Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Are sex robots enough?
  1. Alexander A Boni-Saenz
  1. Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL 60661, USA
  1. Correspondence to Alexander A Boni-Saenz, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL 60661, USA; abonisae{at}

Statistics from

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.

Nancy Jecker’s essay Nothing to be Ashamed of: Sex Robots for Older Adults with Disabilities 1 presents a provocative application of the capabilities approach. Her ethical argument for providing access to sex robots for older adults with disabilities proceeds in five parts:

  1. Older adults frequently suffer disabilities that impair sexual functioning.

  2. The ability to function sexually is linked to central human capabilities, including: the ability to generate a personally meaningful life narrative; be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy; experience bodily integrity; feel and express a range of human emotions; affiliate deeply with others; and reflect on and choose a plan for their life.

  3. Society should take reasonable steps to support these human capabilities at a minimal threshold as part of a broader duty to respect human dignity.

  4. Providing access to sex robots comprises part of reasonable efforts to support the six capabilities at a minimal threshold.

  5. Therefore, society ought to make reasonable efforts to ensure access to sex robots for older adults with disabilities that impair sexual functioning.

I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, having proposed a series of legal reforms that would facilitate sexual expression among older adults with cognitive impairments as well.2 3 …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @abonisaenz

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you