A pocketful of saudade.
When the actual real-life animals do lack visible genitals, it is most definitely not this trope. It is, in fact, not a trope at all.
I am a bit torn about alien anatomy, however. Suppose aliens or angels are drawn without, do we assume that it's not drawn for the same censorship/conserv. of details reasons, or do we count them as a kind of alien anatomy?
The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Why do people put birds and reptiles in the examples?
Title? What Title?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Your "as far as you know" is wrong. It isn't "the animal equivalent of Anime Anatomy". It is the non-human equivalent of Anime Anatomy. It is about any nonhuman creature that lacks visible genitalia. Including creatures like birds and reptiles which normally don't have them.
"Human-like" is not a disqualifying characteristic, and has never been a disqualifying characteristic. In point of fact, the original examples of this trope were Alan Rickman's Metatron from Dogma and Rebecca Romijn's Mystique from the X-Men film. I know this, because I was the originator of the YKTTW, and I wrote the page in question.
Angels qualify. Cartoon animals qualify. Grey aliens from X Files and Stargate SG 1 qualifies. If it isn't human, it qualifies.
Which means Alan Rickman's character in Dogma, who is an Angel (you know... one of these guys
. "Heavenly messengers". Definitely not human.) qualifies.
You're trying to make the trope something it isn't.
They add birds and reptiles because birds and reptiles are examples.
If natural animals who lack exterior genitalia are to be removed because "that's not a trope", then fine. But that still does not change the fact that the Original Poster seems to be convinced that this trope only applies to animals, and that is incorrect.
edited 29th May '11 10:47:56 AM by Worldmaker
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
A pocketful of saudade.
A fictional species would be the greyer areas, yes, but I must say that real animals that do lack visible genitals are definitely not examples.
I've always been under the impression that it is Anime Anatomy that covers humanoids, though. Angels go there. Would that be a better criterion?
The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Cure Candy
Someone needs to calm down.
Anyway as I said in the other thread they are very different things but this trope is meant to be what the first two posts said. (Anime Anatomy as a plot point is YKTTW worthy or whatever that is with what's his name.. Never seen it.)
edited 29th May '11 10:53:42 AM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
Title? What Title?
Better criterion? How about "any non-human creature". I fail to see why that's so hard for people to fathom. If the individual in question isn't a human being, then they qualify. If they are a human being, then they don't.
Actually, as the creator of the trope page in question, I'd think I'd be a better judge of what I meant by it than you. Sorry, just saying.
And someone is calm. Or is this one of those "stating an unpopular opinion = being an asshole" things like over on the image picking thread? "disagreeing with me = not being calm"? or something.
edited 29th May '11 10:58:19 AM by Worldmaker
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
A pocketful of saudade.
Because, while technically it is easy to fathom, it's arbitrary and meaningless. We can also divide them by Cat Anime Anatomy and Non Cat Anime Anatomy. It's easy to see the difference, but why split them?
Why the criterion of whether it's cat or not? Well, why humans? For many times humans and humanlike humanoids are treated similarly in fiction whenever anatomy is brought up. It makes more sense to me that Anime Anatomy covers humanoids and this one covers non-humanoids.
But that's just my opinion.
Note: I'm aware that you created the trope. I'm proposing a change, not interpreting the text.
edited 29th May '11 11:03:59 AM by Catalogue
The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Title? What Title?
I always interpreted Anime Anatomy as depictions of human beings that lacked specific physical detail (not just genitalia). That is the way the page is written, after all.
Which is why I created the Nonhumans Lack Attributes page in the first place: to cover things like the Metatron from Dogma and Mystique. Not to mention Garfield's lack of testicles and so on.
Nonhumans Lack Attributes specifically (and directly) applies to non-humans. Hence the use of the word "nonhuman" in the title. This isn't a case of "technically easy to fathom", its a case of "the meaning is obvious to anyone who can read".
The note about my creation of the trope was in response to someone telling me what the trope "was meant to be". Again, I think as the person in question, I'm in a better position to say what was meant by the trope in the first place.
Change is fine... my objection is not to change. My objection is to misinterpretation, which is what the Original Poster did. And if the argument for change is based on the misinterpretation, then its no reason to change at all.
edited 29th May '11 11:15:20 AM by Worldmaker
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
Dragon Writer
If you don't mind I'll check back on this thread later, once the thermometer drops back down to room temperature again.
edited 29th May '11 11:47:15 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
One Winged Egret
Animals that actually lack visible genitalia lacking visible genitalia in fiction is not a trope. There's no reason for that to be included in any trope, so that part of the description should be cut.
Those sound like completely separate tropes to me. Honestly, they have nothing in common whatsoever. Garfield lacks testicles for the Anime Anatomy reasons: it's just an unnecessary detail that the artist wanted to avoid. Angels in Dogma actually lack genitalia because they are simply biologically sexless. I don't see how those were connected in your mind in the first place.
I think these ideas should be split. Honestly, I think you could roll the Garfield and such into Anime Anatomy, as that's the exact same trope. Or you could make a new trope that only applies to animals. I could see arguments either way.
The other trope seems like a variation of No Gender, with the difference that while No Gender lacks any sexual characteristics including secondary ones, this trope only covers genitals. Depending on what examples exist though, I'm not sure this needs to exist at all.
Title? What Title?
Because I am looking at the effect, while you are looking at the cause. I don't care why they don't have genitalia, I just care that they don't. The trope is "Nonhuman Creatures that Lack Visible Genitalia", not "Nonhuman Creatures that Lack Visible Genitalia Because of Reason X". That's overthinking things and is unnecessary.
