, Australia’s Federal Prosecution

Service, “Man in possession of child sex doll sentenced to

imprisonment,” August 19, 2016, https://www.cdpp.gov.au/

news/man-possession-child-sex-doll-sentenced-imprisonment; Carla

Penman, “Customs seize sex dolls with child-like faces,” New

Zealand Herald, July 7, 2017, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/

article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11887417.

70. Rachael Revesz, “Canadian court to determine whether child sex

doll constitutes child pornography,” The Independent, February 13,

2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-

court-child-sex-doll-pornography-paedophilia-newfoundland-kenneth-

harrison-a7578321.html.

71. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 489 (1957).

72. Id. at 487 n.20.

73. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

74. Id. at 24-25.

75. Miller, 413 U.S. 15 .

76. L. Rowell Huesmann, “The role of social information processing

and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habit-

ual aggressive behavior,” In Russell Geen and Edward Donnerstein

(Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for

social policy (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998), 73-109.

77. Shapiro and Maras, supra n.7 at 48-49.

78. Id.

79. Bryant Paul and Daniel Linz, “The effects of exposure to virtual

child pornography on viewer cognitions and attitudes toward

deviant sexual behavior,” Communication Research, 35:1 (2008),

3-38.

80. Id.

81. L. J. Shrum, “Media consumption and effects of social reality:

Effects and underlying processes,” In Jennings Bryant & Dolf

Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research

(2nd ed.) (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002), 69-95.

82. Ronald Akers, Social Learning and Social Structure: A General

Theory of Crime and Deviance (Boston, MA: Northeastern

University Press, 1998).

83. Thomas J. Holt, Kristie R. Blevins, and Natasha Burkert,

“Considering the pedophile subculture online,” Sexual Abuse:

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22:1 (2010), 3-24.

84. Morin, supra n.29.

85. Shapiro and Maras, supra n.7 at 107.

86. Id.

87. Id.

88. Id.

89. Id. at 106-107.

90. Burrhus Frederic Skinner, Science and human behavior (New York:

Free Press, 1953); Burrhus Frederic Skinner, Beyond freedom and

dignity (New York: Knopf, 1971); Ronald L. Akers, “Rational

Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology:

The Path Not Taken,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,

81:3 (1990), 653-676.

91. A. Charles Catania (ed.), Contemporary research in operant behav-

ior (Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company, 1968); Howard

Rachlin, Introduction to modern behaviorism (San Francisco, CA:

Freeman, 1970); and William H. Redd, Albert L. Porterfield, and

Barbara L. Anderson, Behavior modification (New York: Random

House, 1979).

JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW December 2017

92. Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz, “The tactile ethics of

soft robotics: Designing wisely for human-robot interaction.”

Soft Robotics, 4:2 (2017), 81-87.

93. Id.

94. Thomas Arnold and Mattias Scheutz, “Beyond moral dilemmas:

Exploring the ethical landscape in HRI” (HRI, Vienna, Austria.

March 6-10, 2017).

95. Matthias Scheutz, “The Inherent Dangers of Unidirectional

Emotional Bonds Between Humans and Social Robots,” In P. Lin,

K. Abney, and G. Bekey (Eds.), Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social

Implications of Robotics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012), 205.

96. Jamy Li, Wendy Ju, and Byron Reeves, “Touching a mechanical

body: Tactile contact with intimate parts of a humanoid robot

is physiologically arousing,” The 66th Annual International

Communication Association in 2016, Conference.

97. Shapiro and Maras, supra n.7 at 107.

98. Id. at 104-105, 108

99. Id. at 106-108

100. Id. at 107.

101. Id.

102. Id.

103. Id. at 183-193.

104. Albert Bandura, Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986).

105. Paul and Linz, supra n.79.

106. Daniel Linz, Edward Donnerstein and Steven Adams,

“Physiological desensitization and judgements about female vic-

tims of violence,” Human Communication Research 15:4 (1989),

509-522.

107. Paul and Linz, supra n.79.

108. Mattias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold, “Intimacy, bonding, and

sex robots: Examining empirical results and exploring ethical

ramifications” (Unpublished manuscript, 2017), https://hrilab.

tufts.edu/publications/scheutz2017intimacy.pdf.

109. Id.

110. Emily Chen, “Police break into car to rescue an ‘abandoned

baby’ … which turns out to be an ultra-realistic doll,” August 17,

2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3745066/Lifelike-

doll-hot-car-prompts-police-smash-window.html.

111. Laslocky, supra n.33.

112. Mattias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold, “Are we ready for sex

robots?” Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE Conference on

Human-Robot interaction, 2016; Scheutz and Arnold, supra n.108.

113. Id.

114. Rachael Revesz, “Paedophiles ‘could be prescribed child sex

dolls’ to prevent real attacks, says therapist,” The Independent,

August 2, 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-

news/paedophiles-child-sex-dolls-prescription-stop-attacks-child-

protection-stopso-therapists-a7872911.html; James McCarthy,

“Welsh charity criticized after suggesting child sex dolls

should be made available on prescription.” WalesOnline,

August 2, 2017, http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/

welsh-charity-criticised-after-calling-13422072.

115. National Crime Agency, “Ex-school governor and church

warden guilty in landmark child sex doll ruling,” July 31,

2017, http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/1163-ex-

school-governor-and-church-warden-guilty-in-landmark-child-

sex-doll-ruling.

116. Laslocky, supra n.33.

117. Shadd Maruna, and Ruth E. Mann, “A fundamental attribution

error? Rethinking cognitive distortions,” Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 11:2 (2006), 155; Gene G. Abel, David K. Gore,

C. L. Holland, Nancy Camp, Judith V. Becker, and Jerry Rathner,

“The measurement of the cognitive distortions of child molesters,”

Annals of Sex Research, 2:2 (1989), 135–153; Shapiro and Maras,

supra n.7; Dennis Howitt and Kerry Sheldon, “The role of cogni-

tive distortions in paedophilic offending: Internet and contact

offenders compared,” Psychology, Crime and Law, 13:5 (2007)

469-486.

118. Roger Przybylski, “Effectiveness of treatment for adult sex

offenders,” In Office of Justice Programs, Sex offender

management assessment and planning initiative, July 2015,

https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch7_treatment.html;

R. Karl Hanson, Guy Bourgon, Lesley Helmus, and Shannon

Hodgson, A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment for

Sex Offenders: Risk, Need, and Responsivity (Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada: Public Safety Canada, 2009), 195-197.

119. Harvard University, supra n.6.

120. Shapiro and Maras, supra n.7 at 183-193.

121. Robert Lee Pierce, “Child Pornography: A Hidden Dimension

of Child Abuse,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 8:4 (1984), 483-493;

Heather Wood, “Internet pornography and paedophilia,”

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 27:4 (2013), 319-338.

122. Albert Bandura, “Selective Moral Disengagement in the

Exercise of Moral Agency,” Journal of Moral Education, 31:2

(2002), 108-109; Maras, supra n.15.

123. Neil Levy, “Virtual child pornography: The erotization of

inequality,” Ethics and Information Technology, 4:4 (2002),

319-323.

124. Id.

125. Hanna Roos, “Trading the sexual child: Child pornography and

the commodification of children in society,” Texas Journal of

Women and Law, 23:2 (2014), 131-156.

126. Id. at 145.

127. Levy, supra n.123.

128. Roos, supra n.125 at 146.

129. Mary Eberstadt and Mary Anne Layden, The social costs

of pornography: A statement of findings and recommendations

(Princeton, New Jersey: Witherspoon Institute, Inc., 2010);

Chung Sun, Ana Bridges, Jennifer A. Johnson, and Matthew B.

Ezzell, “Pornography and the male sexual script: An analysis of

consumption and sexual relations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior,

45:4 (2016), 983-994.

130. Daniel Linz, Edward Donnerstein and Steven Adams, supra

n.106.

131. W.L. Marshall, “Pornography and sex offenders,” In Dolf

Zillman and Jennings Bryant (Eds.), Pornography: Research

Advances and policy considerations (Hillsdale, NJ, England:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1989), 185-214. Daniel

Lee Carter, Robert Alan Prentky, Raymond A. Knight, Penny

L. Vanderveer, and Richard J. Boucher, “Use of Pornography

in the Criminal and Developmental Histories of Sexual

Offenders,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2:2 (June 1987),

196-211.

