The kara story is clearly a criticism of the idea of the perfect robotic woman and has a semi-dystopian feel. The setting of the video is creepy, but I don't think that the message it sends is creepy at all.

Neither ad nor game but tech demo http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-07-introducing-quantic-dreams-kara

That second one isn't an advertisement, that's a very well done and very sad short film. And it's sad precisely BECAUSE the woman in the film is objectified. The story is a commentary on the dehumanization of people who are seen as "other" and therefore inferior. In this case, because the woman is a robot, the man tragically sees no problem with treating her as an object. But the idea can serve as an allegory for how women are treated in real life.

The Kia advertisement is just a reiteration of a sexist trope. The Kara short movie however is more than that. We might agree that the story builds upon the same sexist trope, but I think there is more to it.
It tells a story of something, no, someone supposed to be an object but not being one. I imagine that there are some people to whom this story may speak in an emancipatory way.

I have to agree with debatian and srslycirce: the short film isn't an advertisement, and it really doesn't push the "sex bot" trope beyond one line of script. To me, it hinges more on the question of what it means to be "alive". In biology, reproduction is one characteristic of being "alive", and - for an android - having a capacity for sexual intercourse is an analogue to reproduction, akin to robotic intelligence being an analogue of biological intelligence. Furthermore, it further "humanizes" the robot, by including as part of "her" capacity the ability to engage in that most intimate of activities. Yes, it's a capability that can be abused, but why focus on that capability beyond all the others? For a non-sentient robot, it would be merely another function, and for a sentient robot, it wouldn't necessarily be the only capability that can be abused. (For example, Kara could be tasked to continuously provide multilingual translations, prepare copious amounts of food, look after entire creches of young babies and children, etc.)

Compared to the Fiat ad, where the robot was far more obviously depicted to be a sex-bot, Kara doesn't show the protagonist as being primarily a sex-bot. (If that's the message you took away from it, then you're in a completely different head space than me.) Merely posting these side by side isn't sufficient to show how they are actually connected.

I wonder how the message would change if the male voice in the short film were shown to be the voice of the assembly plant robot itself, instead of a human in a control booth (which we are led to believe it to be, but let's pretend that it was actually the voice of the assembly plant robot). It would put a completely different spin on the whole film, too, since the assembly robot is unable to leave the plant, while the "female" robots all leave. Too, making the male voice belong to the assembly plant robot would imply that the assembly plant itself was "malfunctioning," in that it, too, could think (and possibly to dream of electric sheep?), has a personality, and also shows empathy in choosing to let Kara live. (It also shows a possible naivete, since - like the people in Aristole's "Cave" allegory - the assembly plant robot has no direct knowledge of the outside world, but would only know of it through indirect means, which means that he would make the decision to let Kara into a world of which he knows next to nothing.)

... but, no, the male voice is most likely a human tech who is quite probably going to get fired once Kara is brought back due to her "malfunctions", and when they review the tapes of the initial assessment, this tech is probably going to be shown the door.

(Edited due to formatting issues.)

This reminds me of a book for teens called "Girl Parts" (2010) that explores this very issue. Two parents arrange to have a girl "built" for their son, who is a socially and emotionally disconnected misogynist, in the hopes she will help him love and feel more emotion. He, of course, excitedly sees her as a sex toy who was built to cater to his every whim. The caveat is that she has an "intimacy clock" and won't allow certain physical interactions before a certain amount of time has passed. Needless to say, the young man gets frustrated with her and essentially throws her away. The book ends with the fembot becoming close friends with a different young man, who desires non-physical female companionship and sees true value in the fembot.

Regardless what you think of the videos in the article, I think we can all agree that our culture as a whole generally over-sexualizes females whenever and however we please. The trend of "fembots" can definitely be creepy, but it's nothing new.... just a new way to do it. I've certainly never seen a sexy "manbot" that women could use however they wish.

The big difference here, is that you're *meant* to be creeped out by the tech demo. The viewer is supposed to feel uncomfortable with the way we look at this woman/robot. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the creators wanted the viewer to take that feeling of creepiness and recall it when looking at other fembots, and think about why one is okay and the other isn't. It's great to include that video in a fembot roundup, but as an example of it proving your point about how the trope is dehumanizing and misogynistic.

Maybe that second video isn't as bad as the first, but I, for one, am really tired of seeing women depicted as being allowed only the tiniest degree of agency, and reacting as though they have received a gift from the gods. That this fembot has to be grateful to the guy who saves her, even though it means she has to live a life as a slave, is disturbing, and doesn't really fit with the supposed attempt to make a point about objectifying women.

But, even if the creators are trying to make some broad point about objectifying women, they're doing it while objectifying women, which is a bit disingenuous. They're clearly catering to the male gaze, while possibly trying to appease women because look, it's about how disturbing objectification is!

The idea that men are entitled to women's bodies is taught every Sunday in the Abrahamic religions, and we will continue to have these sort of images in society as long as people follow these religions. The only hope we have is that the "no religion" category is the fastest growing amongst all of the beliefs.

Some commenters believe the video to be a commentary intended to reject the objectification of women, and that is infinitely more plausible than LW's thesis; however, it really appears to simply be setting the stage for a science fiction themed series/game. Kara is a sentient life form that was accidentally created. The other robots have the capacity for self awareness but have not yet expressed it. Kara -- a strong female modeled character -- will lead the rebellion to set free her newly created species/race of sentient non-organic life forms. She is the female android version of Moses. We do not yet know who will play the part of God, which is really as a facilitator to encourage the hero to access his/her full set of 'powers' but it almost certainly will be a human (or it will arise internally).

