Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Rebochan: Another trope with an identity crisis, this one having also picked up some annoying gender issues (besides the one its addressing). What is this trope? It seems to simply be "impractically skimpy clothes". It's turning into "this is a girl in a dress or heels" or "this is fanservice". I'm going to start pulling out everything in the latter two. I think the intro also needs a rewrite to focus the trope back to its subject and not to ranting about gender issues in general.

Edit: ...right, I don't have time right now. I'd also like to wonder why high heels of any sort are "stripperific". It's reading more like the only way to not be stripperific is to wear a burqa.
Joeldi: I don't think the very first example (Evangelion) is an example of this. All three of the children wear the skin tight plug-suits, worn /for/ practical reasons, and the appearing nude has little to do with fashion choice, just plot (fan service perhaps being the REAL reason, but that's a different trope). As for Misato, her clothes might have been slightly impractical, but many women in leadership positions DO wear similar clothes to bring out their features.
  • Marlowe: I agree. This is about revealing clothing worn in circumstances where it would be impractical, not about skin-tight costumes for wearing in LCL, or a skimpy skirt on a character who is established as a shameless flirt from episode 1 and who wears a protective suit when she does go into battle. Neon Genesis Evangelion isn't even close to this one. Discuss, or just cut?
  • Rebochan: Just cut - this page needs a real cleanup. A lot of the examples aren't this trope, just skimpy outfits in general.
  • Willbyr: I agree, the Evangelion reference doesn't belong.
  • Marlowe:Cut.

Henry Hankovich: the addendum to the note on 300 manages to be historically inaccurate ("nippled armor" was Roman fashion), painfully written, and confusing in meaning all at once, without adding any useful or clarifying information:
In actuality, the Spartans did wear armor and helmets, though their armor was shaped like a perfectly chiseled torso (with nipples). But this, however, makes it even more Stripperiffic, as the Spartans would actually be wearing practical armor in battle and not the general three-fourths nakedness of the comic/movie or the full nudity of the statues.

Seth: Image hotlinked, upload (preferably after shrinking/clipping it a bit) the image to the servers.

Gracie Lizzie: It was hosted on Image Shack, that's what Image Shack is for.

Big T: Doesn't matter. That isn't how we do it here. We upload everything to this site, and don't rely on external websites to host our images. What happens the second we use too much of their bandwidth and it gets replaced with one of those stupid replacement images? It's better to upload somewhere where you know that won't happen.

(edit) It's too bad that Seth didn't leave any trace of the image's URL so I could help out and upload for you. If you still have it, I'm sure we can use it.

Also, a reminder to Seth: if you remove something from a page. please post it to the discussion page so we can discuss whether it really needed to be deleted. It also makes it easier to follow your instructions.

xyzzy: Having no idea what the former image was, I added a new one. Hope it's cool. The picture's originally from a newspost accompanying a comic, but the news bits all seem to be down right now. If I haven't linked to the correct comic, then at the very least I linked to an appropriate one.
The Invisible Woman costume in the picture was not created by John Byrne and in fact did not appear until long after he had left the title. However, as part of his reinvention of the character, which in many ways made her stronger, he did briefly have her brainwashed to be a villain "Malice" and wear a sexy bondage costume.

Big T: Well, at least have a clue what the image was. Do you really mean Invisible Woman or Wonder Woman?
Sci Vo: I'm experimenting with eliminating indexes from the bottom of the page that are redundant visual clutter. This should still be listed on the Characterization Tropes and Personal Appearance Tropes pages, though.
Xander77: I seem to remember a Warcraft (?) comic where the male complains about the female's stripperific armor leaving all sorts of vital spots exposed. He then goes on to poke her in the navel with a dagger, which is magically stopped. Would that be a good image for the front page, should anyone happen to find it?

"It is to be noted that teenage girls, when practicality isn't an issue, will many times pick a skimpier outfit over one more comfortable. This trope only applies to situations where a female character wears an especially revealing outfit where it would not be practical, such as anything involving combat."

