skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Of Dolls and Men: Anticipating Sexual Intimacy with Robots

Published:07 May 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Sex and intimate technologies are important in people’s everyday lives. A class of technologies that is becoming increasingly more prominent in discussions of the future are sex robots. In this article, we present a qualitative analysis of posts from a forum where people describe their interactions with sex dolls and their motivations for using them through text and photographs. Forum users use dolls as a content authoring interface, imbue them with agency, and construct meaningful sexual relationships with them. Implications for the design of future robots and autonomous agents in humans’ everyday lives are discussed. We highlight that sex dolls are used for more than just sex; they provide fertile ground for embodied fictions and care of the self. Future, customizable technologies for sexual intimacy and wellness should account for this use.

References

  1. Martha Alexander and AFP. 2017. The Japanese Men Who Choose Sex Dolls for Rubber Romance. Retrieved July 2, 2017 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/∼/article-4653208/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Peter Alilunas. 2018. Far away, so close: Technology, spectatorship, and the pasts and futures of pornography studies. Porn Studies (2018), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tamara Alsheikh, Jennifer A. Rode, and Siân E. Lindley. 2011. (Whose) value-sensitive design: A study of long-distance relationships in an arabic cultural context. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’11). ACM, New York, NY, 75--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Yusuff Jelili Amuda and Ismaila B. Tijani. 2012. Ethical and Legal Implications of Sex Robot: An Islamic Perspective. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2008011. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. Retrieved August 22, 2017 from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2008011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kristina Andersen. 2013. Making magic machines. In Proceedings of the 10th European Academy of Design Conference-Crafting the Future. Retrieved October 17, 2016 from http://www.academia.edu/download/39154759/019_magicmachine.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sarah Aubrey, John Cameron, Sidney Kimmel (Producers), and Craig Gillespie (Director). 2007. Lars and the Real Girl {Motion Picture}. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Beverly Hills, CA. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2011. Pleasure is your birthright: Digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 257--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, Guo Zhang, and Tyler Pace. 2014. The lonely raccoon at the ball: Designing for intimacy, sociability, and selfhood. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 3943--3952. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Shaowen Bardzell. 2008. Enchanted artifacts: Social productivity and identity in virtual material ecologies. Artifact 2, 2 (2008), 123--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM, New York, NY, 1301--1310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2007. Docile avatars: Aesthetics, experience, and sexual interaction in second life. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI...But Not As We Know It - Volume 1 (BCS-HCI’07). British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, 3--12. DOI:http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1531294.1531296 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2016. Technosexuality. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies. American Cancer Society, 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 675--684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Shaowen Bardzell and William Odom. 2008. The experience of embodied space in virtual worlds: An ethnography of a second life community. Space and Culture 11, 3 (2008), 239--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Laura Bates. 2017. Opinion | The trouble with sex robots. The New York Times. Opinion (2017). Retrieved August 12, 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/sex-robots-consent.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Julie Beck. 2013. Married to a doll: Why one man advocates synthetic love. The Atlantic (2013). Retrieved January 6, 2016 from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/married-to-a-doll-why-one-man-advocates-synthetic-love/279361/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Genevieve Bell, Mark Blythe, and Phoebe Sengers. 2005. Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, 2 (2005), 149--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Genevieve Bell and Paul Dourish. 2007. Back to the shed: Gendered visions of technology and domesticity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11, 5 (2007), 373--381. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Raymond Bellour. 1975. Le blocage symbolique. Communications 23, 1 (1975), 235--350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1st ed.). Anchor, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, 2 (2005), 293--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jeremy Birnholtz, Irina Shklovski, Mark Handel, and Eran Toch. 2015. Let’s talk about sex (Apps), CSCW. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing (CSCW’15 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, 283--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mark Blythe, Kristina Andersen, Rachel Clarke, and Peter Wright. 2016. Anti-solutionist strategies: Seriously silly design fiction. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 4968--4978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mark Blythe and Mark Jones. 2004. Human computer (sexual) interactions. Interactions 11, 5 (2004), 75--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Johanna Brewer, Joseph ‘Jofish’ Kaye, Amanda Williams, and Susan Wyche. 2006. Sexual interactions: Why we should talk about sex in HCI. In Proceedings of the CHI’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’06). ACM, New York, NY, 1695--1698. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. E. Broadbent, R. Stafford, and B. MacDonald. 2009. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 4 (2009), 319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Amy Bruckman. 2002. Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology 4, 3 (2002), 217--231. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Judith Butler. 2006. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York, 236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Julie Carpenter. 2013. Just Doesn’t Look Right: Exploring the Impact of Humanoid Robot Integration into Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams. IGI Global Platform, Hershey, PA, 609--636.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kathy Charmaz. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, 223.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. EunJeong Cheon and Norman Makoto Su. 2017. Configuring the user: “Robots have needs too”. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’17). ACM, New York, NY, 191--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Deborah A. Christel and Susan C. Dunn. 2017. Average American women’s clothing size: Comparing national health and nutritional examination surveys (1988--2010) to ASTM international misses 8 women’s plus size clothing. