Teledildonics and long-distance touch
· 9 min read
1. The name, and the field's PR problem
Nelson's term "teledildonics" was a joke that stuck. The industry has not found a better one. "Connected intimacy" and "remote sexual wellness" are the marketing alternatives. The juvenile name has slowed serious treatment of the field for fifty years — it sounds like a punchline, so journalists treat it as a punchline, so researchers avoid it, so regulators ignore it. The reframing is overdue. The technology is mature enough to deserve serious vocabulary.2. The pandemic inflection
COVID broke the development arc of the category. Lockdowns produced a population of involuntarily long-distance couples and a population of partnered-but-separated singles. Lovense reported sales increases of multiple hundred percent. Kiiroo similarly. The post-pandemic baseline did not return to pre-pandemic; the category retained much of its growth. The pandemic functioned as the killer use case in the same way it functioned for Zoom. The technology was waiting for the moment.3. The We-Vibe case
The 2017 settlement (Standard Innovation, $3.75M) over the We-Vibe app collecting usage data without adequate consent, and the parallel disclosure that the device's bluetooth connection could be intercepted, was the field's defining legal moment. It established that intimate-device data is privacy-protected at a higher bar than ordinary IoT data, and it established financial precedent. The follow-on effects on product design were mixed — some companies tightened, others quietly did not. The collective lesson has not yet been fully absorbed.4. The remote-actuation consent question
If Partner A remotely activates Partner B's device when Partner B has not consented at this moment — perhaps consented yesterday, perhaps never — has an assault occurred? Most legal systems have not answered this. Some are starting to: the UK's CPS guidance, several European cybercrime updates, scattered US state legislation. The conceptual difficulty is that the actuation is at distance and the device is voluntarily worn. The conceptual answer should be that consent is moment-by-moment regardless of the channel, and the law is slowly catching up to that.5. The deception frontier
If Partner A uses Partner B's device while Partner B believes they are using it themselves, or while Partner B believes a third party is using it, the consent calculus shifts. This shades into the territory of deception-vitiates-consent that has long bedeviled sexual assault law. The teledildonic case is a clean example of a problem that previously was hard to construct, and it will likely force clearer legal articulation than the law has yet produced.6. The hacking surface
A device with bluetooth or wifi, connected to a phone, connected to the internet, is a hacking target. Reported and demonstrated attacks have included unauthorized control of the device, exfiltration of usage data, and in some cases takeover of the connected phone via the device's drivers. Industry security standards are uneven. The collective failure to require security certification for intimate devices is a regulatory hole that should not survive the decade.7. The long-distance couple, in detail
The largest use case. Couples separated by visa, work, military, or graduate school. The technology offers something between a phone call and a physical meeting — not the same as either. Survey data from Lovense and Kiiroo (vendor data, take with salt, but consistent with academic survey work) reports that couples using the technology rate their long-distance period as more sustainable than couples who did not. This is the single most defensible use case for the category.8. The disability use case
For users whose disabilities make physical intimacy difficult — chronic pain conditions, mobility limitations, conditions where physical exertion is contraindicated — the device offers a controllable, lower-exertion intimate option. Sex therapists working with these populations report that the technology fills a real need. The category is small but the users are deeply served.9. The therapeutic frontier
Some sex therapists are beginning to use teledildonic protocols in treating arousal disorders, post-trauma intimacy recovery, and couples therapy for partners who have lost physical intimacy and need a graduated re-entry. The protocols are early. The clinical literature is thin. The promise is real, especially when the alternative is no therapy or a long wait for an in-person specialist.10. The infidelity question, again
A user with multiple connected partners is now a possibility. The cultural assumption that physical-fidelity matters more than emotional-fidelity is challenged when the physical is partly mediated by remote actuators. The norms are being negotiated case by case. Some couples integrate remote partners into ethical non-monogamy frameworks. Some treat any remote use with a non-partner as a breach. The diversity of practice exceeds the diversity of articulated principle.11. The non-sexual touch frontier
The same technology underlies non-sexual affectionate-touch devices — the Bond Touch bracelets, the Hey paired pendants, the various squeeze-bracelet experiments. The use case here is parents and children, friends, siblings — the people whose long-distance relationships also suffer from the absence of touch. This is the dimension of the technology that the press undercovers because it is not titillating, but it is the part that may have the broader user base eventually.12. The revision, named
Law 5: touch at distance is being added to the human intimacy toolkit. The previous additions — letter, telegraph, telephone, video, text — each forced a cultural revision. This one is in early stages. The work is to do the revision deliberately: to build the rituals of long-distance touch, to write the consent protocols, to require the security standards, to extend the assault law to cover the new vectors, to develop the vocabulary, to honor the people for whom this is a meaningful expansion of their intimate life, and to be honest about the harms.Citations
1. Nelson, Theodor H. Computer Lib / Dream Machines. Self-published, 1974. 2. Devlin, Kate. Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots. London: Bloomsbury Sigma, 2018. 3. Levy, David. Love and Sex with Robots. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. 4. Heller, Brittan. "Watching Androids Dream of Electric Sheep: Immersive Technology, Biometric Psychography, and the Law." Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 23, no. 1 (2020): 1–51. 5. Danaher, John, and Neil McArthur, eds. Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017. 6. Hassenzahl, Marc, Stephanie Heidecker, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, and Uwe Hillmann. "All You Need Is Love: Current Strategies of Mediating Intimate Relationships through Technology." ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, no. 4 (December 2012): article 30. 7. Klein, Jessica. "The People Falling in Love Long-Distance via Tech." BBC Worklife, June 2021. 8. Aiken, Mary. The Cyber Effect. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2016. 9. Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together. New York: Basic Books, 2011. 10. Liberatore, Stacy. "We-Vibe Settles 'Smart' Vibrator Lawsuit." Daily Mail, March 14, 2017. 11. Sparrow, Robert. "Robots, Rape, and Representation." International Journal of Social Robotics 9, no. 4 (2017): 465–77. 12. Lanier, Jaron. Dawn of the New Everything. New York: Henry Holt, 2017.
◆
Cite this:
Comments
·
Sign in to join the conversation.
Be the first to share how this landed.