Love and Sex with Robots: A Content Analysis of Media Representations

  • Nicola DöringEmail author
  • Sandra Poeschl


In his seminal book “Love and Sex with Robots”, David Levy (Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human–robot relations, Harper, New York, 2007) predicted that intimate human–robot relationships will be normalized by 2050. So far, only a very small number of early adopters of love and sex robots has experienced these kinds of relationships. The majority of the population only learns about love and sex with robots through media representations, be they fictional (e.g., movies and TV series) or non-fictional (e.g., newspaper and magazine articles). The current study therefore aimed at analyzing the media representations of intimate human–robot relationships. The three research questions, based on Sexual Script Theory, addressed characteristics (1) of the involved human partner, (2) of the involved robot partner, and (3) of their mutual intimate relationship. A quota sample of N = 710 media examples from different genres (48% non-fictional, 52% fictional, originating from 1927 to 2014) was drawn and subjected to quantitative media content analysis. Results indicate that media representations of intimate human–robot relationships tend to portray the involved human partner as a man who is disadvantaged in interpersonal relationships. At the same time, media often portray the involved robot partner as a humanoid female sex robot. While non-fictional media describe intimate human–robot relationships more often in sexual terms, fictional media focus more on emotional aspects, cohabitation and even procreation between humans and robots. Overall, media representations of intimate human–robot relationships reveal stereotypical gender roles, heteronormativity and a focus on sexual versus emotional intimacy. Implications for the future development and use of love and sex robots are discussed.


Human–robot relationships Sex robots Media representations Sexual script theory Gender roles Media content analysis 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Levy D (2007) Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relations, 1st edn. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pearson I (2015) The futuer of sex report—the rise of the robosexuals. Accessed 26 Apr 2017
  3. 3.
    Borenstein J, Arkin RC (2016) Robots, ethics, and intimacy: the need for scientific research. Accessed 25 Jan 2019
  4. 4.
    Bruckenberger U, Weiss A, Mirnig N et al (2013) The good, the bad, the weird: audience evaluation of a “Real” robot in relation to science fiction and mass media. In: Hutchison D, Kanade T, Kittler J et al (eds) Social robotics, vol 8239. Springer, Cham, pp 301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharkey N, van Wynsberghe A, Robbins S et al (2017) Our sexual future with robots—a foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. Accessed 05 Jul 2017
  6. 6.
    Bletchly R (2017) Sex robot harmony is the girlfriend of a million male fantasies—on sale for £11,700. Mirror OnlineGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheok AD, Levy D, Karunanayaka K et al (2016) Lovotics: love and sex with robots. In: Karpouzis K, Yannakakis GN (eds) Emotion in games: theory and praxis. Springer, Cham, pp 303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samani HA, Cheok AD, Ngiap FW et al (2010) Towards a formulation of love in human–robot interaction. In: 2010 RO-MAN: the 19th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 94–99Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagnon JH, Simon W (2005) Sexual conduct: the social sources of human sexuality, 2nd edn. AldineTransaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon W, Gagnon JH (1986) Sexual scripts: permanence and change. Arch Sex Behav 15(2):97–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiederman MW (2015) Sexual script theory: past, present, and future. In: DeLamater J, Plante RF (eds) Handbook of the sociology of sexualities. Springer, Cham, pp 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiederman MW (2005) The gendered nature of sexual scripts. Fam J 13(4):496–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eagly AH (2013) Sex differences in social behavior: a social-role interpretation. Distinguished lecture series. Taylor and Francis, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warner M (2011) Fear of a queer planet: queer politics and social theory, 8. Print. Cultural politics, vol 6. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ingraham C (2013) Heterosexuality: It’s just not natural! In: Ferber AL, Holcomb K, Wentling T (eds) Sex, gender, and sexuality: the new basics: an anthology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 99–106Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayor E (2015) Gender roles and traits in stress and health. Front Psychol 6:779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perrone KM, Wright SL, Jackson ZV (2009) Traditional and nontraditional gender roles and work–family interface for men and women. J Career Dev 36(1):8–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheutz M, Arnold T (2016) Are we ready for sex robots? In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 351–358Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yulianto B, Shidarta (2015) Philosophy of information technology. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 6(4):67–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeoman I, Mars M (2012) Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures 44(4):365–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Danaher J (2017) Robotic rape and robotic child sexual abuse: Should they be criminalised? Crim Law Philos 11(1):71–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gutiu S (2012) Sex robots and roboticization of consent. We Robot Conference 2012, Coral Gables, FLGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richardson K (2016) Sex robot matters: slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 35(2):46–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sullins JP (2012) Robots, love, and sex: the ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(4):398–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Di Nucci E (2016) Sexual rights, disability and sex robots. Accessed 25 Jan 2019
  26. 26.
    Neuendorf KA (2002) The content analysis guidebook. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hallgren KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 8(1):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choi S, Cha S, Tappert CC (2010) A survey of binary similarity and distance measures. J Syst Cybern Inform 8(1):43–48Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bortz J, Schuster C (2010) Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for Human and Social Science], 7, vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W et al (2011) Multivariate Analysemethoden—Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Multivariate analyes—an application-oriented introduction], 13 überarbeitete. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matthes J, Kohring M (2008) The content analysis of media frames: toward improving reliability and validity. J Commun 58(2):258–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Döring N (2017) Vom Internetsex zum Robotersex: forschungsstand und Herausforderungen für die Sexualwissenschaft [From internet sex to robot sex: state of research and challenges for sexology]. Z Sex-Forsch 30(01):35–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S Anticipating our future robot society: the evaluation of future robot applications from a user’s perspective. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 755–762Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Royakkers L, van Est R (2015) A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):549–570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Richardson K (2016) The asymmetrical ‘relationship’. SIGCAS Comput Soc 45(3):290–293. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson-Woods T (2010) Manga—an anthology of global and cultural perspectives. Continuum International Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bryman A (2016) Social research methods, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neuendorf KA (2017) The content analysis guidebook, 2nd edn. SAGE, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Williams DJ, Thomas JN, Prior EE et al (2015) Introducing a multidisciplinary framework of positive sexuality. J Posit Sex 1:6–11Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Riva G, Banos RM, Botella C et al (2012) Positive technology: using interactive technologies to promote positive functioning. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 15(2):69–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M (2000) Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psychol 55(1):5–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Media and Communication Science, Research Group Media Psychology and Media DesignTU IlmenauIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations