potential spoilers ahead:
There were a few things that didn’t feel consistent in terms of detail, but the big problem for me was that a professor of ethics kept trying to impose human morality on this artificial intelligence. For example, a great deal of effort was put into making it seem like the android fully consents legally to sexual activities, but this makes no sense from annacademic point-of-view. The android is bought and paid for by the human, and is programmed literally to be perfect for him. The android demonstrates no legitimate will of its own. This is not consent. This will never be consent.
I am not bothered by that. what bothers me is that it’s such a central part of the early story, but is just bumgled. The MC does not feel like a realistic philosophy professor because he has such a convoluted view of consent. Perhaps if the MC had not been the one to purchase thr android, or if the android were malfunctioning, or if the laws around consent were about a meta-narrative relating to real consent versus implied consent – then I could have enjoyed the book.
As it is, the story comes across like an attempt at a cozy shut in romance with sci-fi elements and hastily (not well thought out) consent matters tacked on at the end to assuage second hand reader guilt. All the ethical quandries do is take the reader out of the story. They either should not be present, or should be better integrated or used.
Joel Leslie is fabulous though.