<p>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 &amp; Puzio, <CitationRef CitationID="CR2">2026</CitationRef>) 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.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Relational Sexual Self, Interhuman Sexuality & Sex Robot Ethics

  • Maaike van der Horst,
  • Anna Puzio

摘要

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.