Needs Help: Amazonian Beauty

But the most important part of it is that it's - things aiming to titillate the audience.

Do you need to titillate the audience to portray a character as attractive? I say no.

It's possible for a character to be attractive without titillation.

It's not possible for a character to be attractive without titillating SOMEONE in the audience, though. Which was the OP's entire objection.

EDIT: Taking a break from the debate. I seem to be the only one making my argument.

edited 17th Jun '12 1:01:08 PM by KingZeal

I think you're contradicting yourself. You're saying that a character who is buff, beautiful, and attractive in universe would qualify, but by the current definition, they would not, hence my complaint. And so far, you're the only one who has been asserting that this is a fan service-specific trope, which I'm not convinced of.

Actually, they would. How would you possibly know they're attractive—especially in written text—unless this is pointed out to you? The act of pointing it out is the entire point of the trope, to prevent it from becoming "buff chick I think looks hot". If the work itself doesn't point it out in some way, it's not this trope.

Also, while I'm not convinced that Fanservice is the ONLY way of pointing this out, I'd love to hear another suggestion that won't lead to Trope Decay.

Explicit mentions about it usually works. Can be either by a character or in narration, so not strictly In-Universe.

Yeah, I was trying to list options with my list in this post. There's fanservice, there's character attraction and there's the narration telling us someone is attractive.

But if we're talking about limiting misuse, in addition to catching all good examples, I think the fanservice point would actually offer its own problems. For example, let's say a muscular women wears a costume with a Cleavage Window. And let's say we all agree that's fanservice. That means that the character is portrayed as attractive in a scene, but it doesn't mean she's attractive because of her muscles. It just means that she has breasts. (They don't even have to be a particular kind of breasts - any breasts will do.) So instead of attractive-because-of-muscles, it's just an example of Beautiful And Buff - X And Also Y.

My goal is to get buff and beautiful women recognized without the objectification that the fanservice requirement seems to promote. Correct me if I'm wrong, King Zeal, but you seem to be implying that the objectification is the point. If so, I'd prefer to rewrite the definition so that it isn't. Frankly, I'd rather risk Trope Decay than continue with the current definition. Like I said in my initial post, I'm a committed feminist, and making fanservice a must when it is not completely a fanservice specific trope makes me uncomfortable. Call it Political Correctness Gone Mad if you will, but that's how I feel, and judging by the responses, I'm not alone in that.

@nitrokitty: but we're not about changing the world. We're about documenting the recurring elements of fiction. Some of which, frankly, are objectifying.

It's not about us recognizing buff and beautiful women. It's rather how we observe the treatment of amazonian physiques in media — not always a pleasant topic.

(edit) I do agree that there are problems with how we're framing this trope right now. I think it's born out of an attempt to remove subjectivity from the decision-making process of what gets included, but I think "fanservice" isn't really the right topic. What is being reached for is really that the character is intended to be perceived as beautiful. The fanservice tropes are really just ways that it can be conveyed that the work intends the character to be perceived that way.

edited 18th Jun '12 10:32:13 AM by Morven

But as feather mentioned, there are plenty of other ways to do that other than fanservice. I have no problem with fanservice if that is the point of the trope, but I'm not convinced that it is in this case. I'm fine with having fanservice as one of the ways to identify this trope, but I don't think it should be the only way.

This trope was originally spun off Hot Amazon in order to fix the misuse of that trope. However, instead we ended up with two different tropes that both got misused as "character the editor thought was hawt" - which is not a trope.

Perhaps what we need to do here is the same treatment that will hopefully fix Hot Amazon (now Amazon Chaser) and make this about a male character appreciating a female character for her amazonian build?

Why do that? There has yet to be any accusations of blatant misuse. Frankly, I argue that what you propose would destroy the trope in general, because this trope was supposed to be about the visual appeal. This trope is about girls that are attractive (either in-universe or through fanservice) despite being massively or definitively muscular.

As a matter of fact, that's one of the BIGGEST reasons we made the trope the way it is. I'll explain in a sec.

The problem we were trying to avoid for this was Square Peg Round Trope, where people would just throw a character into the trope despite not fitting in any way just because she was described as having muscle once. The point of the trope is mass and definition of muscle, not just having some.

For example, google a high-profile porn actress. More often than not, because porn stars keep in good shape, she will have muscle. What is RARE, however, is for them to have defined or massive muscles.

See the problem? Especially in a text medium?

edited 18th Jun '12 12:35:35 PM by KingZeal

I'm a committed feminist as well, but if you think Trope Decay is the proper way to fix this, then we're at an impasse. As was mentioned before, this wiki isn't about fixing the world.

I also take your well-intentioned actions against fanservice to be somewhat of a double-edged sword. A woman proudly displaying her muscle (even if it's with, say, knee-long shorts and a short-sleeve t-shirt) is not necessarily "objectification", as many women who work hard for muscles actually DO like to show them off. Men, too, but no one complains that Walking Shirtless Scene is objectification. So like I said, this is kind of a double standard. Once again, my problem is now that the Fanservice trope has been kind of thrown out of whack by a recent redefinition. By confining it strictly TO blatant objectification, we've created a hole for tropes that are about visual appreciation (such as Costume Porn or Beauty Contest) which do not inherently qualify.

