"Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preference?

General chat about fembots, technosexual culture or any other ASFR related topics that do not fit into the other categories below.
Esleeper
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:48 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Esleeper » Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:03 pm

Stephaniebot wrote:Yes, if I'm fortunate enough to ever be turned into a robot, I really want to look, and act like one!
You know, that actually brings up some philosophical points I was thinking about earlier. If you were transformed into a robot but still remember what it was like to be a human, can you really say you'd still be able to act like a robot? Or would you just end up acting more or less the same way you were beforehand?

That's part of what draws me to the hard variety. They were never human, and if they're self-aware they would be quite conscious of this fact and thus they wouldn't try to "act human", consciously or not. It allows for a greater range of personality and differing views on humans, and yes that does include the capacity for sex and love in the right circumstances. It's much more interesting than a fembot who thinks she's human, or a transformed fembot who still knows exactly what it means to be human from her old life.

Food for thought, that's all.

User avatar
Rotwang
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 4:28 pm
Location: An old house forgotten by time in Metropolis
x 2
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Rotwang » Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:35 pm

I like to see it from the perspective of "degrees of artificialness"

I've never quite believed in the "we can make a robot that looks 101% like a human being" No matter how hard talented artists have tried these last few centuries they have yet to reproduce a person convincingly in the smallest detail and I don't see how this will change in the future, therefore rendering the whole idea of a perfectly realistic human analog null and void. The only option would be a classic biological android, either cloned or constructed living being, very close or as good as identical to a human being. But in my mind this defeats the whole idea of the "R" in the acronym.

This is why I dislike the classic person pretending to be a robot in film and television with nothing more than a spot of makeup, a set of contact lenses and/or a wig, because it's just a cop-out. It still screams "obvious human pretender" And extra fakery like a fake arm substitute or a CGI panel (like the overdone face-split inspired by AI) just adds to the sense of a demand of make-belief. But then again it's often done because it offers a performer the chance to use human expressions.

More satisfying is the pretender that manages to hide all traces of looking like an actual human, it feels more rewarding because it shows a little bit more thought and consideration. And if the performer adds an extra touch by a good, preferably original performance, only makes it better.

To give a concrete example, one of my favorite moments in Real Humans was the moment they broke into the safe containing an original fully artificial-looking gynoid, it's a pity there weren't a few of these older ones still around.

It then goes from the sexbot in the remake of Total Recall all the way to Metropolis and Sorayama.

And then we reach another cop-out zone, typified by Bjork's "all is full of love" clip. It's not very satisfying because it uses CGI rather than an actual existing mechanical design and perhaps even more jarringly uses human elements superimposed on something purely mechanical. It's another trick to allow for a wider emotional range, made easy by the versatility of CGI, but it still feels like a cheap shot to me.

As for the real robots we start to see, it's all very impressive in details and disappointing overall. The Scarlet Johansen robot we saw a few days ago, looks like, but it's little more than an animated mannequin and it shows we still have a very long way before we have robots that have all the abilities we see in over a dozen very different robots combined into one. For every robot that has some degree of facial expression, we have another that can walk, but they are still miles apart.

User avatar
Stephaniebot
Posts: 1918
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:13 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Android
Gender: Transgendered
Location: Huddersfield
x 2
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Stephaniebot » Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:15 am

Esleeper wrote:
Stephaniebot wrote:Yes, if I'm fortunate enough to ever be turned into a robot, I really want to look, and act like one!
You know, that actually brings up some philosophical points I was thinking about earlier. If you were transformed into a robot but still remember what it was like to be a human, can you really say you'd still be able to act like a robot? Or would you just end up acting more or less the same way you were beforehand?

That's part of what draws me to the hard variety. They were never human, and if they're self-aware they would be quite conscious of this fact and thus they wouldn't try to "act human", consciously or not. It allows for a greater range of personality and differing views on humans, and yes that does include the capacity for sex and love in the right circumstances. It's much more interesting than a fembot who thinks she's human, or a transformed fembot who still knows exactly what it means to be human from her old life.

Food for thought, that's all.
From a personal choice, I'd rather not remember what it was like as a human, be completely transformed in body, mind, and thought. But given that on more than a few occasions, I've acted like a robot, I suspect I could soon get totally into the robot mindset anyway. Its like asking me to define when I stopped acting like a man, and started becoming a natural woman, it just flows. I know one thing, there is no easy way I could go back to acting like a guy again, for sure. Would be the same, I'm sure, robot body, robot mindset, would soon forget I'd ever been human, for sure.

So yes, ideally, I'd want all my humanity removed, literally be a robot, nothing else. But I'm sure that very quickly, my mind would adapt to my new body, and I'd act like a complete robot anyway. Would really love the chance to find out, I must say
I'm just a 'girl' who wants to become a fembot whats wrong with that?

