Restore, redefine and fix: Baby Got Back

Ok, those are more objective criteria for a focus rather than simply Male Gaze.

Works for me as well. A Leotard of Power I assume would also count. But, simply having an outfit tight on the rear shouldn't.

Yeah, if it's Sensual Spandex, it's literally an emphasis on everything. Including, if they're so brazen, cameltoe.

I don't think this should be about costumes that aren't stated to do this In-Universe, unless is something like assless chaps. Anything else would devolve again into subjectivity.

I disagree. If someone has their name written on their ass, it's unquestionably designed to draw attention. The same thing is true of a thong—there is no other body part that a thong emphasizes.

I wrote "something like assless chaps". I did not write "only assless chaps". You didn't counter my comment. You just added a couple more exceptions that I already had room for.

Then don't be so vague. "Something like" could mean anything or nothing.

BTW all chaps are assless. Or they'd be called pants.

And Now I Know.

edited 17th Jan '12 1:24:11 PM by KingZeal

"Then don't be so vague. "Something like" could mean anything or nothing."

That's meant to be vague, again so we could include other exceptions that fit, as you stated.

Technically true, but assless chaps as a phrase means wearing chaps without pants under them that have sort of an attached codpiece to cover your front bottoms, and sometimes a thong.

edited 17th Jan '12 1:57:02 PM by shimaspawn

Look, I'm not interested in another argument. The context of your message seemed like a reply or an argument against something that had been stated just before. If it wasn't, then you were just restating what had just been said, and this is officially pointless.

What d'you call THAT if not a case of blatant emphasis on her bottom?

Also, straight from the original page (thank the internet archives):

Important (Read before adding examples!): Due to the high prevalence of Generic Cuteness in visual media, it's very likely that you'll find one, two, or many characters that you want to add as examples just because you think their butts are nice. Please, don't. This is not about a character whose butt you feel Perverse Sexual Lust over. In order for an example to be valid it must fulfill at least one of the following conditions: There's some obvious hint that the author intended this character to stand out for his/her butt. Like a Male Gaze directed exclusively (or with clear predominance) at this part of the character's anatomy. There's a clear indication in-universe that this character's butt is the biggest factor in his/her attractiveness. Lampshade Hanging by other characters is one of the ways.

What's wrong with keeping that idea? Worst case, just make a description of the trope and put a "No examples please!" Has been done before, why not here?

Edit: Fixed.

edited 17th Jan '12 3:35:24 PM by karasu91

I was with that description up until "author intended" and "biggest factor in his/her attractiveness". The former is open to interpretation and the latter is subjective. There's a lot of things attractive about Cammy. Just because she shows her butt a lot doesn't mean it's predominant.

And I really, REALLY hate making tropes like this "No Examples Please". Kind of sucks the fun out of it when people might actually want to see some examples of how a butt can be emphasized. Like, for example, let's assume an artist wants to dole up the fanservice for his webcomic and would like a few examples of what makes a butt look good. No examples means we're left a description that basically reads "some characters butts look nice—too bad we can't explain that any".

edited 17th Jan '12 2:15:11 PM by KingZeal

Well, I'd call the second one a huge wall of Mojibake. :P

Pretty much this. Figuring out author intent is a fuzzy business.

As for the first one I see a two second clip that someone is obsessing over that's probably a blink and you'll miss it moment in the original. Looks like an example of people being pervy and sort of creepy over any shot of a bum.

As for the second, it's Mojibake.

...You clearly haven't seen Ghost In The Shell Stand Alone Complex. Also, give one other good reason not to frame that shot that way and with her in that costume.

And no, I don't have a butt fetish. I do, however, believe that some cases are rather obvious.

Like I said before, a thong is an article of clothing that specifically shows off the ass.

Thongs are not worn exclusively to show off an ass. Many women wear them to avoid "panty lines".

And I know people use the phrase "assless chaps" to mean "chaps without pants underneath". They're wrong.

edited 17th Jan '12 3:58:55 PM by rodneyAnonymous

BTW, my point from before was that focusing on costumes for this trope would be very limiting, as only a few types of outfits would show this unambiguously (I merely mentioned chaps as one example; thongs would be another). That is why In-Universe comments should be the focus, even if we also include costumes.

edited 17th Jan '12 3:44:36 PM by DragonQuestZ

Yeah, tan lines that they don't want people to see on their ass.

No "panty lines" means "the outline of a person's underwear is visible through the clothing". Nothing to do with tanning.

I misread, so point taken.

But we're talking about a thong and nothing but a thong, not a thong-as-underwear. The fact that there are other uses for the clothing does not mean that the ass is not the first and foremost thing it shows off. Wearing a low cut shirt because it helps with respiration doesn't mean you arent showing off cleavage if you don't wear anything beneath or over it.

edited 17th Jan '12 4:10:20 PM by KingZeal

It also doesn't mean showing cleavage is communicating an idea.

Really not trying to be pedantic. But making "a focus on a body part" based on clothing type is ridiculous, there is absolutely no article of clothing that cannot be used in any other context.

Does that however mean that there cannot be a sexual context? A bra is meant to cup and support a woman's breast - dare and tell me that depictions of women in bras are always utterly and completely innocuous...