This reply addresses ethical considerations and design risks in queering sex robots, suggesting deeper discussions are needed.
In this reply, we respond to Hayate Shimizu’s and Masaki Ooka’s commentary “Relational Selfhood, Queering and Design Risks: A Commentary on van der Horst and Puzio” (2026) on our article “Queering Sex Robots Beyond Diversifying Design? Insights from Queer Lacanian Psychoanalysis and New Materialism” (van der Horst & Puzio, 2026) in which we explore the possibilities of diversifying the debate on queering sex robots. In this reply to their commentary, we respond to their two main claims - regarding the ontological status of the relational sexual self and the ethical sensitivity necessary to translate ‘designing for friction’ from theory to practice – and aim to continue the discussion on queering sex robots.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Horst et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: