Originally posted on de Gruyter ‘Conversations’ but needing updates owing to fairly fatal, reading wise, and very literal: deadlinks … nobody likes deadlinks…
Babette Babich | 17.08.2017. Updated 14 February 2024
Robot lovers, given current technology, are not particularly good at being robots, much less at being Alan Rickman. Now the reference to Alan Rickman makes little sense here. Still that’s how the original post began. Rickman matters and the reference will be plainer a bit later. (Various editorial interventions wishing sentences to be more compact made them compact, but, as often happens, less perspicuous.)
This essay raises, quite as the title suggests, the notion of ‘Robot Sex.’ The good news is — and in 2017 the promise of AI was already patent, though it tended to count as virtual in those days — that in order to thematize cyborgs or robots we do not actually require anything so ontic as real robot tech or cyborg tech in order to write about and think about and theorize robots for the sake of arguing robot ethics — a booming cottage industry, now a tad eclipsed by AI ethics — or indeed for talking about robot sex.
Thus the January 2024 issue of Cosmopolitan is still asking, just to quote their title headline, about “Sex Robots.” In fact, they’ve been waiting, so they cut to the chase: “how do sex robots work and can you buy a sex robot?” Now the Cosmo article on sex robots does not feature some android version of Alan Rickman or Jude Law as he once was or Henry Cavill (still) or some other suitable Hollywood idea(l) but and much rather, and in the tried and true Cosmo fashion, by showing a lady on all fours (this is true to the current state of the robot art, being largely a matter of mobile robot dogs) with a fantasy body, airbrushed perfect, and ideal to the dream: no pesky introspection, and, transparent, no waist at all.
(There is dissonance to the extent that Cosmo is a mag read, with a certain dedication, if for the most part, by heterosexually inclined ladies.)
To be fair the ladies’ journal is simply evolving, as it were, the aesthetics of the gynoid represented in the 2014 film Ex machina, a cautionary tale for the gentlemen, here carried to a certain extreme. In addition, most AI depictions of robots, both male and female, and one assumes, soon a trans model (not yet items extant for order), tend to minimize the waist.
Robots, the very idea, seem to inspire philosophers, just to quote the perfectly analytic Alva Noë, at least if we take this at the level of his title, “Deconstructing the Philosophies of ‘RoboCop’,” to take a walk on the continental side.
In any case, and I will leave it to others to deconstruct the deconstruction, the waist ideal, size too, is already a feature for Robocop, exemplifying the ‘new bad future.’
Robot lovers, should we get them, will be transhumanist, posthumanist events, in 2017 Steve Fuller named this humanity 2.0.
In truth, then as now, robot lovers were as they remain, virtual, app style. So sex robots for order are comparable in nearly all respects, apart from a certain canned dialogue potential, to fairly low tech sex dolls (no refunds, no returns).
Virtual things, like AI, for example, are things we don’t have but wish we did. And so, because we can’t really do anything else with them, we think about them, write about them, argue about them, devise possible ethics for them, talk about how good or terrible it might be if people came to prefer them over human lovers or build careers (cue young academics getting tenure by writing books and talking about them).
Captivated by the idea of a robot lover, one can set one’s heart on acquisition.This can involve, for those who think this is just around the bend, setting up savings accounts, hoping to be able to buy one someday: available sex dolls (best to call them that rather than ‘robots’ just given that they cannot walk), despite their aesthetic limitations, are quite costly.
Hitches seem par for the course when it comes to future tech. Thus we still don’t have jet packs in any usable form that does not involve crash helmets, ditto: the flying cars that were a staple of so much science fiction, much less the robot Maria in the city of tomorrow depicted in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis circa 1927. But, optimists till the end, cryogenics still offers us the chance to freeze our decapitated heads for the time when replacement bodies exist and we can be thawed out, because that will be a number one priority for people in the future (perhaps the earth will be depopulated by then) and reanimated to enjoy the robot lover of our dreams which will surely have been developed in the interim.
Descartes and the Sex Toy
Robot lovers or mechanical automata have been around for a while. So too the more garden-variety kind of masturbatory accessory or sex toy, as certain ancient artifacts fall into this category.
In 1649, almost four centuries ago, the same René Descartes, who made an argument about the trouble we would have in distinguishing an automaton from a human being a central component in his philosophy, had himself, so the story goes, constructed a female automaton, very tiny, his robot could not walk either, so it was the size of a child.
When he was compelled to travel to Sweden to teach philosophy to the Queen, he took his sex daughter with him for companionship at sea and, one supposes, in Sweden too — but superstitious (or jealous) sailors threw it overboard and that ended that.
