Not Neutral: Perverse Sexual Lust

In-Universe examples would seem to be harmless on their face, although they could be subjective. Real Life — that is, Troper Tales style examples should be forbidden for the same reason we don't accept other overtly sexual Troper Tales.

Actually the page was locked to get rid of the in universe examples, there was even a big note saying not to ass real life examples.

In-Universe is the opposite of Real Life...

Well, for one thing the No Examples Please message hasn't seemed to take on the wiki proper: 671 wicks. I don't have time to check them, unfortunately, but the first one I did look at was documenting an actor's acknowledged PSL for a character.

By definition this requires Show Within a Show to apply In-Universe, so I'd imagine we need to start building a list of actual examples that might qualify.

Eureka would be a good example. Fargo on that show has PSL for Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Sarah Michelle Gellar.

There is a big list of in-universe examples, look in the history.

edited 20th Jul '11 11:27:42 AM by nuclearneo577

@ Shima, Buffy would be the PSL example. If he's just attracted to the actress, wouldn't that not be an example of PSL?

Ah, good point. Only his Buffy thing would count, but part of his Buffy obsession is naming a house after her actress. It's hard to explain.

I'll just throw out some examples from the history.

• Lucky Star's Konata harbors it IN SPADES, in a very strange example. She has PSL for Haruhi Suzumiya. (Referenced here and throughout that episode when she herself, on her route, picks up Haruhi related hentai.) Considering they share the same VA... there should be a trope for whatever strange situation that results in.
• Relient K has a song about the singer's love for Nancy Drew.
• Norwegian comic-strip Nemi has the main character harbouring PSL for not only Batman but also the Phantom Blot (yes, the Mickey Mouse antagonist). And Legolas, so very much.

Can someone explain how this is even remotely harmful?

edited 20th Jul '11 1:30:48 PM by nuclearneo577

Lucky Star: good example.

Relient K: maybe. It's a RL person with it, but they created a work about it. That sounds like some kind of Fan Fic trope more than this one.

Nemi: good example.

In-universe PSL doesn't actually require Show Within a Show. I've read a YA novel where the female main characters discuss their respective crushes on Legolas and Aragorn. Not to mention it could be something like a trading card being crushed on.

Yeah, I've seen Lust for Legolas in several works as well as Lust for Seven of Nine, Princess Leia, etc. Of course that sort of implies that LOTR, Trek and Star Wars are fictional within that fictional universe as well as ours, so it may not be an important distinction.

It's a common feature of geek media.

I meant a fictional work other than the work itself. For instance, a fictional character that has a crush on an actor/actress from the same verse, because they stared in a movie, is not an example.

Would "a character within work within a work present in the work?

There are too many many "work"s in that sentence for me to parse it. _ _'

Okay.

Let's say we have Alice. Alice is a character in show X. We also have Bob, who is a character in show Y.

Now, as long as Alice is attracted to Bob, regardless of whether or not show Y is a Show Within a Show or a different work of fiction (as in the previous case, Lord Of The Rings was show Y), it still counts. However, if Alice is attracted to the actor that plays Bob (also doesn't matter whether or not show Y is a Show Within a Show), that's not an example.

edited 20th Jul '11 9:30:04 PM by Deboss

How about just saying something like "In order to qualify, the object of the character's affections must be fictional to the character"?

edited 20th Jul '11 9:36:42 PM by bluepenguin

The trope's common enough in anime that characters refer to it as "being into 2D-girls" in a number of series (Axis Powers Hetalia, Hayate The Combat Butler, The World Only God Knows, Durarara, etc.). I don't think it'd be too much of a problem finding examples where characters aren't just possibly attracted to the actor/actress.

bluepenguin, that's another way of putting. More compact too.

I like bluepenguin's phrasing. It parses nicely.

Just to add to the discussion from a few dozen posts ago:

The example lock-out on Perverse Sexual Lust is direct evidence of the previously mentioned exception to this wiki being ruled by consensus. Since that exception clearly considers "I find this title offensive" to be a valid reason for renaming (e.g. Incest Yay), it doesn't matter that Trope Repair Shop decided against renaming (with Real Life examples excluded).

Did you have an actual point to make, or are you just whining? Stay on topic please.

My point was: even though a previous Repair Shop thread decided against not renaming Perverse Sexual Lust, that decision was unilaterally overruled by someone who seems to take exception to titles like this. Is that really so off-topic?

Personally, I'm in favor of renaming this so we can restore the examples, because I checked them last time. (There were a few that I moved to Celeb Crush, the similarity of which seems to be causing confusion.)

...it wasn't renamed. It's still there. Perverse Sexual Lust. Click on that link right there.

I think it deserves in-universe examples, but complaining about it being renamed when it wasn't is simply incorrect.

I meant to say "keeping Perverse Sexual Lust (with its examples) at its original title." Obviously we haven't renamed it... as of yet.

edited 22nd Jul '11 2:38:41 PM by Prfnoff