132. Jenny A.B.M. Houtepen, Jelle J. Sijtsema, and Stefan

Bogaerts, “From child pornography to child sexual abuse: A

review of child pornography offender characteristics and risks

for cross-over.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19:5 (2014),

466-473.

133. Glenn D. Wilson, The great sex divide: A study of male-female

differences (Washington DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1992).

134. Id. at 41-45.

135. Rhian Morgan, “Looking for robot love? Here are 5 sexbots you

can buy right now,” Metro, September 13, 2017, http://metro.

co.uk/2017/09/13/looking-for-robot-love-here-are-5-sexbots-you-

can-buy-right-now-6891378/.

December 2017 JOURNAL OF INTERNET LAW

136. Ashcroft, 122 S. Ct. 1389, 1404.

137. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969).

138. Id. at 565.

139. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).

140. Section 502 of the Protect Act of 2003.

141. See United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and

United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F. 3d 434 (1st Cir.

2007).

142. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a).

143. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b).

144. United States v. Whorley, 550 F.3d 326, 331 (4th Cir., 2008).

145. US District Court for the District of Idaho, United States v.

Steven Kutzner, Case No. CR-10-0252-S-EJL, https://reason.

com/assets/db/12955634459236.pdf.

146. Id.

147. McFadden v. Alabama, 27 So. Ed 637 (2008); McFadden v.

Alabama, 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 162 (Ala. Crim. App.,

Sept. 24, 2010).

148. Hotaling v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 2d 306, 2008 U.S. Dist.

Lexis 98373 (N.D.N.Y., 2008); Hotaling v. United States, 2011

U.S. LEXIS 8924 (U.S., Dec. 12, 2011).

149. Henry N. Cary, Erotic contrivances: appliances attached to, or used

in place of, the sexual organs (Chicago, IL: Privately printed,

1922), as cited in Valverde, supra n.17.

150. Erico Guizzo, “Hiroschi Ishiguro: The Man Who

Made a Copy of Himself,” IEEE Spectrum, April 23,

2010, https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/humanoids/

hiroshi-ishiguro-the-man-who-made-a-copy-of-himself.

151. Morin, supra n.29.

152. United States v. Ryan, Case No. 2:07-CR-35 (D. Vt. May 26,

2009).

153. United States v. Mees, No. 4:09CR00145 ERW, 2009 WL

1657420 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2009).

154. United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996, 999 (S.D. Iowa,

2008).

155. Id.

156. United States v. Dean, 635 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2011).

157. Lizzie Deadren, “Man sentenced for importing childlike sex doll

from Hong Kong,” The Independent, September 29, 2017, http://

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/simon-glerum-child-sex-

doll-guilty-sentence-jail-latest-court-trial-essex-hong-kong-indecent-

obscene-a7973876.html.

158. BBC News, “Andrew Dobson jailed for ‘child-like sex

doll import bid,” June 23, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/

uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-40383627.

159. Colin Adwent, “Bury St Edmunds man spared jail over child

sex doll and 35,000 indecent images of children,” East Anglian

Times, July 22, 2017, http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/bury-st-

edmunds-man-spared-jail-over-child-sex-doll-and-35-000-indecent-

images-of-children-1-5117046.

160. Norfolk Constabulary, “Norwich man sentenced for importing

obscene doll,” August 25, 2017, https://www.norfolk.police.uk/

news/latest-news/norwich-man-sentenced-importing-obscene-doll.

161. Lizzie Deadren, “Man sentenced for importing childlike sex doll

from Hong Kong,” The Independent, September 29, 2017, http://

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/simon-glerum-child-sex-

doll-guilty-sentence-jail-latest-court-trial-essex-hong-kong-indecent-

obscene-a7973876.html.

162. BBC News, “Childlike sex doll man given suspended prison

term,” September 29, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/

uk-england-essex-41444602.

163. Gary T. Marx, “A tack in the shoe: Neutralizing and resist-

ing the new surveillance,” Journal of Social Issues 59:2 (2003),

369-390.

164. Lisa Guiterrez, “Sex robot creator wants to have a baby with

his machine and says it would be ‘simple,’ ” October 24, 2017,

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article180608336.

html.

165. Masahiro Mori, “The uncanny valley,” Energy 7:4 (1970),

33-35.

166. Research cited earlier in this article reflects this as both men

and women voiced their opposition to humans having sex with

child sex robots. Arnold and Scheutz, supra n.92.

167. Sherry Turkle, “Authenticity in the age of digital companions,”

In Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Karl F. MacDorman (eds.), Interaction

Studies: Social behavior and communication in biological and arti-

ficial systems, 8:3 (2007), 501-517. Special issue: Psychological

benchmarks of human-robot interaction. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

168. Kleeman, supra n.25.

169. Jonathan Montgomery, “Children as property?” Modern Law

Review 51:3 (1988), 323-342.

170. Dough Hines, “My Sex Robot” documentary (SBS online).

171. Emma Gritt, “Troll Dolls: Sex dolls have started making

TWITTER ACCOUNTS for their treasured rubber girl-

friends … and you won’t believe what they get up to,” The Sun,

August 10, 2017, https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/4211673/sex-

doll-owners-have-started-making-twitter-accounts-for-their-treasured-

rubber-girlfriends-and-you-wont-believe-what-they-get-up-to/.

172. Kleeman, supra n.25.

173. Sherry Turkle, “Whither psychoanalysis in the computer cul-

ture?” Psychoanalytic Psychology 21:1 (2004) 16-30.

174. Sherry Turkle, Cynthia Breazeal, Olivia Daste, and Brian

Scassellati, “First encounters with Kismet and Cog: Children’s

relationship with humanoid robots,” in Paul Messaris and Lee

Humphreys (Eds.), Digital media: Transfer in human communi-

cation (NY: Peter Lang, 2006); Sherry Turkle, Will Taggart,

Cory D. Kidd, and Olivia Daste, “Relational artifacts with

children and elders: The complexities of cybercompanionship,”

Connection Science, 18:4 (2006), 347-361.

175. Turkle, supra n.173.

176. Mattius Scheutz, “The inherent dangers of unidirectional

emotional bonds between humans and social robots. Anthology

on robo-ethics,” 2011, https://hrilab.tufts.edu/publications/scheutz-

11roboethics.pdf.

177. Gregory Lehne, “Phenomenology of paraphilia: Lovemap

Theory,” in Fabian M. Saleh, Albert J. Grudzinskas, John

M. Bradford, and Daniel J. Brodsky (eds.), Sex offenders:

Identification, risk assessment, treatment, and legal issues

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 14.

178. Julie Beck, “Married to a doll: Why one man advo-

cates synthetic love,” The Atlantic, September 6, 2013,

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/

married-to-a-doll-why-one-man-advocates-synthetic-love/279361/.

179. This Morning with Phillip and Holly TV show, September 12,

2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqokkXoa7uE.

180. National Crime Agency, “Ex-school governor and church

warden guilty in landmark child sex doll ruling,” July 31, 2017,

http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/1163-ex-school-governor-

and-church-warden-guilty-in-landmark-child-sex-doll-ruling.

181. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982), citing Globe

Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U. S. 596, 457 U. S. 607

(1982).

182. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.

CopyrightofJournalofInternetLawisthepropertyofAspenPublishersInc.anditscontent

maynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyright

holder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesfor

individualuse.

Exploring the implications of child sex dolls

Book

Mar 2019

The importation of child sex dolls into Australia has created increasing concerns. However, the implications of these products, and especially their link with child contact sexual offending, remain unclear. From a review of the literature, a number of possible negative impacts are suggested. Although currently unproven, it is possible that use of child sex dolls may lead to escalation in child sex offences, from viewing online child exploitation material to contact sexual offending. It may also desensitise the user from the potential harm that child sexual assault causes, given that such dolls give no emotional feedback. The sale of child sex dolls potentially results in the risk of children being objectified as sexual beings and of child sex becoming a commodity. Finally, there is a risk that child-like dolls could be used to groom children for sex, in the same way that adult sex dolls have already been used. There is no evidence that child sex dolls have a therapeutic benefit in preventing child sexual abuse.

