I, Sex Robot: the Health Implications of the Sex Robot Industry

Letter to the editor BMJ Sex Reprod Health: first published as 10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200251 on 18 December 2018. Downloaded from Comment on ‘I, Sex Robot: say: “The UK General Medical Council a real woman, and I have witnessed the and medical defence organisations have consequences that they have suffered in the health implications of not issued any guidance but doctors terms of resulting sexually transmitted the sex robot industry’ might be advised to avoid using sexbots diseases and associated social problems. themselves, given police interest, pros- If they prefer to use a sex robot to fulfil ecutions and the potential negative that need, there is no reasonable argu- In their editorial,1 Cox-George and impact on public trust”.1 ment against them doing so, and there Bewley promote a one-sided and nega- They do not cite any evidence to are plenty of arguments why the use of a tive view of sex robots (‘sexbots’), which support such intimidatory and threat- sex robot might be preferable to visiting they describe as “realistic mannequins ening advice. They mention one pros- a sex worker (without in any way stig- with variable ages, appearances and ecution of a person who imported a matising the use of sex workers). textures, and customisable oral, vaginal “child sex doll”, but, as they say in their Doctors in general should “live and and anal openings”. Three things about opening paragraph, sex robots resem- let live” and avoid being judgmental. this editorial particularly concern me. bling children, which would obviously Society has already had to learn the First, Cox-George and Bewley seem be of interest to paedophiles, must be lesson of tolerance about homosexu- to have constructed a series of objec- considered separately from adult sex ality and transgender people. Are we tions to sex robots based on their dislike robots. To intimidate and threaten really going to have to learn this lesson and disapproval of them. Their edito- doctors in this way is totally unaccept- all over again about sex robots? rial is full of medico-political attempts able. The sexual practices and pref- to stigmatise or even criminalise those erences of doctors – so long as they John Eggleton remain legal – should have nothing to who use sex robots – with arguments Correspondence to Dr John Eggleton, about “misogynistic objectification” of do with the General Medical Council Exeter EX5 5HN, Devon, UK; jdp.​ ​ women and intensification of “existing (GMC). Unless we are taking the power eggleton@​btinternet.​com physical and sexual violence against of the GMC to a new ‘Big Brother’ Competing interests None declared. women and children”.1 level, God forbid. Patient consent Not required. Why should the use of an entirely Third, Cox-George and Bewley’s synthetic, non-human sex robot have assessment of sex robots does not take Provenance and peer review Not any negative connotations? Why is it into account the position of a significant commissioned; internally peer reviewed. misogynistic even if sex robots, like sex proportion of adult men (and presum- © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. dolls, are going to be predominantly ably women) who, because they have No commercial re-use. See rights and used by heterosexual men? ‘Female’ sex physical (or mental) issues or disease, permissions. Published by BMJ. copyright. robots are not women. And what about have no prospect of a sexual relation- the use of ‘male’ sex robots by homo- ship with another human being apart sexual men? Does that objectify homo- from a sex worker. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2018;0:73 sexual men? Would the use of female I am fortunate in being a happily doi:10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200251 sex robots by lesbian women objectify married man, with no interest in lesbian women? personally using sex dolls or robots, Second, the underlying purpose but as a general practitioner I have been Reference of Cox-George and Bewley’s edito- consulted on many occasions by men 1 Cox-George C, Bewley S. I, Sex Robot: rial seems to be to establish themselves whose prospects of having a sexual rela- the health implications of the sex as the moral arbiters of sex robot use. tionship with a woman are essentially robot industry. BMJ Sex Reprod Health http://jfprhc.bmj.com/ This is revealed in the penultimate para- zero. These men have no choice but to 2018;44:161–4. graph of their conclusions, where they visit sex workers if they want sex with on September 26, 2021 by guest. Protected

BMJ Sex Reprod Health Month 2018 Vol 0 No 0 73