Some aspects of human consent to sex with robots

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Part of the ethical debate about sex with robots concerns whether sex with a robot is rape of that robot. It therefore makes sense for us to debate what should be the boundaries of consent, decades from now, i.e. consent given by humans to robots. How will the sexbot landscape look in situations when it is the human who is consenting, or not, to a sexual invitation or advance by the robot? The sexbot will have responsibilities towards its human partner, and there will be moral and legal consequences if it fails to deliver on those responsibilities. An unresolved ethical argument employed by many of those who deplore the coming advent of sex robots is that robots are unable to proffer a meaningful indication of sexual consent, and therefore a human deciding to have sex with a robot is committing rape of the robot. A parallel question, as yet to be addressed, is under what circumstances should a robot be considered to be acting in a sexually inappropriate or illegal manner towards a human? And this question embraces some others, including: “How can a robot determine, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a proximate human wants or at least consents to sex?”; “What behaviours by a robot are permissible within the #MeToo context when the robot is exploring a proximate human’s current level of sexual interest in the robot?”; and “If a robot oversteps the accepted bounds of sexual behaviour with a human, who is responsible and what should be the legal consequences?” We discuss these issues and speculate on how the sex robots of the future will be able to conform to the ethics of consent.</jats:p>

Touching at a Distance: Digital Intimacies, Haptic Platforms, and the Ethics of Consent

“…A limit case pertinent to these issues could be intimate relationships with robotic beings as “digital others” (Levy, 2007 ; Liberati, 2018 ; Viik, 2020 ). Levy ( 2020 ) notes that critics of sex robots—such as Richardson ( 2022 )—argue that a robot, as object, could never consent to sex (p. 191). While this is an as-yet-unresolved ethical question that would require knowing the shape of future technology to fully determine, he also notes how a parallel question in light of the #metoo inflected discussion of consent, might be “How can a robot determine, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a proximate human wants or at least consents to sex?” (Levy, 2020 , p. 191, 197).…”

“…Levy ( 2020 ) notes that critics of sex robots—such as Richardson ( 2022 )—argue that a robot, as object, could never consent to sex (p. 191). While this is an as-yet-unresolved ethical question that would require knowing the shape of future technology to fully determine, he also notes how a parallel question in light of the #metoo inflected discussion of consent, might be “How can a robot determine, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a proximate human wants or at least consents to sex?” (Levy, 2020 , p. 191, 197). Questions of what behaviours are acceptable from the robot and who is responsible in the event of consent violations from a sex robot are also raised (Levy, 2020 , p. 191).…”

“…While this is an as-yet-unresolved ethical question that would require knowing the shape of future technology to fully determine, he also notes how a parallel question in light of the #metoo inflected discussion of consent, might be “How can a robot determine, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a proximate human wants or at least consents to sex?” (Levy, 2020 , p. 191, 197). Questions of what behaviours are acceptable from the robot and who is responsible in the event of consent violations from a sex robot are also raised (Levy, 2020 , p. 191). Pinning his analysis to the notion that advanced robotics could use “sexual scripts” to understand—or, problematically, even infer or “ optimize” —consent (Levy, 2020 , 192), his analysis underlines how multiple senses play a role in the negotiation of consent, from verbal and visual elements to touch and body language cues (Levy, 2020 , 194).…”

“…Questions of what behaviours are acceptable from the robot and who is responsible in the event of consent violations from a sex robot are also raised (Levy, 2020 , p. 191). Pinning his analysis to the notion that advanced robotics could use “sexual scripts” to understand—or, problematically, even infer or “ optimize” —consent (Levy, 2020 , 192), his analysis underlines how multiple senses play a role in the negotiation of consent, from verbal and visual elements to touch and body language cues (Levy, 2020 , 194). More worrying than anything, however, is Levy’s suggestion that sexual consent violations committed by an autonomous robot—in other words, robotic sexual assault—should be treated as an accident only and remedied by vehicles such as insurance rather than legal proceedings (Levy, 2020 , 198).…”

Promises in the Context of Humanoid Robot Morality

“…• Being approached intimately by the robot without having given consent in advance (see Levy [17]). • Create an addictive dependancy.…”