The archetypal hero is migrating (this is just the latest example) from humans to human created lifeforms. For those who believe myth carries deep truths about humanity and humanity's relationship with the rest of creation, the evolution of this archetype is the truly fascinating element in the video.

what to do about women who WANT to be the perfect toy of men? I've heard more than a few say that they devote their lives to this so they can "land" a husband. It's really hard not to hate on them...

The android in the film is designed to look exactly like the actress who voiced her. Looked up the actress and noticed immediately.

Every time a new advertisement or short comes out about a gynoid I see similar reactions on feminist-leaning sites: lots of people very upset about the "perfect, subservient woman" trope and decrying the ad/video as misogynistic. Yes, I do agree that the primary purpose of these ads is likely catering to an "obedient woman" desire, but I'm conflicted about whether it's necessarily "misogynistic".

I'm probably in the very small minority here, but I'm a (hetero) female and I've got a serious thing for androids (humanoid male robots). Aside from the physical/appearance-based appeal (and also the fact that I come from a computer science background), there's definitely a strong attraction to the "obedient" quality. Not so much because I want someone to serve me, but because I would want someone safe and predictable to be around. Someone who's not going to judge me for my failings or abandon me when things get difficult. It's the same sort of unconditional love you get from a dog: they're always there for you and happy to see you.

And of course, since it would be ten different kinds of screwed up to treat a more complex "real" person like a pet or an object, the android offers a safer, more humane alternative to engaging in a toxic/dominant relationship with another human being. Of course, the intelligence level of the robot also tends to get into some sticky territory, since it would be ethically wrong to treat an intelligent and conscious machine like a pet too. I guess it's a good thing we won't have to worry about that for a long time.

So I guess in summary, what troubles me is that if finding these obedient gynoids appealing means you hate women, then finding an obedient android appealing would mean that I hate men. I don't hate men, and I don't want to subjugate men, but I do find them romantically intimidating and would feel much safer with someone who cares for me unconditionally despite my crippling feelings of inadequacy.

I think the problem is mostly that woman have a history of being treated like accessories and objects and domestic slaves, whereas men do not. In an ideal world, both my side and the fembot-liking side would be a product of a human (not restricted to male or female) desire for a safe, controllable relationship. Though it is pretty selfish.

So if it's frowned upon to openly treat women like objects in a TV commercial, treating objects like women instead in the answer?

In any case, as he gazes into her photosensors and whispers sweet nothings into her stereo microphones he's still just masturbating when he's having "sex" with "her." And that's why i was surprised to see this ad on TV, since it's obvious that the guy in it is about to go to town on "her" when he gets her in the house and TV commercials don't usually glorify unconventional masturbation practices so openly.

Or maybe I'm just old fashioned in the sense that I'm apparently unable to allow myself to jump over to the other side of the Uncanny Valley for some simulated sex? On the other hand (so to speak), in this case my repulsion is a sexual hang-up that I'm ok with having (and keeping).

My first impression of the PS3 video was that it was better than the car commercial, but the more I think about it, the more I realize we might have just watched a rapist in action. The second video does problematize the concept of the fembot, and I think the intentions of the filmmakers were probably to make people identify with the robot and be glad that she isn't killed. But what is ultimately happening in the video hinges on the motives of the assembler. I'm connecting the PS3 video and our discussion of our reactions to the idea expressed in a later post here at SocImg about how to understand rape jokes and the erasure of men from our conceptions of violence against women. Rather than focusing on the reactions of regular human beings with empathy, what if we think of how a rapist would react to the PS3 video. How does a rapist understand the message of the story? Frankly, the story gets creepier when I think of this. I heard the robot exclaim "I'm scared" and wanted to help her. I think a rapist would hear that and get excited. So why does the assembler decide to keep this robot alive once he knows she will be terrified when she's ultimately raped by her owner? I think we must assume this is a likely outcome as nothing in the story foreshadows an overthrow of the current system that has been established within the story. I'm left with thinking the car commercial at least doesn't establish agency for the robot nor show her frightened and helpless.

I know it's just a pipe dream here, but I'm really hoping the second video is the story opener for a game about a "fembot" becoming self-aware and fighting for freedom for her and her kind...

When I first saw that Kara video, I was left feeling that it was a sort of response to the "fembot" trope seen so much in science fiction. Like sort of showing how creepy and disgusting the idea of a fembot without agency is. I guess I missed that it was secretly pro fembot. Damn marketing! You got me again!

I'm surprised there aren't more pro-life discussions going on here, especially about abortion gender, racial, or disability discrimination.

Isn't the second video a commentary on how most men want women to be? Thoughtless slaves?

Must be the secret desire for sharia law. I like women that are independent, intelligent and not looking through slits in a sheet. Damn fascism disguised as religion. This kind of guy is a narcissist and wants absolute power over everything. He does not want a woman as a partner.

Hi, I read SocImages regularly and the second video is misrepresented. I remember when Kara came out. It's a short film created with the PS3's (at the time, new) graphics technology. It's not an advertisement for the PS3.

Thank you.

About the game - as far as I understood Kara is the player character in the game, which means that most probably the message of the whole game will be the one against treating women (and androids, actually) as objects. I am actually glad to see a game picking up this subject. Please don't always assume prejudice and mistreatment when someone unexpected, like a video game producer, makes an attempt to talk about important social matters. Wait until you see the whole game before you judge, that's the only fair way.