The future is forged by pouring a stiff drink, kicking back, and taking a second to question everything. We here at Esquire.com love a crazy-idea-that-just-might-work, so this week, we're paying tribute to the forward-thinkers of past and present with a series called Esquire Predicts. Because no one gets ahead without imagining what "ahead" looks like.
In the 1985 novel Divine Endurance, author Gwyneth Jones coined the term "gynoid" to describe Cho, a robot slave character molded from the "ideal" female form. (Cho is short for Chosen Among the Beautiful.) As Jones' sci-fi world has seeped into reality, with roboticists around the world dedicating their lives to building lifelike machine women, the word has stuck—for better or worse. Is "gynoid" a pejorative? That depends on whether you think the world has a lady-robot problem.
The recently released film Ex Machina makes a strong case that, as technology evolves, our gender divide will grow along with it. In the movie, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), a Silicon Valley genius type, introduces Caleb, (Domhnall Gleeson), an employee at a Google-esque concern, to his latest creation: Ava, a sleek, motorized humanoid with a search engine for a brain. Nathan wants his underling to run the Turing test on Ava, to prove with certainty that he's created life. Throughout the question-and-answer sessions, Ava radiates warmth that only humanity can provide, and Caleb is caught off-guard when the friendship blossoms into something resembling romance.
Later, Caleb learns that Ava was built to anatomical precision. "If you wanted to screw her, mechanically speaking, you could, and she'd enjoy it," Nathan says to him. But this does not compute for Caleb. Why give her sexuality? Nathan is quick on the trigger. "Sexuality is fun man! If you're going to exist, why not enjoy it."
What plays out isn't exactly a human-robot love story, writer-director Alex Garland twists his knife into male creators and their lurid intentions. Even the brightest minds fail to see the Turing test as a form of objectification. There's a long history of building robots into the picturesque idea of female beauty. Go back to 1928's Metropolis and you'll meet Maria, an android with wide hips and a knack for sultry dancing.
The thinking behind most female robots throughout the 20th century boils down to: If you want a beautiful woman on your arm, build one. Society's progression doesn't play a huge factor; see 1949's The Perfect Woman and John Hughes' 1985 horndog comedy Weird Science for evidence (and feel free to debate the difference between "robot" and "virtual girl born from power surge"—same thing, dudes).
Yes, filmmakers want their fembots to have strength, vitality, and heroism. They just also want them to wear skimpy outfits.
They also want their fembots to kill the men ... while wearing skimpy outfits.
And you know someone is really, really into the Borg Queen.
The gynoid physique is even more prominent in Japan, represented in graphic art and massively popular anime cartoons. Hajime Sorayama, whose design work resides in the Museum of Modern Art, made a career out of robot erotica.
There have been critical takes. The original Stepford Wives and its gender-swapping remake both extrapolate the male desire to perfect women through technology. Guys, it's never OK to swap your loved ones in for gynoid replacements.
Advancements in technology have allowed modern robotcists to make sci-fi into sci-fact. "Project Aiko" is Canadian inventor Le Trung's attempt to build the ultimate female companion. "Bio Robot Artificial Intelligence Neural System" allows Aiko to teach children, check the weather, work as a secretary, and help dish out any daily medications. She can also be used for… love. According to Trung's website, Aiko has sensitivity sensors on her face and body, including her breasts and even down there. She can also tell the difference between being touched gently and being tickled. "I know that it has caused some controversy by putting sensors in Aiko's private areas," he writes. "But I want to make it clear that I am not trying to play God, I am just an inventor, and I believe I am helping science move forward."
A recent study by the School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore concluded that, in tests where men interacted with both male- and female-modeled robots, subjects exhibited sexism the same way they might with humans. Garland seems to be on to something paradoxical: When does the aesthetic beauty of a "product" (or in the case of the above movie characters, filmed entertainment) veer into objectification of a treacherous order? Are we falling into archaic pitfalls by casting these robots in any humanoid form? Or even worse: If we create sexualized robotic women, will the control warp our perception of real women?
Gentlemen, welcome to the future.
