Not Neutral: Perverse Sexual Lust

The name of this trope is by no means neutral. It has an unnecessary negative bent. To call attraction to a fictional character perverse is rather disapproving and reveals a certain social sexual standard at work. To further imply that sexual lust is involved is pushing this into Acceptable Targets territory even further. I suggest a rename. I'm surprised it's had this name for this long.

I think this has come up before, and a rename was rejected. Personally, while I don't really care if it's "neutral" or not, the name has always struck me as weirdly general. I can think of four or five things that might be called "perverse sexual lust", and crushing on a fictional character would not top that list.

I don't have a problem with the lack of neutrality — it reads as Self-Deprecation to me anyway — but I'll say again what I said last time this title was discussed, which is that to someone who doesn't know the Trope Namer, Perverse Sexual Lust doesn't indicate "crush on/attraction to a fictional character" at all. As the above poster said, there are a lot of things I'd think of long before I'd ever guess what the trope really means.

On the other hand, it is pretty entrenched in the wiki and I don't know that it's often misused, so maybe it's not a problem.

1) this wiki does not a have a "neutrality" policy, but we do have one against bashing or gushing.

2) "I find this title offensive" is not a reason for a rename.

3) "We should be setting an example" is not a reason for a rename.

4) I'd like to see misuse numbers for something with

level inbounds.

5) unless Eddie says so.

Well, like I said, I don't think it's happening. But this name really is too general - misuse should at least be checked for.

I agree.

There's no problem here. If I want to fuck Neliel Tu (which I do), I'm not exactly going with the flow of reality.

Let's move along.

edited 18th Jul '11 11:36:38 PM by KingZeal

That's still not the obvious assumption from "perverse sexual lust". I actually doubt we'll see misuse, but I've always had my reservations about this name, so I want to make sure it's working before this is settled. Plus, I do agree with the OP on one point: this is by no means always sexual.

I agree that the name isn't descriptive enough (there's no way I could have guessed what it is from the title alone). Still, if there's no misuse, I guess it doesn't need changing.

And negativity is definitely not an issue. I always saw it as being tongue-in-cheek (seeing how it's regularly used self-deprecatingly by people about their own fictional crushes).

The comments about neutrality and negative slant were discussed under reasons to change the name in the name change FAQ.

Even if the word "perverse" simply means different, it has a decidely negative slant in Western society as different from the mainstream tends to be portrayed as bad.

In all honesty, I doubt there will be misuse if it is being used as self deprication. And I have noticed the entrenching.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:19:19 AM by asbjfalfkj

Most of the other people in this topic appear not to have read the same negative connotations from the word as yourself. Myself included. Since the wiki is largely ruled by consensus (barring Fast Eddie's say-so otherwise), you've got your work cut out for you if you want to make a case for renaming. Especially if there's little misuse.

Leave well enough alone. There's no reason to rename.

Plus, pre-existing term. I think it was coined by 4Chan or somesuch, but it caught on, so that's how it works.

This doesn't have to do with renaming, but while we're talking about the trope, why doesn't it have in-universe examples? I can think of a couple works where character explicitly have crushes on (in-universe) fictional characters. Shouldn't those be allowed?

Supporting.

I'm supporting this too and, in fact, can't even remember why they were removed in the first place (I remember the trope being bahleeted along with Troper Tales, but that doesn't explain the removal of in-series examples).

Agreed, in-universe examples are harmless. After all, we have Fetish for in-universe stuff.

Also, tag fix.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:03:49 PM by nuclearneo577

I support purging to be a character in a work having this toward Show Withing A Show.

What.

He supports purging examples and making this an In-universe trope. Like if Bob on Super Punk Octo Pudding Gas Mark Seven has Perverse Sexual Lust for Alice on Jugian Teleporter Plunk Spot Nine.

As for the rename: We don't generally rename for lack of neutrality or being a Take That!. If the name is extremely offensive, or worse, inaccurate, that's different.

edited 19th Jul '11 8:40:47 PM by Wulf

High five for Nelliel love!

Sorry, just had to throw that out there. >_>

I'm too used to the title now to really care about renaming it.

I haven't done a real wick check yet, but just looking at the pages it tends to be linked from suggests a low misuse rate.

Well the examples were like that before they were deleted for no apparent reason.

Didn't there used to be Perverse Nonsexual Cuddlelust for nonsexual examples? Might be worth resurrecting if there are enough in-verse examples.

It was Perverse Asexual Cuddlelust and that page was cut because of... one sec let me find it. this thread.

edited 20th Jul '11 8:14:38 AM by Raso