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.
Horst et al. (Tue,) studied this question.