The mechanical Francine would be debated. To this day, some biographers deny she ever existed, which points to our current inability to even imagine the sophistication of clockwork automata (and the passion for the same in the 17th century) but such devices go back to antiquity, even before Socrates and I write about life-size Greek bronzes (including illustrations).
Recently, the efforts of a number of historians of art and science like Horst Bredekamp have helped advance our imaginative capacity in this regard. But accounts of automata are even older, and mechanically possible, as the mysterious Antikythera mechanism demonstrates.
No one less than Plato tells the tale of Socrates’ ancestor Daedalus, skilled enough to build automata designed to return to their maker (permitting Daedalus to sell the same machine again and again) and necessitating chains to secure them for customers who wished not to have to buy them twice.
Cue the Rickman Function
“In addition to making love, a robot lover could also do useful things. Like cooking and cleaning, changing lightbulbs and such.”
Today’s robot sex-dolls, like Descartes’ personal automaton, are sex-dolls for men. Indeed, even the anatomically male versions are sex-dolls for men too.
Yet, at least in theory, a woman might be well delighted to have a robot lover, and one is almost tempted to imagine that a robot lover might even be, potentially, perfectly programmable, a perfect lover, especially for women.
A robot could do all the good things one might hope a lover might do, the kind of things real live lovers can find onerous (at such matters are mentioned from time to time in disputes). So, in addition to making love — this being the point of a robot lover after all, in just the way that one wished, when one wished and as long and as often as one wished, surely good things, a robot lover would also be useful : opening jars, or getting stuff from the higher shelves down to the counter and then, even more importantly: putting it all back again. This could extend, making one’s robot love a perfect partner, to cooking and cleaning, changing lightbulbs and such, all in addition to companionship. All sans dispute.
Indeed, one might even imagine (this being virtual exercise) a robot lover with a Walter Raleigh function as we might call it, casting a cloak as a bridge across rainy puddles or, better still, a robot with an Alan Rickman-as-Colonel Brandon function, capable of carrying one physically (and very romantically) over puddles or up steep hillsides in inclement weather (or sunnier weather, as one wishes). Or a robot to help with carrying parcels and purses and rucksacks.
Thus just as I mentioned AI ethics, there are plans to devise robots that might be helpful in related ways, if not up to the standard of a Rickman or even a Robocop, but perhaps this is a matter of personal taste (though the lady falling here seems herself to be a sex doll, rescued by a more up-to-date active version of the kind we still don’t have).
Robot lovers for women, at the very least, will need, and the Rickman version would excel at this, deep conversational features, ideal as it would be to have someone to talk to who would want to talk, being interested in the topic of conversation one might suggest and capable of following topic changes without annoyance.
Perhaps all we need to do is creatively revamp existing AI programs that pretend to be therapists, mix them up erotically and affectionately with a touch of male Siri. And then, again and again, there would be the sex. Perfect! And for women, that could go on for days so designers will need to work on battery life.
“Again and again, there would be the sex that could go on for days so decent battery life is a must.”
The language of teledildonics seems to suggest all this. But not so. Dildonics, the awkward name for the industry dedicated to designing and manufacturing sex robots, is not, despite the name, dedicated to manufacturing vibrators or mechanical dildos, perhaps on the model of mechanical broncos but just, and mostly, to robots for guys.
In the case of lady robot lovers, these are silicone sex dolls, not unlike the cheaper, blow-up doll versions.
Immovable Robots
Still no robots, and there are none on the drawing board, currently offer functionality at the level of moving on their own. One has to drag them about, which is why today’s sex robots are small, which reduces mass, improving portability.
To this extent, today’s robot lovers are capable of even less than the 17th century automata of which Descartes speaks – these were capable of walking – although, on the plus side, it does seem, at least if one judges from video advertisements of these robots, that there might be some vibrating bits, with a heat function, like shoulder massage devices one can buy online.
To this extent, sex robots, such as we happen to have them, are robots in name only. They do not walk on their own and what motions they are programmed to have are limited as is their capacity for conversation.
Still robot lovers are available and you can buy them. For men, that is – and for women too should they want to buy a doll designed for men, as the manufacturers do not discriminate and are happy to ship them to anyone who can pay. All in production, on sale at increasing costs, up to $50,000, depending on cosmetic features.
“Sex robots are robots in name only: they do not walk on their own and what motions they are programmed to have are very limited.”
Elsewhere I pointed out that a lot of care is involved with maintaining these particular sex toys – which can seem a tad anti-climactic.
To date there is no Rickman function. None of the robot lovers is advertised as having the ability to walk or cast a cape across a puddle to protect one’s footwear or as having the capacity to carry one – even for short distances – up a hill, with or without rain, let alone as being capable of conversing about poetry or the meaning of life – or which dress looks best, among the things women like to talk about with lovers.
But this immobility means is why I began by saying that robot lovers are not particularly good at being robots as not being able to move is a major fail for a robot.
