Do we really need examples?: Panty Shot

This is an issue I have with several fanservice tropes, but I figured I'd start here. What do the examples add to this trope? "This series has panty shots?" "You can see X's underoos in Y episode?"

It's creepy. We cut fetish fuel tropes specifically for that reason, and this trope has a fetish fuel wiki page. Can we cut the examples from the main site and just leave the trope as a description?

edited 16th Oct '11 9:02:33 AM by Ronka87

We can start by deleting all unintentional examples.

"This is an odd obsession in Japanese media"... maybe. An exhaustive description of underwear shots of the girls from iCarly and Full House... no, we probably could do without that.

Is there a Japanese word we can use as the trope name?

Why would changing the name to something less understandable be better? There's nothing wrong with the trope name or even the trope description— "Creators putting in underwear shots as a form of fanservice" is a real practice and definitely tropeable. My issue is that we shouldn't be a database for carefully documenting every time panty shots happen.

Edit: Actually, on re-read, the trope description is also really creepy. So's the caption. Maybe a slight re-write is in order.

edited 16th Oct '11 9:44:08 AM by Ronka87

I think that this page is incredibly creepy, but has too many wicks to outright cut. Cutting the examples is the best solution as far as I am concerned.

Yes, I think removing all examples would be just fine.

The advantage in renaming is that people will have less reason to call it creepy. They'll just see the page and say "Oh, it's one of those Japanese rape tropes," and they'll move on.

Most of the non-Japanese examples should be either moved to the relevant comedy trope, moved to fanservice or cut. Because if the current example list is any indication, the actual trope that most of the page covers barely appears in Western media.

edited 16th Oct '11 10:25:21 AM by Routerie

I see no reason to cut the examples. I think what we have here is a bunch of people who are convinced that they're going to be creeped out about a trope because it's mildly sexual. It should be banned from Real Life examples, but there's no reason to cut any others.

The description's just a mess - for some reason it's written in a culturally-specific manner.

EDIT: Took a chainsaw to the in-depth analysis of Japanese panchira.

edited 16th Oct '11 10:21:11 AM by 20LogRoot10

What's the difference between this and I See London? At the moment it looks like a medium-specific subtrope, which I'm pretty sure is a no-no.

I See London is "underwear shots Played for Laughs". Another horrible description, but I'll see if I can't help it.

EDIT: Arggh, I See London specifically mentions Fanservice as a cause.... GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHH!

edited 16th Oct '11 10:23:47 AM by 20LogRoot10

I See London is a character walking around in their underwear, normally for comedy.

This is just a flash of underwear is sexy.

edited 16th Oct '11 10:24:49 AM by shimaspawn

edited 16th Oct '11 10:23:57 AM by kyfhv

If that's the case, then it needs to be made clear in the description. Right now, I See London says "May be done for humor, Fanservice, or both."

It's duration and amount looking at the page. It's the difference between a brief glimpse under a skirt, and a character running around in their small clothes.

I'm not sure how to fix that description - the "character shows underwear to others" gag doesn't require the audience see, but as written I See London seems to. Does that one needs a visit to the repair shop, too?

I don't think Played For Sexy vs Played for Laughs is a good split, but I could by one being "brief glimpse" and the other being "an entire scene".

The brief glimpse, vs. entire scene is what it is now.

Perhaps the distinction could be something like this?

• I See London: When other character(s) can see the character's underwear. Often leads to embarrassment for either part, or both. Tends to be Played for Laughs.
• Panty Shot: The audience can see the character's underwear. May overlap with I See London. Often goes unnoticed in-universe. Tends to be used for Fanservice.

I realize that's not what the picture on Panty Shot says, but the picture may be wrong; it doesn't really look like an example of the trope as described on the page.

Yeah, there's no way we're getting a SFW of that definition of Panty Shot. That said, that's the distinction I got from the titles.

I'm posting this without a specific example in mind (I can go back and check), but some of the creepy examples are accidental ones. I'd think that the only examples that should be listed are those where it's deliberate (i.e. happening to a Fanservice Extra). But no examples should be there like in episode X of Y show, you can see Z's panties at the 4 minute mark.

Yeah I think the examples should be cut. Especially since a lot of these are kids' shows, they are just getting disturbing. And it's barely fanservice because they only show up for about 2 seconds and it's usually not a thong or anything.

edited 16th Oct '11 11:43:55 AM by wuggles

Nthing that the examples have some merit and don't need to be deleted outright. What we need to do is somehow make clear that this trope is for intentional examples of fanservice, and that "a character's underwear is visible" is not a trope.

I don't think the examples need to be cut either.

Isn't I See London when a character is deprived of their pants or caught with their pants off, causing an embarassing situation? Panty Shot is normally when a girl is wearing a low-cut skirt/dress and the action causes the dress to billow or ride up, but is often only visible to the audience. Other tropes like Male Gaze are far more fetish-inducing among editors than this one.

I would oppose cutting examples, if only because it is a very identifiable trope and not a mere fetish fuel page. And I'm normally against the bajillion fanservice pages we have anyway.

edited 16th Oct '11 6:44:20 PM by KJMackley

Completely agree.

And hell Bakemonogatari [1] started up the series with a Timed Panty Shot why? seemingly for the lutz... it becomes important to the plot in the prequel.

The examples need a cleanup, since many of them are in fact I See London, Innocent Panties or just Not An Example. I don't think we need to cut them, though. Yeah, when you read the page you can get the impression that someone pays way too much attention to these details (especially when it actually manages to read as though it all were written by a single person) but that could be fixed with a cleanup. We don't need links to manga pages or You Tube clips, for instance.

Besides ... it's panties, not a bare crotch or anything. I don't like panty shots - I tend to find them annoying as hell - but we have examples for things that are much, much worse than this.