Nah, there is a difference — I Didnt Mean to Turn You On is a romance trope — when someone is oblivious that they are tugging on the heart strings of someone else. The proposed Innocent Fanservice Girl aims a bit lower — it's a Rule of Sexy trope when someone is oblivious that they are doing something that could be construed as sexual.
I Didnt Mean to Turn You On is definitely a grandather clause name.
Fuzzy Orange DoomsayerBumping again. What's the current status of this?
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
I guess I'll bump it this time: How do the 2 Sandbox entries look: Innocent Fanservice Girl will be?
edited 4th Apr '12 8:40:59 AM by KiTA
I thought all the examples were going to be parcelled out to other, more clearly defined tropes, namely the two you listed.
No, there will be 3 tropes total, Innocent Fanservice Girl isn't being retired outright.
Cure CandyWe probably want a crowner for that but IMO I like my plan on the last page... its pretty much how they are used anyway.
edited 4th Apr '12 1:38:40 PM by Raso
I think Shameless Fanservice Girl is going away, getting renamed and retooled into Casual Nudity. The "old" Innocent Fanservice Girl is heading into No Nudity Taboo. Think the latest idea that sounded good for me for Innocent Fanservice Girl is basically making it into the "Oblivious to their own Attractiveness" kinda trope. The character simply doesn't realize they're putting on a show et all, which is basically what you have there. Your ideas for Sexual Harrassment Girl and Reluctant Fanservice Girl are really the same trope. Shameless is a messy trope that shouldn't have been launched in the first place, as it's not "the exhibitionist trope" although everyone keeps wanting to head down that path.
edited 4th Apr '12 1:51:52 PM by KiTA
Doesnt Know Her Own Wowza is a direction I could support for what's left of Innocent Fanservive Girl.
even older skoolSo to summarize, we'll have: Reluctant Fanservice Girl- "How did I get stuck wearing a Playboy Bunny costume again, anyway? This is so embarrassing..." Innocent Fanservice Girl- "Oh, I'm not supposed to swim in the pool naked? Sorry about that, I'll get out now." No Nudity Taboo- "Of course I'm naked, why wouldn't I be?" Casual Nudity- "Look, if you've got a problem with me sunbathing naked here, then that's just too bad." Now according to these, Innocent Fanservice Girl and No Nudity Taboo would overlap pretty frequently, as any instance of the former which involves nudity is probably also an instance of the latter. In addition, removing the "exhibitionist" aspect of Shameless Fanservice Girl leaves nowhere for that aspect of Hollywood Exhibitionist to go. Now that's fine if examples like that are People Sit on Chairs or Too Rare to Trope (both of which I find unlikely), but otherwise we might need to rethink that distribution a bit.
No, you're a bit off. The problem is that people aren't using Innocent Fanservice Girl like that, they're using it as a character who is "Oblivious to how their actions could be construed as sexual or erotic in nature." There can be overlap, but this also doesn't preclude people performing Innocent Innuendo, Erotic Eating, etc without realizing other people are being distracted by it. The other thing is — there is no Exhibitionist aspect to Shameless Fanservice Girl. Absolutely none. That's part of the problem with the trope, we even put it in the trope description to try and squash that before it started, but it obviously didn't work. Supposedly, it's "An innocent fanservice girl who keeps walking around naked even when told not to" or somesuch, which is less "Exhibitionism" and more "Nudism."
edited 5th Apr '12 7:09:20 AM by KiTA
if there is a distinct stock character who doesn't realize they should put on clothes, Innocent Fanservice Girl can be a thing. I don't think that's a distinct stock character, though, and it's too situational to be a general characterization trope. I think there is some merit in the idea of a trope for characters who don't realize the sexual deliria they produce in others.
The fact that there are stock characters that have No Nudity Taboo is not under debate really. What we're talking about is the fact that a good percentage of the wicks for Innocent Fanservice Girl are of the "does not realize they are doing something sexually appealing" variety.
even older skool/ Yes, my list was intended as a reiteration of the new trope setup that you're suggesting, not an explanation of how they're being used now. All I intended by mentioning exhibitionism was to point out that ideally there should be some trope which covers it, for characters such our friend Mitsuka-sensei. Sorry if there was confusion. I would, however, disagree with your highly specific criteria for the "correct" current usage of Shameless Fanservice Girl. I can imagine several possible motivations unrelated to having previously been an Innocent Fanservice Girl, including: someone who wants lots of attention, someone who enjoys making people uncomfortable, someone who has a legitimate reason for being naked and simply acts less uncomfortable than usual about it. You'll note, in addition, that the description also indicates it is a fairly inaccurate portrayal of Real Life nudism, and thus most frequently has a different justification.
Does anyone want to claim to be an actual expert on real life nudism? I have some familiarity, and every time someone has said X is unrealistic, I can think of someone it describes.
@Enraged Filia: Every term you cited there can go directly into Casual Nudity without any problems. And someone mentioned earlier that an Exhibitionist trope is probably needed, feel free to YKKTW it. It'll probably be named Exhibitionist or something similar. That's not entirely related to the discussion at hand, as neither of the two tropes were "supposed" to be Exhibitionism of any kind. And if we're going to bring up the topic of Nudism, I'd refer you to the previous 4 pages — I already brought the idea up, it was correctly shot down. There's no such thing as "Hollywood Nudism, " at least succinctly enough to trope — it's very rare that a character explicitly expresses Nudist beliefs and even when they do, if you ask 10 nudists what nudism means, you'll get 12 answers. However, subtropes such as Ugly Nudist certainly exist. Shameless Fanservice Girl is closer to actual nudism, but merely because Casual Nudity is closer to actual nudism — you still see very few nudists in real life who refuse to dress when they have textiles visiting, for example. There are, however, three tropes we do seem to have here rolled into this 1 (and a half) trope:
edited 6th Apr '12 1:22:25 AM by KiTA
What about someone raised by nudists from childhood, but basically socialized normally in society? Would you classify them as having no taboo at all (probably not technically or true) or only casually nude sometimes (probably understating it)?
If it's unclear, throw it in the supertrope. That's what they're there for.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
They'd probably be in both trope lists. There's nothing saying they can't be either or. No Nudity Taboo for the lack of a real taboo about nudity (but, presuming this is a character, this would only really be appropriate if this came up in the story somehow), Casual Nudity for the act of actually being nude in a nonsexual setting. How do I add a crowner, btw? I think we are approaching consensus, but a crowner would probably be best. Or is one even needed? Can we just start working on splitting the tropes up and putting them in the Sandbox entries?
edited 6th Apr '12 5:04:33 PM by KiTA
I'm not satisfied the distinct tropes have been identified and defined. which would be...?
edited 6th Apr '12 5:55:30 PM by pawsplay
Yes, and what I took to be the consensus is being contradicted. I thought we would have Casual Nudity and No Nudity Taboo, Innocent Fanservice Girl would be reworked as characters actually unknowingly arousing other characters, and Shameless was being cut.
edited 6th Apr '12 6:56:13 PM by pawsplay
Yes, you got it exactly.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.