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

[Esleeper]

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.

[--NightBattery--]

Oh, it is relevant.
I shall assimilate the concept for the reference sheets I am creating.
⇛Example⇚
Is there is something else you could elaborate about this? I would love to take a look at it.

[Stephaniebot]

Yes, my personal transformation preference is definitely of the 'hard' type, a la Metropolis. I'll secretly admit that I'd love to do the whole Gort/Robbie/Lost in Space thing as a dress up session, but not forever, I guess? Gort, well, I could be talked into it, the other 2, no thanks.

But yes, in sex bot terms, I suspect the soft look is probably preferred by 99%, if not more!

[Esleeper]

Oh, it is relevant.
I shall assimilate the concept for the reference sheets I am creating.
⇛Example⇚
Is there is something else you could elaborate about this? I would love to take a look at it.

It's easier for me to show it than it is to explain it. This fellow's tumblr has a bunch of them that might be useful for you.

http://gynoidherring.tumblr.com

[jolshefsky]

Am I correct in assuming "hard" and "soft" correlate to the touch-feeling of the gynoid's body? That is, you could squeeze a "soft" gynoid's skin and it compress like a human's, whereas on a "hard" gynoid, the outer layer is generally rigid or nearly rigid. And this applies "in general"–so a human-like gynoid might have a hard control panel, or a robot-like gynoid might have soft material at the flexible joints. For the record, I 99% prefer silicone/foam-rubber/artificial skin that looks human-like.

[Esleeper]

Am I correct in assuming "hard" and "soft" correlate to the touch-feeling of the gynoid's body? That is, you could squeeze a "soft" gynoid's skin and it compress like a human's, whereas on a "hard" gynoid, the outer layer is generally rigid or nearly rigid. And this applies "in general"–so a human-like gynoid might have a hard control panel, or a robot-like gynoid might have soft material at the flexible joints. For the record, I 99% prefer silicone/foam-rubber/artificial skin that looks human-like.

I believe that's where the terminology came from, but I think the visual appearance and presence of obviously robotic characteristics plays an equally large if not larger role. Still, it's something that should probably be codified in the same way the built vs. transformed split currently is now, especially since there's more of a continuum here.

[Esleeper]

That is certainly an interesting response, Robotman. It really sums up the appeal of the "soft" variety of fembot, and so I feel compelled to offer my own explanation for why I consider the "hard" form of fembot as appealing as it is- mostly because I seem to be in a minority on the board in regards to my preference. I doubt it'll be as eloquently put as your own, but I'll try my best. (Note that all the below is my own opinion and nothing more. Take it as you will- I'm not going to be surprised if you disagree.)

The way I see it, many "soft" fembots seem to be so human that they come off as not even being robots; instead, they give me the feel of a human woman trying to act in the way she thinks a robot might act. All the typical tropes like access panels, charging ports, and facemasks all unintentionally amplify what I can only describe as a form of the uncanny valley- instead of making them seem better integrated with humanity, it just drives home the point that they can only be inferior imitations and nothing more.

Instead, I'm more drawn to those who don't try to hide their robotic nature. In a way, it makes them more authentic in their robotic-ness; they have nothing to hide from us in regard to what they are, nor do they have a reason to do so. Plus, there is no reason that they should be more "inhuman" than their "soft" counterparts, in either a physical or a mental sense. Just because her skin is made of a metal or plastic composite instead of a substitute for flesh doesn't mean her embrace will be any less pleasurable, and I can find the carefully sculpted and designed face of a "hard" fembot attractive even if it's something as simple as a single glowing diode in the center of her head, or a computer screen where a face should be.

There's also a more subtle aspect to this as well that goes beyond mere physical appearance that I suspect is at the root of my brand of robosexuality. In my eyes, humans are at their core "programmed" to have sex by nature, and many of the most common depictions of "soft" fembots are programmed by humans to have sex as well. But in the case of quite a few "hard" fembots, there is no programing to have sex (and in some cases they don't even have the genitalia that would give them the ability to so, meaning they either need to be modified to have sex or get creative). It's a completely spontaneous process of discovery on the fembot's part that feels...pure, for lack of a better word.

For that reason and others which I have trouble describing even to myself, I can't really see myself falling for a robot as mindless as the one you describe. The appeal of a not-qute-human mind that still feels a close enough bond to humans to be capable of taking one as a lover by choice is as important to me as the undeniably robotic nature of its physical appearance, and while I understand the appeal that of a fembot totally lacking in free will or personality might have to others, in my case it would feel like little more than a glorified sex toy.