To this extent, it is also unclear how good they might be as lovers (I bracket customers with a necrophiliac fetish for making love with a non-moving, or minimally moving, partner that one must lug about, as one would have to lug about a corpse).
Aren’t we already Cyborgs? Cell-Phone at the ready?
But, say the enthusiasts, we are “already cyborgs,” quoting the theorists as they do.
We are already ‘transhuman’ and from this perspective, of course, we can do all the necessary moving ourselves, as we must to have robot lovers. And part of being transhuman-already, this is the point of Facebook and selfie-culture, social media technology gives the impression that we are more accomplished than we are and thus that we are more than (merely) human.
Apart from social media, don’t we all already do this anyway? For what do we have our hairdressers and our makeup or fancy dress for special occasions? This is the transhumanist imperative such that for job applications, we choose a certain photo but for an internet dating perhaps another. At the same time, one of the biggest complaints with online dating – the kind of dating that involves dating people you have not met, blinder than blind – concerns the misleading impressions that can result as some candidates game their chances by using a “good” photo of themselves from a few years back, which becomes a problem when years turn into decades. And some use photos that aren’t even their own.
Very ChatGPT: we want to look our best.
From Robots to Roombas
To date, updated now to 2024, we do not have walking, talking robot lovers. But we do have mobile domestic robots, and we have had them for a while. Consider the Roomba: a spherical self-propelled vacuum cleaner (clearly designed by a man, as rooms, hence the name Roomba, typically have square corners, where dust gathers and where the round Roomba cannot go).
Part of the point of insisting we are cyborgs is that we have an imaginary idea of imaginary robot lovers. This is how internet porn works (it’s imaginary, as Slavoj Žižek points out) and people (Lacan noticed this before Žižek) pay for this imaginary ideal.
In Japan, where Anime means that robot allure has a well-established, albeit still virtual, presence in the comic book imaginary realm, there are apps that permit Japanese business men to book holidays for themselves and their pretend (or ‘virtual’) girlfriends, including holiday meals and lodging.
Hollywood too has already been there with the film Her, starring Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson, as a Siri style voice. And if Star Wars gave us a rolling trash can, not unlike the Roomba in motile capacity, R2-D2, and the golden C-3P0, Star Trek – at least the next generation and Star Trek Voyager – improved on Dr. Smith’s Lost in Space robot nemesis who merely rolled and waved his arms, with fully human-like figures like Data and Seven of Nine.
Thus it hardly seems that we need actual robot technology in order to have robot lovers if an app will do. After all, the beauty of a robot lover, real (if we can work out the tech bits) or imaginary, app style, is that robot lovers are not actual lovers. The reason we can suppose that we are dealing with perfection is because we are not dealing with another human being but only with our own imaginary desire(s).
In Ex Machina, as I mentioned this above, uncannily, the robot with a developed artificial intelligence, virtually human, seems to have its own all-too-real plans for itself, plans not including, shocker, the human male lover. And if this was not the subtext of Bladerunner, which after all did not vary the Pinocchio story, it was the point of The Matrix.
“But, grammar still matters, we do have killing machines: that’s the definition of a drone.”
We do not have beta models of machines capable of making love – these are, please pay attention to the grammar, not the same as machines one might be able to make love to. After all, one can make love, Portnoy did, to a raw piece of liver or to a statues as the ancient Greeks excelled at that. Indeed, they were so good at it they turned the practice into a religion. Still, grammar matters, and we do have exactly mobile, killing machines: that’s the definition of a drone.
Drones are a little too real. The theme is robot love, not robot death and the ideal of robot love corresponds to its one-sided malleability and its non-reciprocity, which is it is to send a text.
Will we get ideal robot lovers?
Texting has its own culture, and gives us companionship on demand, when we want it, just the way we like it. Alas, like Twitter trolls, there is a nearly inevitable sexism here. Hence what it means to be attractive to others includes body-optimization, even if you don’t ‘see’ anything but a text.
The ideal ‘friend’ in texting (like the ideal voice for a GPS program) is an ideal girl-friend: young, friendly, nothing complex, bubbly personality, no troublesome depths.
If the biotech enhancement does not (let us always say: as yet) exist beyond the cosmetic, all of our debates depend on our conviction that the technology for full-body replacement is right around the corner.
Will we get ideal robot lovers for ideal erotic encounters with options for opening jars, poetic conversations (and the Rickman, uphill carrying function?) Or will we simply find ourselves conforming to someone else’s ideal to please a date we have yet to meet, or else to maintain a human lover with other friends on the line?
Maybe there’s an autofill app, that would be ChatGPT, to keep our on-line lovers captivated until the mobile versions, android style robot lovers can be ordered on Amazon.