Not too hard to comprehend, actually.
edited 29th May '11 2:40:54 PM by Worldmaker
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
Anime Anatomy should be for humans who are drawn without genitalia, that's what the trope title implies. It doesn't mean that they don't have genitalia, just that they're drawn without them.
Non-Humans Lack Attributes should obviously be a trope about how non-humans are never depicted as having visible genitalia, with the addendum that it is sometimes not clear if these creatures have genitals in the first place.
It's the difference between, say - Ken and Barbie (who, as fictional humans, obviously have genitals even if they're never shown) and Sonic the Hedgehog (who the hell knows?) that makes it two distinct different tropes.
In other words - humans depicted without junk are still Like Reality, Unless Noted, while for non-humans it's potentially up in the air.
Title? What Title?
I'm unsure of how that changes anything.
Dragon Writer
It doesn't "change" anything per se, because if the trope doesn't carry meaning or occur for a reason, it's Not A Trope ... which, btw, is the exact definition of People Sit On Chairs.
As it stands, the article already identifies why Nonhumans Lack Attributes, and that makes it a requirement of the trope.
edited 29th May '11 7:32:47 PM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
I see the Awesomeness.
My theory on fictional creatures would be to assume that they reproduce sexually until confirmed otherwise. If their reproduction habits are mentioned, we can go from there, but if the species is visually dimorphic, naked, and hasn't been confirmed to use a non-visible primary sexual organ method of reproduction, I'm inclined to say that this trope could be applicable.
Fight smart, not fair.
A pocketful of saudade.
When the two tropes are considered, we have some categories of examples:
- Humans that do have visible genitals, depicted without.
- Animals that do have visible genitals, depicted without.
- Animals that don't have visible genitals, depicted without.
- Fantastic lifeforms that we can't confirm for sure whether they have visible genitals, depicted without.
First of all, #3, is most definitely not a trope, since the option is not in the creator's hands. Tropes are not simply occurrences of patterns, they must carry an intended meaning.
As it currently stands, #1 is covered by Anime Anatomy, and #2/#4 by Nonhumans Lack Attributes.
My objection is, this distinction—while easy to comprehend and may technically work—doesn't carry any meaning and very arbitrary. Why draw the line in whether the subject is human or not? It makes only slightly more narrative sense (due to anthropocentrism) than if we draw the line in whether the subject is a cat or not (Cats Lack Attributes / Non Cats Lack Attributes). This was of course an artifact of Anime Anatomy being introduced first and perhaps rigidly defined to exclude humanoids.
More sensible criteria would be:
- Whether the subject is humanoid or not. Because humanoids tend to have the same anatomy as humans.
- Whether the cause is for censorship reasons or simply alien anatomy.
My suggestion is: Anime Anatomy for visible genitals not drawn due to censorship/artistic reasons, for sapient beings. Nonhumans Lack Attributes as a Sub-Trope when this occurs with "animals" ("When this occurs to animals, it's a more specific instance, since they need to be depicted naked ... requires slightly less suspension of disbelief"). Examples Type #3 should be axed. Examples Type #4 go to Bizarre Alien Biology or something.
edited 29th May '11 10:43:18 PM by Catalogue
The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Title? What Title?
That seems overly picky to me, given that Tropes Are Flexible.
I mean, I agree with the removal of your third category, but the others? That seems to be unnecessarily overthinking the trope.
edited 30th May '11 4:59:25 AM by Worldmaker
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
Together Forever...
Animals and aliens/non-human humanoids are pretty different.
I'd be receptive to an argument that the latter belonged in Anime Anatomy, but not here.
@ Windmaker: Brush up your Biology. Mystique is human. (As is Magneto.)
edited 30th May '11 5:28:47 AM by Tambov333
Please join these multinational petitions against ACTA. Sign up now. Every voice counts.
Title? What Title?
So how about we rename it Nonhumans Except Those Nonhumans Who Look Human Lack Attributes, if you're going to get that specific?
The description includes mutated humans. Besides, doesn't she consider herself an H. superior and not an H. sapiens?
edited 30th May '11 7:25:51 AM by Worldmaker
Being in a Japanese-produced work is not enough of a difference to warrant its own trope.
A pocketful of saudade.
That or "Nonhumanoids Lack Attributes". Extra 3 characters instead of 32.
The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Dragon Writer
Or maybe Animals Lack Attributes.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
I was always under the impression that this trope was for things like angels and werewolves and that sort of thing. Not Garfield.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Crown Description:
In short, the trope allows two varieties which are distinct. One has to go.- A) Anime Anatomy applied to creatures and animals; genitals that would be visible In Real Life aren't, as a matter of censorship.
- B) Fantastic creatures actually lacking visible genitals where you'd expect them to be, as a matter of physiology.
One of the points raised against this trope article in its Image Pickin' thread is that it's accumulating non-examples.
This trope is, and has always been, the animal equivalent of Anime Anatomy — the lack of depicting genetalia on animals/creatures that should be expected to have them visible, as a matter of Artistic License, censorship, and/or Law of Conservation of Detail:
It is not about humans or (by extension), sufficiently-human-like individuals — we already have Anime Anatomy for that. Alan Rickman's part in Dogma (as depicted in The Other TV Tropes) is not an example; the Babylon5 quote, while interesting, is not from an example either.
And the trope is not about creatures who really do lack visible, recognizable genitals. The fact that birds and dinosaurs keep theirs on the inside is not a matter of artistic license.
edited 29th May '11 11:50:42 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.