[Esleeper]

I really get the appeal of a "hard" fembot too, and if I had the resources some time in the future I might have a few Sorayama-style chrome fembots strutting around just for decoration. But ultimately, I don't prefer that kind of robot for a sex partner. And as for love, that's not what I want a robot for anyway. I don't think I could ever fall in love with a robot, so the lack of a personality in one is all about sexual gratification. There's an interesting discussion about this particular aspect too.

I always knew I was a hopeless romantic. Probably shows in my writing, too. But I'm getting sidetracked now, I should just let other people share their opinions instead of going on and on about my own.

[FaceoffFembot]

As I said before, fembots for me are less about their mechanics (though that still plays a major part) than their pretense of being genuine human beings.

In that way, I think I'm more about "soft" fembots. They ideally have the plastic-ness of today's Actroids and RealDolls, the seemingly-unattainable airbrushed conventional beauty of some models, and some small hints (stutters, social awkwardness, glitchy voices and so on...) that they are more than meet the eye, but they still have to somewhat successfully pass as humans for their (literal, as Robotman explained) unmasking to have some weight.

On the other hand, I plain dig Mass Effect's EDI and the SVEDKA robot for their sleek, stripped-down, futurist hyper-femineity. The haughtiness of "hard" fembots' isn't excluded to be only a programmed facade, either, hiding only impotent lines of code. But half of the work is already done, and it's far harder to photoshop models into them.

So here's my opinion.

[N6688]

I prefer soft because of one simple reason.



Getting skin caught in a joint crack hurts like hell
We all experienced it at one point, a little bit of skin between a zipper, or accidently getting your fingers caught between a closing door, etc.
Imagine all of those things happening during sex

[Esleeper]

I prefer soft because of one simple reason.



Getting skin caught in a joint crack hurts like hell
We all experienced it at one point, a little bit of skin between a zipper, or accidently getting your fingers caught between a closing door, etc.
Imagine all of those things happening during sex

I'd like to imagine any fembot I'm with in that situation would be careful enough to keep that from happening.

And just think about how smooth her body would feel.

[Erntoron]

"Soft" for me, since I'm all for realistic fembots!

But I am also for things like exposed joints and such, but what actually lets me cold are some "retro-styled face-offs". Now don't hate me, I get it why they have an attraction to it, but I somehow don't get any reaction to a face which looks like a metal-plate with a speaker and two plastic eyes on it. I'm for something more advanced, like something which actually resembles a face or its nerve systems(actually, I like it better when the face is "just" damaged, not completely exposed).

[xerxes31415]

My votes in the "hard" column, but I also don't mind the armored look either (Metrolpolis, I Love Maria, etc)

[NukuNookee]

I'm a fan of the "soft but obviously synthetic" look, like Zor's Fei Robotics Gynoids: http://nukunookee.deviantart.com/art/Gy ... -594288903

Or these Gynoids: http://laughingvulcan.deviantart.com/ar ... -557937180

Not pretending to be human, but a bit safer to interact with. Though hard shapes have their allure as well, but maybe not for intimate person companions, more for more functional, work related roles.

[Esleeper]

I'm a fan of the "soft but obviously synthetic" look, like Zor's Fei Robotics Gynoids: http://nukunookee.deviantart.com/art/Gy ... -594288903

Or these Gynoids: http://laughingvulcan.deviantart.com/ar ... -557937180

Not pretending to be human, but a bit safer to interact with. Though hard shapes have their allure as well, but maybe not for intimate person companions, more for more functional, work related roles.

Actually, those wiold qualify as "hard". Soft ones are the ones that don't look synthetic at all.

[jolshefsky]

I'm a fan of the "soft but obviously synthetic" look, like Zor's Fei Robotics Gynoids: http://nukunookee.deviantart.com/art/Gy ... -594288903

Actually, those wiold qualify as "hard". Soft ones are the ones that don't look synthetic at all.

Gah! So "soft" is more like "gynoid in name only" (GINO)? It seems a poor choice of words when they can refer to both physical texture and to the strictness of applicable terms. I'd prefer "android"(/"gynoid") and "robot" to disambiguate "human-like" from "machine-like". In fact, "human-like" and "machine-like" are really the most unambiguous terms.

[FaceoffFembot]

Gah! So "soft" is more like "gynoid in name only" (GINO)? It seems a poor choice of words when they can refer to both physical texture and to the strictness of applicable terms. I'd prefer "android"(/"gynoid") and "robot" to disambiguate "human-like" from "machine-like". In fact, "human-like" and "machine-like" are really the most unambiguous terms.

The hard/soft dichotomy is an established shorthand (think software and hard sci-fi). Both are here meant to designate a robot shaped as a woman, the difference being how this replication is approached.

