The Grand Unified Appearance Trope Clean-up:

They all seem aggressive to me. The chic girl might not have the attitude but it seems like a "you can't touch this" look. The whore is sexually aggressive and the Action Girl is physically aggressive.

I think Thigh High Boots are usually a reference to dominatrixes, but the reference can be used to meet different ends. It might be used to indicate general sexiness, sexual aggressiveness, or a domineering personality. Even children's shows occasionally slap a pair on a woman as shorthand for an aggressive, controlling personality. It is sort of a sexual reference via the backdoor, the character herself might not be sexual but the boots have the connotation they have because of dominatrixes.

The fashionista wearing them isn't necessarily a trope. In that case, they're not a fashion accessory that adds any information about her character; they're just a fashion accessory. Not every use of something has to be a trope.

Also, generally action girls are given sexualized costumes even when the narrative doesn't specifically sexualize them because they're meant to appeal to a male audience as all mainstream media must. This is an entirely separate, but none the less annoying issue. But it does mean that just because something is common on action girls doesn't mean that it's core message isn't to sexualize.

I agree 100% with this. Also, in anything approximating Real Life, thigh-high boots would be pretty bad for fighting or other strenuous physical activity.

I don't understand how this "trope" got out of the YKTTW. Before all this started it was just "character wears thigh high boots for fetish fuel" which is only marginally better than "character sits on a chair for resting". Then Fast Eddie rewrote it to its current form, and a number of people are not happy with it or its name or both.

My problem is the name; It sounds like it's "just boots" which leads to Zero Context Examples. It should change but in order to do that we have to pin something down beyond "just boots".

Because as this thread demonstrates, we used to have far less stringently-enforced policies on personal appearance tropes.

At least this one is frequently something of a deviation from reality.

So we're right back to no consensus...

Can anybody summarize the points brought forth so far?

1. This trope is just for out-of-universe Fetish Fuel

2. We shouldn't create our own meanings for something that already has meaning. This point is combined with point number 1 as the "real" meaning.

3. The current definition of "aggressive" is a neuturing definition.

4. In real life, these would be hard to walk in, much less fight in.

5. This trope adds to characterization depending on other tropes: tough, fashion, sexual, etc

6. The character types brought up in can all be brought under the common theme of "Agressive".

7. This trope should not be a supertrope. It should be focused on "aggression" and/or "overt sexuality"

Did I miss anything?

edited 15th Apr '14 7:13:20 AM by ChaoticNovelist

Not that I remember.

Regarding point 4 - not having ever worn them myself, is that the case for all thigh boots, or just the many that have heels?

No, it's not. The height of the boot shaft (how far it extends up the leg) has very little to do with whether they're difficult to walk in. That's primarily the height and design of the heel. Thigh-high boots with flat soles or low, thick heels are no more difficult to move in than loafers.

1. This trope is just for out-of-universe Fetish Fuel

No, it's not. That's mostly what it is now, but it's broken now.

2. We shouldn't create our own meanings for something that already has meaning. This point is combined with point number 1 as the "real" meaning.

YES. But Thigh-high boots already have a meaning.

No. The "real" meaning is "Thigh high boots used to indicate overt sexuality, aggressiveness, or sexual initiative".

3. The current definition of "aggressive" is a neuturing definition.

What do you mean "neutering"?

4. In real life, these would be hard to walk in, much less fight in.

No, see my previous post.

5. This trope adds to characterization depending on other tropes: tough, fashion, sexual, etc

Yes.

6. The character types brought up in can all be brought under the common theme of "Agressive".

If "aggressive" is used in a broader sense than "physically aggressive" or "kicks ass", Yes. If "aggressive" is being used to mean "fights a lot" then No.

7. This trope should not be a supertrope. It should be focused on "aggression" and/or "overt sexuality"

Yes and No. If we want to include both, then it needs to be made a supertrope with appropriate subtropes for "aggression" and "overt sexuality", or it's two completely different tropes mashed together, which is what we're trying to get rid of.

edited 15th Apr '14 9:09:03 AM by Madrugada

I like the supertrope idea. Don't know how to make it one though.

Perhaps go the way of Blue Eyes and other similar Eye Tropes, where we're not supposed to link to the supertrope (which has a very broad name) but to its various subtropes... unless we're faced with the rare case of a character qualifying for most if not all of its subtropes (i.e. the eye color shifts between the subtropes' typical shades, and the character himself/herself fits all of the subtropes' other criteria).

I would link to the subtropes even if something fits more than one - each trope can get its own example writeup, focused on the aspect pertinent to the trope.

That's the way we generally handle Supertropes.I don't see any reason to make this one an exception.

That's what I had in mind too. I should've put that more clearly in my previous post.

Okay, it looks like we're making progress. Is this an acceptable resolution?

1. Thigh High Boots (supertrope)

2. (Trait X) Boots (subtrope)

3. (Trait Y) Boots (subtrope)

edited 15th Apr '14 1:27:08 PM by ChaoticNovelist

I think that's the best solution, since the consensus appears to be that they can indicate any one of two (or three, if we're counting "fashionista") things about the character.

Do thigh boots signify aggressiveness in a different way from any other kind of boot?

I don't think it matters if the boots are thigh high or just below the knee as long as they're leather. Shorter or a different material wouldn't have have the same significance.

how about we go the Hand Hiding Sleeves Route? Internal Subtropes, i mean.

I like that idea. It works well for that trope and this one is in a similar situation.

Boots to just below the knee does not carry the same connotations as those that come up to the thigh. Please, let's not water this down even further by making it "boots"

770: They are an overt reference to dommes, I would say they are aggressive but also controlling, domineering, maybe manipulative and inherently more feminine and sexy than something like big-ass combat boots.