Play, secrecy and consent: Theorizing privacy breaches and sensitive data in the world of networked sex toys

Abstract

Based on a new materialist analysis of “vibrant matter” to understand the liveliness of sexual objects in toy-based sexual play, in this article I investigate the politics of thinking digital technologies as operating partly beyond human forms of agency and control. I use as my core examples privacy breaches and data leaks in the world of networked sex toys – such as a vibrator which allegedly audio recorded its clients’ play sessions without express permission – to engage with questions of intimacy and privacy in digital networks of humans and nonhumans. In particular, the discussion focuses on the consequences of new forms of publicness for how we can understand sexual intimacy and sexual play. What does it mean to have an intimate moment when connected to a device, a medium and a network that is by definition public, corporate and leaky? And how could we imagine other ways of being sexually intimate and exposed – yet safe – in public digital networks? Drawing on discussions of queer intimacy, sexual consent and queer BDSM, I suggest that current understandings of privacy and sensitive data (as per GDPR) may need unconventional sources to further ways of knowing what consent might mean, and how it feels.

Sexual Interaction in Digital Contexts and Its Implications for Sexual Health: A Conceptual Analysis

“…However, the design of haptic interfaces and the idea of “teledildonics” might also limit sexual expression by pushing a phallocentric or penetration-focused sexual script ( Flore and Pienaar, 2020 ). Non-consensual uses of remote-controlled sex toys have already been identified such as sex toy producers illegally recording their customers’ sexual interactions via the toys ( Sundén, 2020 ) or people deceiving their sex partners about their true identity to initiate sexual interactions via remote-controlled sex toys without their counterpart’s informed consent which turns the interaction to rape ( Sparrow and Karas, 2020 ). Both privacy breaches and sexual assault are discussed as serious threads of smart sex toys ( Wynn et al, 2017 ).…”

‘Pay close attention to what my eyes are saying without having to spell it out’: Heterosexual relations and discourses of sexual communication in #MeToo commentaries

“…Hindes and Fileborn, 2020). Nor is it a backlash against conversations about the need for better education concerning the importance of consent (Sundén, 2020), and pushing back against patriarchal entitlement to women’s bodies, both of which are still needed. Rather, it provides an opportunity to think more deeply about how starting from a position of ambiguity can open up possibilities in thinking about sexual communication for men and women that does not assume a subject position of a fully rational self.…”

“…This includes not only in the sexual moment, but also, how discussions about sexual needs may be engaged in non-sexual settings. ‘Sexual consent’, on the other hand, describes whether or not an individual assents to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a particular sexual desire or activity, and is often understood from a legal, contractual and/or criminal risk-centred perspective (Beres, 2010; Gilbert, 2018; Sundén, 2020). I see ‘sexual consent’ as a part of a broader suite of sexual communication practices.…”

“…Gill, 2007Gill, , 2012, and how sexual consent can be understood, enacted and defined (i.e. Sundén, 2020).…”

Everyday Data Cultures

“…Sextech is emerging as a space in which everyday understandings of 'intimacy' and 'privacy' are contested as both tech users and commentators respond to the potential for both data brokerage and data leaks (Sundén 2020). This paper does not focus on the 'leakiness' of intimate data, but instead reflects on the diverse ways that everyday sexual experience is constructed as data within sextech industry press and marketing content.…”