Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comment on ‘I, Sex Robot: the health implications of the sex robot industry’
  1. John Eggleton
  1. Correspondence to Dr John Eggleton, Exeter EX5 5HN, Devon, UK; jdp.eggleton{at}

Statistics from

In their editorial,1 Cox-George and Bewley promote a one-sided and negative view of sex robots (‘sexbots’), which they describe as “realistic mannequins with variable ages, appearances and textures, and customisable oral, vaginal and anal openings”. Three things about this editorial particularly concern me.

First, Cox-George and Bewley seem to have constructed a series of objections to sex robots based on their dislike and disapproval of them. Their editorial is full of medico-political attempts to stigmatise or even criminalise those who use sex robots – with arguments about “misogynistic objectification” of women and intensification of “existing physical and sexual violence against women and children”.1

Why should the use of an entirely synthetic, non-human sex robot have any negative connotations? …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.