Maaike van der Horst

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.

Contemporary humanoid sex robots have been rightfully criticized for their heteronormative and misogynistic design. In this article, we aim to explore the diverse possibilities of queering sex robots. While previous research on queering sex robots has predominantly suggested making humanoid sex robots more diverse by offering more options in terms of the designed gender, age, skin color, body shape, etc. of the robot, our aim is to think the question of queering sex robots beyond diversifying humanoid design options alone. To do this, we present two theories in tandem — Queer Lacanian Psychoanalysis and New Materialism — to approach this possibility. Our paper, therefore, accomplishes two things: first, we provide philosophical and ethical foundations for queering sex robots based on Queer Lacanian Psychoanalysis and New Materialism. Second, we derive implications from these insights on how sex robots can be queered beyond multiplying humanoid design options.