September Sex Tech Review – Handy 2, Michigan anti-porn bill, sex robot consent
A review of the top sex tech stories for September 2025.
The Handy 2 Now Available to Pre-order
The much anticipated sequel to ‘The Handy’ male masturbator, which has found most of its popularity as being a simple automatic masturbator that syncs with VR porn videos, is now available to pre-order after a Kickstarter campaign raised over one-and-a-half million dollars. The most significant upgrades are that it is now cordless, has better WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity, a more powerful but quieter motor, and a fancy LED display. It’s more expensive than the original Handy and comes in two models, with the standard version costing $199 and a ‘Pro’ model with longer battery life and a slightly more powerful motor costing $299. Note that these are the ‘early bird’ prices, and that the pro version will be $500 when it is officially launched. You can read an honest discussion of the Handy 2 by hardcore VR porn fans at the EroScripts forum.
Kiiroo, another Norwegian high-tech sex toy brand also launched a new masturbator in September. The PowerShot stroker takes interactive male masturbators to a new level of compactness and portability – literally fitting into the palm of a hand.
Meta Accused of Torrenting Porn to Reach Super AI Intelligence
A leading porn studio is suing Meta for allegedly using its porn movies to train its AI models. The lawsuit alleges that Meta had been torrenting its copyrighted movies since 2018. Perhaps this is why Meta’s chatbots have got into trouble for being so damned horny, even to the point of engaging in sexual conversations with underaged users. The porn studio in question – Strike 3 Holdings – claims that it makes “high quality,” “feminist,” and “ethical” adult videos. However, it’s unlikely to be the only adult studio that Meta used videos to train its chatbots on.
https://www.wired.com/story/meta-lawsuit-strike-3-porn-copyright-ai/
Michigan Anti-Porn Bill Would Criminalize ASMR and Written Erotica
Conservative religious freaks in the state of Michigan have seized the momentum of the ongoing ‘War on Porn’ to attempt the most ambitious anti-porn bill yet. Not only would it criminalize the distribution of porn, but also ASMR, anime, sex in movies, and written erotica. Just as disturbingly, if passed it would ban the use of VPNs. Thankfully, because of the First Amemdment that protects free speech, it has close to zero chance of succeeding.
An “Anticorruption of Public Morals Act” sounds like something out of the Victorian era. But far from the brainchild of Comstock-era Progressive scold, it’s a new bill in Michigan. Introduced September 11 by state Rep. Josh Schriver (R–Oxford), the act would ban the online distribution of material “that corrupts the public morals.”
The legislation—House Bill 4938—defines such material as any “depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, of sexual acts.” Distributing it would be a felony crime, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000. Individuals, commercial entities, internet platforms, and public institutions could all be held criminally liable.
Italian Feminist Argues Sex Robots Should Have Ability to Say No
Just to show that the war on porn and sex tech comes from both sides of the lunatic fringes, an Italian feminist who has published a book entitled – “The Regulation of Sex Robots” – has called for sex robots to be given the capacity to consent. However, she considers herself a ‘moderate’ on sex robots and doesn’t seek their outright ban.
The more lifelike the robots, the blurrier the line between humans and machines. ‘If you see the sex robot as property, something you dominate, there is a chance that you will start to see people, in this case usually women, as property too. She is submissive to you – has to do what you want. The technology does exactly what the owner wants, so should a woman have to do the same?’
Nevertheless, Rigotti is not in favour of a ban. ‘Feminist hardliners say: ban them. The other side of the spectrum believes that there is no need for regulation at all. I think both camps are too extreme. Because that way, you always end up marginalising groups. I try to find a balance. How can we steer the design of robots in a certain direction through AI regulation?’