I'm pretty sure that this is exactly the reason for the outfits in Final Fantasy X-2. Final Fantasy has a large female audience (thus the Stripperific males like Tidus and Vaan, not to mention Squall being modelled after Gackt). And X-2 is so aimed at girls that it's ridiculous.

Rebochan: Honestly? The most complaints I heard about the clothes in X-2 were from men. Usually decrying them as being whores and skanks. Most girls I knew that played it either didn't care or were already desensitized to it. I actually have Play Arts figures of all three main characters, in their normal but still skimpy clothes, on prominent display in my office at work where nobody is a gamer or has heard of Final Fantasy. They've never once drawn comment.
Novium: Where would women wearing super-impractical high heels fit into this? It's relatively easy to ignore someone running around in small heels, but it's pretty ridiculous when they show people going into fights or into situations that will require a lot of running and jumping and stunts wearing four inch stiletto heels. Even that you can somewhat ignore until they start doing flips and landing from big jumps on said heels. Just looking at that stuff makes my knees and feet ache.

Runespoor: I'd say they fit, especially if they're wearing skirts or going She-Fu at the same time. Maybe you could just bring the reader's attention to their wearing high-heels when you write your example?

Runespoor: Okay, I'm contesting the Naruto and Fire Emblem examples.

When you have to say that a girl's outfit is stripperific because her arms are naked, you're probably seeing too much in it. The only female who fits the trope for Naruto is Anko, and even that is pretty arguable, because the amount of Fanservice built on her outfit is negligible. And Fetish Fuel =/= Stripperific. Stripperific means large and unpractical amounts of skin left naked, right? Females on Naruto wear clothes that wouldn't get them arrested in the real world. (for the record, Neji and Shikamaru also wear bandages and/or fishnet, not to mention Sasuke.)

As for Fire Emblem, I'd say the discussion on the main page is going a good way to show that it's just blatantly untrue. Unless you're remembering characters I don't, which is entirely possible. (I'm using the Serenes Forest official art gallery for reference: The character showing most skin is Hawkeye, a male. Unless we decide that Zettai Ryouiki makes the trope, I'm not seeing it, not with all the qualifications that need to be added.
The Mac Hall link currently points to a comic about the trope, but the actual "Law #910" image isn't there. For the record, it was originally attached to this comic, so it presumably will be again if the news posts are every restored. —Document N
Rebochan: I cut down the Final Fantast entry for the sake of brevity, and to cut back on the nastyness of it. Seriously, when it wasn't biased and whiny about the post-SNES era, it was just gathering justifying edits. And seriously, I don't get how anyone could call Garnet stripperific unless you're a time traveller from 1851. Or maybe Amish.

Awakenedgirl: Does the new body armor version of the Witchblade still count as striperiffic or is it an exception?
Dragon Quest Z: Decided in this thread to make a new picture. Figuring where to put the old picture there as well.

Shrikenest: The thread is gone. And boo; the old picture was absolutely perfect.
Space Drake: Alright, I've restored this paragraph:

"It's worth pointing out that this practice seems to be (veeeery slowly) on its way to becoming a Discredited Trope, especially among the sub-30 crowd who have grown up with comics and other forms of modern mass media. At this point there have been so many Stripperific heroines that they are perceived as the norm and are therefore, ironically, dull and uninteresting. If anything, competent female characters who are well dressed and don't need to rely on sex appeal are themselves becoming more appealing and preferable (both to viewers and to producers), as they tend to be more interesting characters; it becomes impossible for the production to simply hide behind sex appeal. The trope isn't completely discredited however, as plenty of productions across many mediums still abandon conservative clothing in order to appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator. Tropes Are Not Bad, remember, and that includes this one, although it's overdone in most media. So long as people have hormones, it'll probably never completely die off."

... because I disagree that it is a "gender issues rant". The trope is losing credibility among viewers and producers; one only needs to visit any major media discussion forum and see the amount of eye-rolling something like Witchblade induces to understand that, and there has been a shift in character design in comics and other visual media over the past decade back to less "revealing" outfits. Now, if this needs to be reworded, fine, but it's very much worth pointing out that this trope does elicit a lot of scowls and is consciously avoided by many media producers these days.