User avatar
Stephaniebot
Posts: 1918
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:13 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Android
Gender: Transgendered
Location: Huddersfield
x 2
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Stephaniebot » Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:19 am

Yes, Rotwang,

For me personally, I'd prefer the Metropolis/Sorayama look, that is really how I'd like to look. But yes, practicality, if humans are being transformed into robots, I suspect its going to be sex related, and most, for that purposes, seem to prefer the more human look. Great shame, as far as I'm concerned, but as long as its a 'full robot' transformation, mind and body, I could settle for that
I'm just a 'girl' who wants to become a fembot whats wrong with that?

JessicaDupre
Banned
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:51 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Android
Gender: Female

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by JessicaDupre » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:36 pm

.

Esleeper
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:48 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Esleeper » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:36 pm

JessicaDupre wrote:This is an interesting question! I've always been a softie for lots of different reasons, one being I sometimes like to play the "sleeper bot" who finds out she's not entirely real. The other things I enjoy, mannerisms/malfunctions, etc, can be done with soft and hard alike.
I always thought of those as being mainly useful for reveals, but I guess they have a place for the hard type too.

User avatar
Deep Blue
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:11 pm
x 1
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Deep Blue » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:09 am

I think soft is more realistic, human are soft exterior after all

RobotMaker
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:25 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by RobotMaker » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:15 pm

I think a soft skin made from something like silicone or an organic material would be preferred, but the skin being in panels with electronics showing through in gaps wpuld make modifications easier to make, and give it a "definitely not human" vibe.
I'm designing a fembot with the goal of making her and finding her a human boyfriend. Email me if you'd like: madscientist348807@gmail.com

Esleeper
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:48 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Esleeper » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:21 pm

RobotMaker wrote:I think a soft skin made from something like silicone or an organic material would be preferred, but the skin being in panels with electronics showing through in gaps wpuld make modifications easier to make, and give it a "definitely not human" vibe.
As a covering over joints and to protect vital parts, maybe. But give me a good old-fashioned metal chassis any day, I'm not looking for an imitation organic covering anyway.

And honestly, why should it have to look realistic or be a dead ringer for a human anyway? If you want a robot that looks exactly like a human, you may as well just settle for a human pretending to be a robot instead- it would be a near-identical experience.

User avatar
Stephaniebot
Posts: 1918
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:13 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Android
Gender: Transgendered
Location: Huddersfield
x 2
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Stephaniebot » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:21 am

Always nice to find a metal chassis lover, I must say :)
I'm just a 'girl' who wants to become a fembot whats wrong with that?

User avatar
cyberdude
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:12 am
x 1
x 7
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by cyberdude » Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:12 pm

Didn't read the other replies but for me I like it when the roboticness (?) shows. For soft fembots, with realistic outer appearences, I'd like to see malfunction, stuttering, lag, stiff movements, and open panels. While for hard fembotes those matters a bit less. But they do have to have a human head/face though.
That's one of the reason I like turtlenecks and jackets. They have robot bodies hiding underneath. Panels to open, wires to tangle, and buttons to press.

Esleeper
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:48 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Esleeper » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:23 am

cyberdude wrote:Didn't read the other replies but for me I like it when the roboticness (?) shows. For soft fembots, with realistic outer appearences, I'd like to see malfunction, stuttering, lag, stiff movements, and open panels. While for hard fembotes those matters a bit less. But they do have to have a human head/face though.
That's one of the reason I like turtlenecks and jackets. They have robot bodies hiding underneath. Panels to open, wires to tangle, and buttons to press.
Agreed. Though I like them hard, I prefer them to have at least a relatively human face. Easier to read their emotions that way.

Age_Of_Information
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:28 am
Technosexuality: Built and Transformation
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Age_Of_Information » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:09 am

I'm probably a bit of an outlier but, I like really exotic stuff.I like to believe that the alloys are flexible and have some give, but I guess you could call these "Hard."
Image
Image

Esleeper
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:48 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Esleeper » Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:59 am

Age_Of_Information wrote:I'm probably a bit of an outlier but, I like really exotic stuff.I like to believe that the alloys are flexible and have some give, but I guess you could call these "Hard."
Image
Image
They are, and they're a good example of the far end of the "hard" spectrum.

stelarfox
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:10 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
x 1
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by stelarfox » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:07 pm

I think it depends on the test of each one.
in my personal experience in my rp's the gynoids are soft but, only if they expent half their resources on trying, if not they become hard but in minor ways, their skin changes to more plastic, seams and displays apear on them, their talking goes more monotone and ther movements more robotic.

Basically they need to use a lot more power to pretend being human.
came here babe cyborg.

