Source assessmentSupporting
Desire in Code: Legal Perspectives on Sex Robots and Consent
legal perspectives on sex robotsAcademic
Assessment outcome
total 3/6 (actionability 0 + authority 1 + currency 2)
Total3/6
Actionability0/2
Authority1/2
Currency2/2
Authorship & scope
Attribution (G4 evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuer authority (evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.
Eligibility gates
G1 · Retrievablepass
Passed in screening.
G2 · AI nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G3 · Governance nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G4 · Attributablepass
Passed in screening.
G5 · In forcepass
Passed in screening.
Scored criteria
Actionability
0/2No rationale recorded.
the section also engages with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (commonly referred to as the AI Act or the AIA) using Article 95 on codes of conduct as a case study to explore voluntary regulation of sex robots
Authority
1/2No rationale recorded.
Desire in code: legal perspectives on sex robots and consent Rigotti, C. Citation Rigotti, C. (2025). Desire in code: legal perspectives on sex robots and consent. Law, Culture And The Humanities, 1-23.
Currency
2/2No rationale recorded.
Classification
Coverage topiclegal perspectives on sex robots
PerspectiveAcademic
Lifecycle stage1 Plan & design
Layermodel
GranularityNot recorded