Not Tropeworthy: Male Frontal Nudity

As written, this isn't a trope; just a list of times a penis is shown in any media. Most of the examples are Zero Context Examples and even most of those that aren't include no significant reason for it to be there. The only potentially tropeworthy part of the description is the mention of the Selective Squick thing, which is already mentioned on that page and is in no way reflected by the title or examples section. Put simply, this is a case of People Sit On Chairs and not something we need.

Honestly, the description is good, but it reads more on a useful notes page on censorship double standard and then the examples are just a list of works with dicks in them. I think turning it into an actual useful notes page and cutting the examples would probably fit with the mission better.

Is there any significant difference from Nipple and Dimed, other than the bodypart?

I think this is a trope ("don't show penises"), a very common one, that the examples are aversions or inversions of. Reverse the polarity?

its a sister trope to that.

Girls get the same thing for their umm crotches which we don't seem to have a trope for that though.

Aggregate Tropes and Omnipresent Tropes are generally like that which I support.

However titles of said tropes are usually the reverse like the trope's name should be "Never Show The Penis"

Actually, I think the actual trope here is even in works that have full female nudity, there will be an inexplicable lack of penis. It's about the double standard on front bottoms. So in order to count a work would need to have both full female nudity and a corresponding lack of male nudity.

Nipple and Dimed, on the other hand, isn't structured like that. If they're similar, I think the current title still works. In addition, its similarity to Full Frontal Nudity and the very different meaning of the two draws attention to the Double Standard mentioned in the description. Perhaps that aspect should be emphasized somewhat?

Bump. Anything to do here?

Well, the worst problem seems to be the Zero Context Example one.

edited 14th Mar '12 1:49:17 PM by Feather7603

What would we want the context to be for this trope? The context of the situation where the male character's nudity is shown does not contextualize the appearance of Male Frontal Nudity onscreen. The important part of the trope is the film or show's decision to show it, not whatever circumstances led the person to be naked.

Male Frontal Nudity in non-pornographic works does carry meaning; it signifies that this is a work that considers nudity for more than just Fanservice. I don't see why giving the details of when and why the character is nude really clarifies the examples.

True enough. I'd say that means there are no problems.

If the example can't be elaborated on then there's not point in having a example section. We don't need a list of works where a penis shows up.

It baffles me that this page has an example section but I See London doesn't. Has Fast Eddie just not noticed this thread yet?

edited 14th Mar '12 10:26:51 PM by abk0100

Boobs is one thing, a man's junk is another. In non-porno magazines you may see women with exposed breasts, but never men with exposed genitalia. Male genitals appear to be the most private of all human body parts. That explains why it's rarely shown, and why it's a big deal when it is shown. In a pranking show that involves nudity, normally female breasts are shown without censoring, and there are no chances of an exposed male genitalia, and whenever there's one, it's always censored. You can get away with exposed female breasts, but not with an exposed male genitalia. You have to censor it.

People don't like the front of between their legs to be exposed, and with men, that's a serious matter.

The trope is as if not more important as Nipple and Dimed. It's not an example of People Sit On Chairs, cuz such tropes contain stuff that are harmless and no big deal, and when was male genitals in media NOT a big deal?