Unclear Description: Eating The Eye Candy

Deadlock Clock: 11th Feb 2013 11:59:00 PM
Total posts: [23]
I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be a gender neutral trope about Male Gaze or Female Gaze from a first person perspective of a character in a work. However, the description and fact that it's list on the the Always Female index seems to be limiting this trope to cases of Female Gaze.
We also already have Distracted by the Sexy.
Professional Nerd
I believe it's because it was originally split off from Female Gaze (as Eating the Eye Candy was the usual way a lot of media demonstrated it - books in particular). Either way, it should probably be corrected.
"If there's a hole, it's a man's job to thrust into it!"
Ryoma Nagare, New Getter Robo
4 AnotherDuck30th Jul 2012 11:01:39 PM from Stockholm , Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
Eating the Eye Candy is not Distracted by the Sexy. The latter trope is always about some kind of distraction, and it's generally the accident that's the focus of the examples. This trope is just about staring. It can be about being distracted, but isn't necessarily, and most examples make no or little notion of it.

It is pretty much the In-Universe version of Female Gaze, though I'm not sure it's strictly necessary to show the distracting/fanserevice part. For the latter reason, it tends to be shown anyway. At any rate, the focus is on the subject, not the object.

There's still some cleaning to be made between these tropes, though. Some of the examples don't tell more than what can be interpreted as fanservice, so without further context they're not examples.

The only issue I see is the Always Female part. Personally I just don't see the Double Standard there, but then I tend to be relatively blind to genders when evaluating the meaning. Sure, it's usually presented one way, but that doesn't mean it can't be done gender flipped. In particular, if you have a indisputably innocent or particularly proper male you're not going to have the same effect as if you're using a regular pervert.
Check out my fanfiction!
5 nrjxll30th Jul 2012 11:06:07 PM , Relationship Status: Not war
[up]Like Sparkysharps says, the Always Female part is almost certainly a holdover from before this was split off of Female Gaze, not a real part of the trope.
6 AnotherDuck30th Jul 2012 11:22:20 PM from Stockholm , Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
I know. I just think it's better to put forth some reasoning why changing a description or definition is a good thing. Just saying it's a holdover from before the split only explains its origin, not whether it's part of the trope or not.
Check out my fanfiction!
7 Deboss31st Jul 2012 07:16:50 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Originally, it was the definition on Female Gaze. It was one of the very first Trope Transplant I took part in. Essentially, people were using Female Gaze as the distaff counterpart for Male Gaze.

The definition for this I've always used is "a character gets Distracted by the Sexy and the camera man decides this is a good excuse to invoke Gaze Theory and gives us a nice over the shoulder third person or first person view". To me, this is a pretty good definition of a specific variant of Gaze Theory.

Edit: Dammit, I thought Gaze Theory was the direct supertrope for Male Gaze and Female Gaze that was gender neutral.

edited 31st Jul '12 7:17:29 PM by Deboss

[up] That's what this trope should be since there isn't any difference between male or female character doing the staring.
bump, perhaps we should have a crowner for the definition of this trope?
11 shimaspawn16th Nov 2012 09:00:39 AM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
I don't see why this has to be female only.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
12 Deboss18th Nov 2012 09:14:13 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
It doesn't. What was procedure for making that change?
13 nrjxll18th Nov 2012 09:39:49 PM , Relationship Status: Not war
I think it's been repeatedly stated that only exists as an artifact from when this used to be Female Gaze.
14 SeptimusHeap3rd Jan 2013 11:44:29 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Bumping this. Does anybody mind if I remove the "always female" bits here?
Professional Nerd
Considering anything vaguely resembling opposition to it is, "We're lazy and can't be assed change it ourselves," (guilty as charged), I'd say go for it.
"If there's a hole, it's a man's job to thrust into it!"
Ryoma Nagare, New Getter Robo
16 SeptimusHeap9th Jan 2013 09:03:20 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Edited description and laconic. How is it now?
The description doesn't look that different. It would help if it just defined the trope off the bat. For that laconic how about "Female Gaze/Male Gaze presented as a character's viewpoint"?
18 SeptimusHeap9th Jan 2013 11:36:32 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
I fixed the gender stuff. If you want to fix other aspects of it you'll have to do it yourself, considering thar description rewrites aren't my area of expertise.
I'm not good with descriptions either and this one looks like it could use a complete rewrite.

The example section is still pretty bad. So most of them are gonna have to be removed and I'm pretty sure that are a lot of examples in Female Gaze/Male Gaze that actually belong under this trope.
Come to think of it. Is there a reason this only deals with Female Gaze/Male Gaze? We don't seem to have a trope for a character simply checking out another character.

edited 17th Jan '13 11:15:45 AM by captainpat

To clarify, what are the perceived flaws of the description? From a casual study, the main problem is the artifacts leftover from Female Gaze. The part about double standards is easy enough to fix (just make sure "it" refers to Female Gaze, and not Eating the Eye Candy). The introduction and the part after "can be used quizically in combination with" might take a bit more work.
This keeps falling on and off. Clocking it.
And locking.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Total posts: 23