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 10, 2 (2017), 129--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Martin D. Cooney, Shuichi Nishio, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2012. Recognizing affection for a touch-based interaction with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 1420--1427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of Human--robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362, 1480 (2007), 679--704.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. John Dewey. 2005. Art as Experience (Perigee trade pbk. ed ed.). OCLC: 600952451. Perigee, New York, NY, 371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Anna Eaglin and Shaowen Bardzell. 2011. Sex toys and designing for sexual wellness. In Proceedings of the CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’11). ACM, New York, NY, 1837--1842. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Ylva Fernaeus, Maria Håkansson, Mattias Jacobsson, and Sara Ljungblad. 2010. How do you play with a robotic toy animal?: A long-term study of pleo. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’10). ACM, New York, NY, 39--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Michel Foucault and Richard Sennett. 1981. Sexuality and solitude. Humanities in Review 1 (1981), 3--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Cheryl D. Fryar, Qiuping Gu, and Katherine M. Flegal. 2016. Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United states, 2011--2014. Vital Health Stat. National Center for Health Statistics 3, 39 (2016), 1--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosalind Gill. 2008. Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism and Psychology 18, 1 (2008), 35--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 3 (1996), 491--512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Elizabeth Goodman and Janet Vertesi. 2012. Design for X?: Distribution choices and ethical design. In Proceedings of the CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’12). ACM, New York, NY, 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ángel J. Gordo-López and Richard Cleminson. 2004. Techno-Sexual Landscapes: Changing Relations between Technology and Sexuality. OCLC: ocm55086964.Free Association Books, London, 144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. George Gurley. 2015. RealDoll Sex Toys: The Making of Sexbots (NSFW) | Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 6, 2016 from http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/04/sexbots-realdoll-sex-toys.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Oliver L. Haimson, Jed R. Brubaker, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2014. DDFSeeks same: Sexual health-related language in online personal ads for men who have sex with men. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 1615--1624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Lynne Hall. 2016. Sex with robots for love free encounters. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Love and Sex with Robots. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, 128--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Bram Hendriks, Bernt Meerbeek, Stella Boess, Steffen Pauws, and Marieke Sonneveld. 2011. Robot vacuum cleaner personality and behavior. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 2 (2011), 187--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Zachary Henkel, Robin R. Murphy, and Cindy L. Bethel. 2012. Towards a computational method of scaling a robot’s behavior via proxemics. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human--Robot Interaction (HRI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 145--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Kristina Höök, Martin P. Jonsson, Anna Ståhl, and Johanna Mercurio. 2016. Somaesthetic appreciation design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 3131--3142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Marianne W. Jørgensen and Louise J. Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, 244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Robert Jungk and Norbert R Müllert. 1996. Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures. OCLC: 611538477. Institute for Social Inventions, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Gopinaath Kannabiran, Jeffrey Bardzell, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2011. How HCI talks about sexuality: Discursive strategies, blind spots, and opportunities for future research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Gopinaath Kannabiran, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2012. Designing (for) desire: A critical study of technosexuality in HCI. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 655--664. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Joseph ‘Jofish’ Kaye and Liz Goulding. 2004. Intimate objects. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS’04). ACM, New York, NY, 341--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Angeliki Kerasidou and Ruth Horn. 2016. Making space for empathy: Supporting doctors in the emotional labour of clinical care. BMC Medical Ethics 17 (2016), 8. pmid: 26818248Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Amanda Lazar, Hilaire J. Thompson, Anne Marie Piper, and George Demiris. 2016. Rethinking the design of robotic pets for older adults. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’16). ACM, New York, NY, 1034--1046. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Min Kyung Lee, Sara Kiesler, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. Receptionist or information Kiosk: How do people talk with a robot? In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’10). ACM, New York, NY, 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. David N. L Levy. 2007. Love + Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human--Robot Relationships. OCLC: 191866790. HarperCollins e-books, Pymble, NSW; New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Harold I. Lief and Renée C. Fox. 1963. Training for “detached concern” in medical students. In The Psychological Basis of Medical Practice. Harper 8 Row, New York, NY, 12--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George Bekey. 2011. Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence 175, 5 (2011), 942--949. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Joseph Lindley, Dhruv Sharma, and Robert Potts. 2014. Anticipatory ethnography: Design fiction as an input to design ethnography. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings 2014, 1 (2014), 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Sara Ljungblad, Jirina Kotrbova, Mattias Jacobsson, Henriette Cramer, and Karol Niechwiadowicz. 2012. Hospital robot at work: Something alien or an intelligent colleague? In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’12). ACM, New York, NY, 177--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Eric Mack. 2017. Not all sex robots will look human, sexpert Dan Savage says. Retrieved August 22, 2017 from https://www.cnet.com/news/dan-savage-sexbots-future-sex/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Jennifer Mankoff, Jennifer A. Rode, and Haakon Faste. 2013. Looking past yesterday’s tomorrow: Using futures studies methods to extend the research horizon. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13). ACM, New York, NY, 1629--1638. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Maria Marcus. 1981. A Taste for Pain: On Masochism and Female Sexuality. Trans. by Joan Tate. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, 276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2004. Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Taylor Carman. 2013. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. by Donald Landes. (1st ed.). Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, 696.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Christine Milrod and Martin A. Monto. 2012. The hobbyist and the girlfriend experience: Behaviors and preferences of male customers of internet sexual service providers. Deviant Behavior 33, 10 (2012), 792--810.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Zabet Patterson. 1999. Going on-line: Consuming pornography in the digital era. In Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the “Frenzy of the Visible” (Expanded pbk. ed ed.). Linda Williams (Ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley, 104--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 17--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Holly Randell-Moon. 2012. I’m Nobody Feminist Media Studies 12, 2 (2012), 265--280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Realbotix. 2017. For the last 20 years, Realdoll has been creating the world's most realistic silicone dolls. Retrieved August 22, 2017 from https://realbotix.systems/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. K. Richardson. 2016. Sex robot matters: Slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 35, 2 (2016), 46--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Kathleen Richardson. 2016. The asymmetrical ‘relationship’: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. SIGCAS Computers and Society 45, 3 (2016), 290--293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Jennifer Robertson. 2010. Gendering humanoid robots: Robo-sexism in Japan. Body 8 Society 16, 2 (2010), 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (2011), 393--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Gillian Rose. 2001. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Anna C. B. Russell. 2009. Blurring the love lines: The legal implications of intimacy with machines. Computer Law 8 Security Review 25, 5 (2009), 455--463.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Matthias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold. 2016. Are we ready for sex robots? In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human--Robot Interaction (HRI’16). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 351--358. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2906831.2906891 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Rock Schroeter (Director). 2002. Guys and Dolls {Motion Picture}. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445980/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Joel Shannon. 2018. Proposed ‘sex robot brothel’ blocked by Houston government: ‘We are not Sin City’. USA TODAY (2018). Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/03/sex-robot-brothel-blocked-houston-texas/1518298002/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Noel Sharkey, Aimee va Wynsberghe, Scott Robbins, and Eleanor Hancock. 2017. Our Sexual Future With Robots. Foundation for Responsible Robots, The Hague, Netherlands.Retrieved July 5, 2017 from http://responsiblerobotics.org/2017/07/05/frr-report-our-sexual-future-with-robots/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Tobin Anthony Siebers. 2016. Disability Theory. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Devendra Singh. 1993. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 2 (1993), 293--307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Marquard Smith. 2013. The Erotic Doll: A Modern Fetish. Yale University Press, New Haven, 376. Retrieved May 8, 2016 from http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/12409/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Norman Makoto Su, Leslie S. Liu, and Amanda Lazar. 2014. Mundanely miraculous: The robot in healthcare. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 391--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Jessica M. Szczuka and Nicole C. Krämer. 2017. Not only the lonely--How men explicitly and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in comparison to the attractiveness of women, and personal characteristics influencing this evaluation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 1, 1 (2017), 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Leila Takayama and Caroline Pantofaru. 2009. Influences on proxemic behaviors in human--robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’09). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 5495--5502. Retrieved August 7, 2017 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1732643.1732940. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Sarah Valverde. 2012. The Modern Sex Doll-Owner: A Descriptive Analysis. Master’s theses and project reports. Retrieved August 1, 20012 from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/849.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Chad Van De Wiele and Stephanie Tom Tong. 2014. Breaking boundaries: The uses 8 gratifications of Grindr. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’14). ACM, New York, NY, 619--630. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Marynel Vázquez, Aaron Steinfeld, Scott E. Hudson, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2014. Spatial and other social engagement cues in a child-robot interaction: Effects of a sidekick. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human--Robot Interaction (HRI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 391--398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Linda Williams. 1999. Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the “Frenzy of the Visible” (Expanded pbk. ed.). University of California Press, Berkeley, 380.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Matthew Wood, Gavin Wood, and Madeline Balaam. 2017. “They’Re Just Tixel Pits, Man”: Disputing the ‘reality’ of virtual reality pornography through the story completion method. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17). ACM, New York, NY, 5439--5451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Matthew Wood, Gavin Wood, and Madeline Balaam. 2015. Talk about sex: Designing games to facilitate healthy discussions around sex. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY’15). ACM, New York, NY, 795--798. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Peter Wright and John McCarthy. 2008. Empathy and experience in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). ACM, New York, NY, 637--646. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Susan Wyche, Phoebe Sengers, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2006. Historical analysis: Using the past to design the future. In Proceedings of Ubicomp’06. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 35--51. Retrieved December 13, 2007 from Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. Ian Yeoman and Michelle Mars. 2012. Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures 44, 4 (2012), 365--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  98. Iris Marion Young. 1980. Throwing like a girl: A phenomenology of feminine body comportment motility and spatiality. Human Studies 3, 1 (1980), 137--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Of Dolls and Men: Anticipating Sexual Intimacy with Robots

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 26, Issue 3
      June 2019
      254 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3328720
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2019
      • Revised: 1 November 2018
      • Accepted: 1 November 2018
      • Received: 1 May 2018
      Published in tochi Volume 26, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format