User avatar
Mixgull
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:23 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
x 2
x 8
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Mixgull » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:38 pm

I prefer soft, for sure. On general hentai type and robo-vision of soft fembots.

hos_the_man_of_house
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:38 am
Technosexuality: None of your business
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Transgendered

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by hos_the_man_of_house » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:20 pm

In my case I like both sides of the coin. Maybe soft around the "assets", Hands, feet, and the head area while hard for the rest of the body. ^shrugs^

User avatar
fembot_stalker
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:34 am
Technosexuality: Built and Transformation
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
x 21
x 3
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by fembot_stalker » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:42 pm

Esleeper wrote:Recently, I've noticed that in addition to the typical divide between built fembots and transformed fembots, there's a second division that is all too frequently overlooked. For lack of a better way of describing it, I've borrowed the terminology I've seen some people on 4chan use to describe the division.

To my knowledge, this division applies mainly to "built" fembots, but I can easily imagine it applying to the transformed kind as well. Take that how you will

"Soft" fembots are the ones that are to a major degree identical to real human women. No immediately visible distinguishing marks or giveaways to their robotic nature, and barring any circumstances that would blatantly expose what they really are, they are (for all respects and purposes) indistinguishable from the real thing, so to speak. The Terminators would be a good example of this, as would be just about any fembot that's had a faceoff scene. Now that I think of it, this type seems to make up the majority of fembots across all forms of media, at least to my knowledge.

By contrast, "hard" fembots are clearly robotic in design, being composed primarily out of metal or inorganic materials with visible signs of its artificial origin (e.g. joints with visible articulation, circuitry that is partially or wholly exposed, etc.) That said, they still faithfully emulate the general appearance of the human form even if they eschew the details, and l can very easily imagine them being as capable of sex as their "soft" counterparts. Sorayama's gynoids are the best example of this type that I can find, and EDI in Mass Effect 3 is a good depiction of the most humanlike forms of this fembot type.

Additionally, I've noticed that some "hard" fembots push the definition of "fembot" more than their "soft" counterparts, inasmuch as they don't always appear wholly humanlike. Usually that manifests in the form of unusual facial feature like the visor-like eyes in Sorayama's work or the replacement of the whole face with a monitor, but I've seen other things like limbs with distinctly nonhuman appearance as well. In fact, some of these cases seem so inhuman in appearance that I'm not entirely sure if they could be classified as fembots at all. I have a few examples of such quasi-fembots on me, but since I'm not entirely sure it's relevant to the board I'll hold off on posting them unless anyone wants to see them.

So, what are everyone's personal preferences then? I have to admit that I'm rather partial to the more humanlike "hard" fembots- they hit just the right balance of human beauty and nonhuman appearance that I find to be uniquely appealing.

I prefer most "hard" fembots, but I will occasionally use "soft" ones if I have to go out in public with any humanoid AI. :transformer:
(alt.sex.fetish.robots) AI and UFOs are spreading all over the Globe! 2 see more, just visit us at Malestrom1000's Youtube Channel. Thank you 4 visiting us as we get closer 2 creating our (female) repairbots, (giant) r⊙b⊙t gladiatrices, fembots, sexbots & h⊙b⊙ts; now how pimpadelic is that? :transformer: :rockon: :thumbsup: :nerd: :D :) :-o 8) :lol:

stelarfox
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:10 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
x 1
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by stelarfox » Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:50 pm

I think that even if some can be defined as hard or soft, sometimes there is almost no limit.
Example, supose that the fembot has "joins" but only in non visible parts when dressed, is that hard or soft most of the time?

also a truly "soft" for me its not nice, part of my pleasure is to know its a machine, and being soft lacks that.
but of course, i want them to not be that hard either, so i want them to have face and all the proper parts, even if they may be removed. i want them to be there most of the time.

Even so that just my opinion and taste and nothing more.

the best will be made of plastic with seams and even exposed (visible but not exposed truly) circuitry or pannels.
even so that should not be between the eyes for example. or in the hands, will be a lot better on belly or chest. (not on breast).
came here babe cyborg.

User avatar
lcy2007a
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:46 pm
x 4
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by lcy2007a » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:58 am

I prefer soft, but with some robotic feature is better.

stelarfox
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:10 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
x 1
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by stelarfox » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:41 am

not sure but i think soft, means exactly non human, so if you want rototic features, means hard but tending to soft. I am guessing please feel free to correct me on the definition.
came here babe cyborg.

User avatar
Uncom
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
x 14
x 51
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Uncom » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:13 am

h
Last edited by Uncom on Fri Jan 05, 2024 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Esleeper
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:48 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Hard" fembots vs. "Soft" fembots: What's your preferenc

Post by Esleeper » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:49 pm

stelarfox wrote:not sure but i think soft, means exactly non human, so if you want rototic features, means hard but tending to soft. I am guessing please feel free to correct me on the definition.
Not quite, it means non-robotic. Often to the Gynoid In Name Only extreme.

Post Reply
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests