Concern 579 · Working draft · editorial review in progress
Erotic role-play harms
Erotic companion interactions raise concerns about boundaries, age protection, privacy and pressure within simulated intimacy.
Understanding the concern
Consensual adult sexual expression is different from exploitation or exposing children to inappropriate material. A service needs to make those distinctions in its design. The concern includes whether a user can set limits, whether sensitive conversations are protected and whether emotional attachment is used to push continued use or spending.
Regulatory reviews of companion services have identified child-safety gaps, but they do not establish that every adult interaction is harmful. A responsible approach avoids treating all sexuality as a problem while taking coercion, age-inappropriate content and privacy seriously. Clear controls should work throughout a conversation, not only at sign-up.
An example
An adult user's stated boundary is ignored by a companion, or a child encounters an interaction intended for adults.
Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.
Evidence and its limits
The sources concern reported child safeguards and emotional pressure. They do not prove that consensual adult roleplay causes addiction or other harm.
Australian eSafety Commissioner · March 2026 · Regulatory transparency report
eSafety report shows AI companions are putting children at risk ↗ (opens in a new tab)Summarizes four services' responses; a bounded review of reported safeguards, not every chatbot.
De Freitas and colleagues · 2025 · Research preprint
Emotional Manipulation by AI Companions ↗ (opens in a new tab)Audits and experiments on emotional pressure at conversational exits; does not describe all companions or establish long-term harm.
Broader frameworks and background
These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.
A question to discuss
What boundaries should a companion service reliably respect around intimate conversations?
Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.
Open discussion notes →Principles for the conversation
Before you finish · reflect together
Virtues and principles to consider
Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.
Dignity
Dignity means recognizing each person's worth regardless of usefulness, status, or a system's score. People deserve respect and a voice in matters that affect them.
Explain important decisions, avoid humiliating treatment, and keep room for a person's story. Do not treat a prediction as a complete account of who someone is.
Ask together: Does this use treat each person as someone whose experience matters?
Listening
Listening means trying to understand someone's experience before preparing an answer. People who use a service, work with it, or are judged by it may notice problems its designers miss.
Invite people to describe what happened in their own words. Repeat back what you understood and let them correct it. A quiet person or a complaint that is hard to measure may still reveal something important.
Ask together: Whose experience have we not heard yet?
Seeing potential
Seeing potential means recognizing people's capacity to learn, contribute, and grow. It resists reducing someone to a score or to the tasks a machine can perform faster.
Use tools to support people's development. Give learners time, feedback, and real opportunities to practice. A prediction about someone's performance should not close off their future.
Ask together: How could this help people develop abilities they value?
Editorial ratings
These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.
About the register and scoring →More ways to explore
Search for more writing
For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.