[slvsara]

An evocative query....My $.02US?

For me, I would have to say that while the chrome version of the Maschinenmensch in Metropolis does have a certain appeal, having come to come at least a portion of my...awareness...about my fascination with gynoids due to the likes of Andrea from the Star Trek episode What Are Little Girls Made Of?, as well as those seen in the film Westworld (yes, I admit it, I *am* that chronologically advanced ) I would have to say that I tend towards falling into the "soft fembot camp".

Hmmm...Now that is an image: a camp full of soft fembots. And me in the middle of them. Sigh. ...Ummmm. What was I saying? Oh yes...

As to just how synthetic I prefer my "soft" gynoid to appear? It does vary from time to time, depending on my whim. That said, as I am currently muddling into writing a bit of gynoid related short fiction, I'll just let this description - still in process - serve as a glimpse of my current tastes:

"... Out of the corner of my eye, I saw her walking towards me. Well, perhaps not towards *me*, but likely the table and its surrounding collection of chairs at which I was sitting.

She was tall...taller than my five feet five inches anyway. Her hair was ink black, cut in what some might call a "flapper" pageboy, her bangs framing a pair of fascinatingly blue eyes. But it was her complexion that was most striking. On this sun drenched campus she stood out among the various well tanned students, faculty, and staff. Her skin was like translucent blue white porcelain, with the faint hint of rose tones showing from beneath. A complexion that any goth girl would be envious of. She moved smoothly. Cleanly. With just the faintest hint of a mechanism in her step. As she came nearer I could catch the scent of jasmine, mixed with silicone. Faint seam lines showed near her shoulders.

I felt my breath catch slightly. Oh. My, I thought. What a lovely synthetic. ..."

For those wondering: yes, I admit it. My inspiration - albeit somewhat modified (eg: the faint seamlines, etc) is this particular individual:

[darkbutflashy]

Ah, for me the real divide is whether the fembot/cyborg is in control over herself or another person is. If she has a soft shell and soft traits, we end up at a GINO mostly, and if she has no control over herself either, that's uninteresting for me. In contrary, I like it most if she has a hard shell and "hard/male" traits and has control over herself. Between these two poles, it depends.

[Esleeper]

I'm a fan of the "soft but obviously synthetic" look, like Zor's Fei Robotics Gynoids: http://nukunookee.deviantart.com/art/Gy ... -594288903

Actually, those wiold qualify as "hard". Soft ones are the ones that don't look synthetic at all.

Gah! So "soft" is more like "gynoid in name only" (GINO)? It seems a poor choice of words when they can refer to both physical texture and to the strictness of applicable terms. I'd prefer "android"(/"gynoid") and "robot" to disambiguate "human-like" from "machine-like". In fact, "human-like" and "machine-like" are really the most unambiguous terms.

Never heard the term "GINO" before. And like FaceOffFembot said, it's more about how similar they are to a human woman than it is about actual texture.

[Esleeper]

Ah, for me the real divide is whether the fembot/cyborg is in control over herself or another person is. If she has a soft shell and soft traits, we end up at a GINO mostly, and if she has no control over herself either, that's uninteresting for me. In contrary, I like it most if she has a hard shell and "hard/male" traits and has control over herself. Between these two poles, it depends.

Can you explain what you mean by "hard" and "soft" traits, exactly?

I'm guessing you're referring to the issue of free will when you speak of whether or not she has control over herself, but I don't know how "hard" would necessarily imply male-ness. Other than that, it seems we have quite similar tastes.

[darkbutflashy]

I picked the "hard" versus "soft" distinction only because you made it. But I strongly associate these with archetypical male versus archetypical female behaviour.

We are all talking about stories, don't we? Written down or only existing in our minds. But always stories, adventure stories with a strong sexual component. So it seems natural to me all this is about exploring men and women coping with not-so-archetypical situations in a not-so-archetypical manner. To make it interesting, erotic.

To me, this means putting women into charge and men being the sidekicks.

[Stephaniebot]

I think the relation is to whatever appeals to you, for whatever is your personal preference, owner, or robot, sexual, or otherwise

[KatTF]

More a fan of Hard, prefer the sheer artificialness, the sleek gleaming perfection. Soft is too... normal and mundane IMO.

[N6688]

I prefer soft because of one simple reason.
Getting skin caught in a joint crack hurts like hell
We all experienced it at one point, a little bit of skin between a zipper, or accidently getting your fingers caught between a closing door, etc.
Imagine all of those things happening during sex

I was thinking about this today and i was like:
"(facepalm) how the hell did i forget about Mathilda"
I would have gladly risked getting my skin caught between her joints