Ethical Boundaries in AI-Generated Imagery: Analysis of Controversial Content Constraints

Chapter

Jul 2024

Sessualità, algoritmi e genderizzazione degli agenti artificiali: il caso dei sex robot

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2024

A methodological reckoning for the empirical study of sex doll and sex robot issues

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Kenneth Hanson

In light of repeated calls for empirically driven analyses of sex doll and sex robot owners and users, I outline key methodological challenges researchers in this field currently face. I discuss how methodological limitations have shaped the field thus far and narrowed the scope of empirical research to date. To resolve these issues, I propose strategies for improving archival, quantitative, and qualitative approaches for future scholarship. Specifically, I attend to issues of historicity, nomenclature, population, sampling, qualitative approaches, and research ethics. I conclude with a discussion of how the stigma associated with sex dolls, sex robots, and sex tech amplifies the need for researchers to respect and adhere to ethical research practices yet still maintain a critical distance that directly confronts, rather than skirts, dilemmas related to use, ownership, and production. This methodological reckoning will help scholars design more robust studies and effectively evaluate innovations in the field.

Child Sexual Abuse Material, Progression to Contact Offending and the Evolution of Technology

Chapter

Apr 2025

Alex Paradise

Online child protection is an important topic in modern policing and security and one of great significance to the public. This chapter discusses child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and the ongoing academic debate relating to its consequences, complexities and conflicting research findings. CSAM is discussed in the context of policing activity where it can be known as indecent images of children (IIOC), and the challenge of countering such material. One of the most significant ongoing discussions relates to the interrelationship between CSAM consumption and escalation to other forms of child abuse. Historically developments in technology have significantly changed how CSAM is generated and distributed. We now sit at a time of great development where artificial intelligence and haptic technology, among others, can be used in a child abuse context. The chapter considers how this may impact escalation and knowledge gaps in this area. The emergence of new technologies blurs the lines between established types of offending, in ways the criminal justice system will need to navigate to maintain public trust and confidence.

Sexual Offending with Child-Like Sex Dolls in Australia: An Analysis of Court Cases

Article

Apr 2025
DEVIANT BEHAV

Online Harms in the Metaverse

Chapter

May 2024

The Metaverse is expected to be the next iteration of the Internet while at the same time going well beyond the Internet as experienced currently. And just as the Internet has led to societal change, so too the Metaverse will challenge many present conceptions. This chapter considers one aspect of this, namely online harms. The Metaverse will raise issues that are likely to test existing laws and regulations that seek to manage serious antisocial conduct.

Hybrid Societies - Living with Social Robots

Book

Full-text available

Feb 2024

Piercosma Bisconti

This book explores how social robots and synthetic social agents will change our social systems and intersubjective relationships. It is obvious that technology influences societies. But how, and under what conditions do these changes occur? This book provides a theoretical foundation of the social implications of artificial intelligence and robotics. It starts from philosophy of technology, with a focus on social robotics, to systematically explore the concept of socio-technical change. It addresses two main questions: To what extent will social robots modify our social systems? And how will human relationality be affected by human-robot interactions? The book employs resources from continental philosophy, Actor-Network theory, psychoanalysis, systemic theory, and constructivist cognitive theory to develop a theory of socio-technical change. It also offers a novel perspective on how we should evaluate the effectiveness of social robots, which has significant implications for how social robotics should be researched and designed.

Sex robots and virtual reality sex: advantages and challenges

Article

Sep 2023
INT J IMPOT RES

Shulamit Sperber

İNSAN-YAPAY ZEKÂ İLİŞKİSİNİN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ: AKILLI HAZ MAKİNELERİ

Thesis

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Şahsenem Müşerref Öz

Tarihsel yaşam biçimlerimizi kökünden değiltiren hadiselerle doldurur. Avcı toplayıcı zamanlardan tarım devrimine, tarımdan sanayileşmeye uzanan yolculuklar insan toplumları boyunca, içinde bulundukları kırılmaların her birinden farklı olarak farklı sıcaklıklarda etkilenmişlerdir. Sanayi devrimi; ekonomiye, siyasete, kültüre bölünmeyen büyük bir dönüşüme neden olmuştur. Halihazırda deneyimlemekte olduğumuz Sanayi 4.0 ise bugünün taşınabilir değerlerinin başında gelen yapay zeka ve robotik teknolojilerini beraberinde getiriyor. Böylece insanın makineyle değişimi farklı bir şekilde değiştirilmiştir. Bu tezin konusu ise insanların ile olan iletişiminde sosyal genişlemeleri açısından tam anlamıyla makine işlemlerinin taşan yapay zekalı seks robotlarıdır. Zira amansızca bu yeni teknolojilerin sonuçları bir muammadır. Üretici firmalar, bilim insanları ve robotlarla geçişe geçişe aday olan herkes perspektifleri aynı olmasa da seks robotlarıyla ilgili basit bir ikilemde ihtilafa düşmektedir. Kimileri seks robotlarını güçlü bir şekilde savunurken, kimileri de aynı şekilde reddetmektedir. Bu tez çalışması, insan toplumlarının kendi icatları olan yapay zekalı haz makineleriyle aralarında farklılık/gelişecek paketler, sonuçların olumlu ve olumsuz bozulmaları ortaya çıkma, bu genişlemeleri, işlevsel bir bakışla tartışılmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu ortaya çıkan seks robotlarının varlığının durumu iki ayrı ucu temsil eden Kathleen Richardson ve David Levy'nin yayınları başta olmak üzere cinsel kimlik, toplumsal cinsiyet, parafili ve sınıf başlıkları altında yer alabilecek kitap, kitap bölümü, makale, gazete haberi, anket verileri, video gibi çeşitli kaynaklar derlenmiştir.

Are we ready for sex robots?

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Mar 2016

Phenomenology of Paraphilia: Lovemap TheoryLovemap Theory

Chapter

Nov 2020

Gregory K. Lehne

Understanding the psychological experience of individuals who have a paraphilia is critical when it comes to assessing and treating such individuals. The specificity of the sexual content and the intensity of the sexual motivation distinguish the paraphilias. This information is gradually revealed to an individual over the life history, as reflected in mental imagery, fantasies, and rehearsal, as well as behavioral experience including situations of sexual arousal. The content has an influence on the course of the life history, including self-concept and the lifestyle the individual develops. Paraphilias may be ego-dystonic or ego-syntonic. There are patterns of experiences, explanations, rationalizations, and justifications that are commonly found in men with a paraphilia; paraphilias are less common and less studied in women.

Intimacy, Bonding, and Sex Robots: Examining Empirical Results and Exploring Ethical Ramifications

Chapter

Oct 2017

Robots designed for sexual interaction present distinctive ethical challenges to received notions of physical intimacy, pleasure, social relationships, and social space. In this chapter, we build upon our recent survey on attitudes toward sex robots with the results from a second, expanded survey that broaches possible advantages and disadvantages of interacting with such robots, both individually and socially. We show that the first study’s results were replicated with respect to appropriate forms, contexts, and uses for sex robots; in addition, we find a systematic concern with how robots might risk harming human relationships. We conclude that ethical reflection on sex robots must include a wider consider-ation of the impact of social robots as a whole, with finer-grained examination of how intimacy and companionship define human relationships.

Touching a Mechanical Body: Tactile Contact With Body Parts of a Humanoid Robot Is Physiologically Arousing

Article

Dec 2017

The Tactile Ethics of Soft Robotics: Designing Wisely for Human–Robot Interaction

Article

May 2017

Soft robots promise an exciting design trajectory in the field of robotics and human-robot interaction (HRI), promising more adaptive, resilient movement within environments as well as a safer, more sensitive interface for the objects or agents the robot encounters. In particular, tactile HRI is a critical dimension for designers to consider, especially given the onrush of assistive and companion robots into our society. In this article, we propose to surface an important set of ethical challenges for the field of soft robotics to meet. Tactile HRI strongly suggests that soft-bodied robots balance tactile engagement against emotional manipulation, model intimacy on the bonding with a tool not with a person, and deflect users from personally and socially destructive behavior the soft bodies and surfaces could normally entice.

Beyond Moral Dilemmas: Exploring the Ethical Landscape in HRI

Conference Paper

Mar 2017

HRI research has yielded intriguing empirical results connected to ethics and how we act in social contexts with robots, even though much of this work has focused on task-based, one-on-one interaction. In this paper, we point to the need to investigate a wider range of ethically relevant dynamics that interaction with robots carries with it -- individually and in groups, with a single robot or more. We specifically examine three areas: 1) the primacy and implicit dynamics of bodily perception, 2) the competing interests at work in a single robot-human interaction, and 3) the social intricacy of multiple agents -- robots and humans -- communicating and making decisions. While these areas are not exhaustive by any means, we find they yield concrete directions for how HRI can contribute to a widening, intensifying set of ethical debates with critical empirical insight, starting to explore more of the ethical landscape in HRI.

For the Love of Doll(s): A Patriarchal Nightmare of Cyborg Couplings

Article

Jan 2016

Veronica Cassidy

USING/ABUSING FEMBOTS

Article

Jun 2016

Helen Heath

Multidisciplinary investigation of child maltreatment

Book

Apr 2016

Multidisciplinary Investigation of Child Maltreatment is written for professionals in criminal justice, law, social work, psychology, medicine, and human services, as well as for students in undergraduate and graduate courses in these fields. Specifically, it is an ideal primary textbook for child abuse and neglect courses and can be a valuable supplement for investigation and victimology courses. The available textbooks on the market only partially cover the type of information needed for understanding maltreatment in American society and for conducting child abuse investigations. This comprehensive textbook addresses both normative and non-normative development in infants, children, and adolescents, as well as appropriate ways for child protective services and criminal justice professionals to investigate and, when founded, prosecute perpetrators of maltreatment. Through presentation of analogies, examples, court cases, and illustrations, this definitive textbook effectively guides readers using a best practices approach to evaluating alleged neglect and maltreatment cases. Section I Normative Infant, Child, and Adolescent Development Chapter 1 Child Victimology: An Introduction Chapter 2 Physical and Cognitive Development Chapter 3 Emotional and Social Development Section II The Negative Effects of Maltreatment on Development Chapter 4 Signs, Symptoms, and Consequences of Physical and Sexual Abuse Chapter 5 Signs, Symptoms, and Consequences of Psychological Abuse and Neglect Section III Investigation and Substantiation of Child Maltreatment Chapter 6 Investigating Maltreatment Chapter 7 Interviewing Section IV Roles, Responsibilities, and Perspectives of Those Involved in Child Maltreatment Cases Chapter 8 Parental Experiences of Child Protective Services, the Criminal Justice System, and Family Court Chapter 9 Child Protective Services: Processes and Practices Chapter 10 Legal Approach: Law Enforcement, Probation, and Parole Officers Chapter 11 Agents of the Courts: Roles and Perspectives Chapter 12 Advice and Conclusions: Recommendations for Those in the Field

THE MODERN SEX DOLL-OWNER: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Article

Aug 2012

Sarah Hatheway Valverde

Over the last fifteen years, the sex doll industry has grown from producing inexpensive novelty items to creating a multimillion-dollar global industry featuring high- quality, realistic love dolls. These dolls are designed and advertised for sexual stimulation, companionship, artistic representations of human fantasy, and other creative pursuits, such as photography. Made of flesh-like silicone, modern sex dolls sell from

3,500-

10,000. The use of human simulacra for sexual stimulation is an enduring practice. However, the psychological community has said little on the subject. Early sexologists briefly reference Agalmatophilia or Statuphilia, a rare sexual attachment to statues. Today, the sex doll phenomenon appears increasingly prevalent across the globe. Media coverage of this phenomenon has been featured in online magazines, television programs, music, documentaries and major motion pictures. More often than not, sex doll-ownership is portrayed as pathological. Sex doll-owners are members of a marginalized population, and accessing the population is challenging as many members of the community wish to remain anonymous for fear of judgment, persecution, and psychiatric labeling. The purpose of this study was to increase psychology’s understanding of this interesting and growing population. Specifically, a 45-item online survey addressing demographics was constructed and assessed. Additionally, participants were asked to describe their relationship status, doll-ownership status, and satisfaction with human and sex doll partners, including sexual satisfaction and performance. Quality of life was also assessed via the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Sixty-one participants were recruited from an online doll-owner community forum. It was hypothesized that most doll-owners sampled would be middle-aged, White, single, heterosexual males who are neither significantly better nor worse in terms of psycho-sexual functioning and life satisfaction than the general population. Descriptive data and statistical analysis partially supported the hypotheses. Implications and future direction are discussed, as are methodological considerations.

Child Sex Dolls and Robots: More Than Just an Uncanny Valley

Abstract

Recommended publications

Adaptive and learning control. Proceedings of the winter annual meeting of the American Society of M...

The Varied Dimensions of Law, Policy, and Treatment of Convicted Sex OffendersA Review and Synthesis...

Recording of diabetes on death certificates. Has it improved?

Myres Smith McDougal (1906-1998)