No one has yet to say this. Only that fanservice tropes are one of the best ways.

edited 18th Jun '12 12:13:49 PM by KingZeal

Is there a character that anyone feels should fit this trope but doesn't due to it's current definition?

Case in point: Power Girl (her distinctive muscularity for an AU Supergirl is the second thing she's most well known for), She Hulk (she's made of this trope).

edited 18th Jun '12 2:06:02 PM by MarqFJA

"No one has yet to say this. Only that fanservice tropes are one of the best ways."

Except the trope itself specifically does say it. Hence my complaint. For example, compare Big Beautiful Woman. Nowhere in the description of that trope does it say that fanservice MUST be present. Fanservice MAY be present, but it does not HAVE to be present. So why is it that beautiful muscular women must have fanservice attached, but beautiful chubby women do not? And frankly, I fail to see how eliminating the requirement for fanservice would result in trope decay. If we're trying to eliminate the "any hot Action Girl" problem, the strict requirements regarding musculature seem to cover that just fine. I don't see how fanservice fixes a problem.

edited 18th Jun '12 2:14:56 PM by nitrokitty

Then let's come up with a better wording that doesn't outright destroy the trope. As I said, Fanservice was added because it's (we supposed) the only way to know for sure that the trope is being invoked. Otherwise, it's just a troper giving us their word for it.

EDIT: It's funny you mention BBW, because I suggested that we SHOULD add a fanservice component in several of the last few TRS threads that's been opened for it. Unlike Amazonian Beauty, that one keeps slipping into trope decay to mean "any woman that is big and I think is hot". This is the first TRS page that's ever been opened for AB, and it's not about Decay, so I think that's a pretty good start.

The entire REASON this trope has avoided any downward slide like that is because of the fanservice clause and very dutiful curators.

edited 18th Jun '12 2:19:06 PM by KingZeal

That's exactly what I've been trying to say all along.

edited 18th Jun '12 2:16:12 PM by nitrokitty

So let me say it again:

My response is "keep until better suggestion".

Which is what people have been doing. For example, people commenting on the character's build in-universe. If you're not adamantly against any changes to the trope, why not add suggestions of your own?

EDIT: And having fanservice as a strict requirement may prevent Trope Decay, but I believe it does so by excessively restricting examples. That's not a solution, that's a quick fix.

edited 18th Jun '12 2:30:43 PM by nitrokitty

Because I was part of the team that came up with the current criteria, and we did it after a lot of thought and debate on the subject. Thus, I'm partially blinded to new suggestions. I sincerely, truthfully, have a hard time seeing how we can re-word it in a way that's not overly complicated, restrictive, or inclusive.

I don't doubt that something new CAN work, but I'm not eager to see our work be for nothing, either.

EDIT: As captainpat mentioned, do you have any actual examples that are being restricted? There's still been no demonstration of an actual problem.

The problem with including in-universe examples that don't fit the "fanservice" criteria (although, that's the wrong word for it now...ugh) is that just blanket mention of a woman as having muscle would be fair game...but this trope isn't strictly about that. As I said: the character must also have definition and/or mass.

I was thinking we could add Love Tropes as an alternative, but there's too many tropes there that don't work with this trope.

edited 18th Jun '12 2:38:14 PM by KingZeal

One suggestion I approve of: even if there's no blatant fanservice, if people in universe comment on both the characters buffness and attractiveness, then it would fit.

A bit of an off the wall example: What if She-Hulk didn't wear leotards all the time? What if she dressed sensibly and professionally (in comic books, har har, I know) like the lawyer she's supposed to be? Also, despite not dressing like a floozy, people still found her attractive, commented on it in universe, and cited the musculature as part of it? According to the current criteria, that would be grounds for exclusion, even though she's practically the poster girl for this trope. I know I'm getting a bit into "what ifs" here, but this is the problem I have.

Not to mention that Fanservice isn't as strict a definition as one might think. Sure, if she goes prancing around in a bikini, then its fairly obvious. But what if she's say, dressed in a loose fitting T-shirt and cargo pants? Yes, it would show off her muscular arms, and there are plenty of people (myself included) who would find that attractive, but is it fanservice, per se? That's where things get a little fuzzy.

EDIT: You said it yourself. She must have definition and mass. That's not fanservice, and that's a requirement that goes beyond simply "hot Action Girl." See, now we're getting somewhere.

EDIT 2: I think what it comes down to is this: if a character is muscular and attractive, then its an Amazonian Beauty. If she's muscular and not attractive, then its Brawn Hilda. The question comes down to how do we define "attractive?" Having accompanying fanservice is one way, but I don't think it's the only way. Having characters in universe specifically comment on the character's musculature being attractive is another good way, for instance.

edited 18th Jun '12 2:54:05 PM by nitrokitty

official

artwork

edited 18th Jun '12 3:01:51 PM by MarqFJA

Well, Brawn Hilda specifically says she is seen as unattractive.

I don't think it has to be noted within the story that Brawn Hilda is unattractive. This might cause confusion if a character being lusted after is Brawn Hilda.

edited 18th Jun '12 3:20:27 PM by captainpat

You keep saying that the examples need fanservice. Other people say they don't. But we're using different meanings of the word fanservice!

What do you mean by "fanservice"? Maybe we all actually agree with each other...