On TV Tropes, it's very common for editors to misuse appearance tropes, as well as tropes whose names make them sound like they could be appearance tropes.
Meaningful Appearance tropes are often misused in ways that overlook the "Meaningful" aspect, resulting in Zero Context Examples and misuse in the form of examples that have no meaning even if the tropes themselves are not People Sit on Chairs.
The Appearance Tropes Cleanup sandbox covers tropes with potential issues. Tropes that simply require cleanup will go through this thread, while tropes that require more significant action will have to go through the Trope Repair Shop.
April 2, 2023 update: This thread is no longer for making changes to tropes, and was brought back from the Projects Morgue solely for cleanup. Making changes to tropes is still a job for the Trope Repair Shop.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 2nd 2023 at 9:18:26 AM
Haul it to TLP to see if there are any examples which are
. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Quick question: is Hollywood Beauty Standards supposed to replace the various Hot X tropes? I want to be clear on that before going to the TLP.
It shouldn't, professions themselves have stereotypes and plot lines around them which is pretty different from what is proposed.
No, mostentimes they don't and even if they do the tropes are always about how attractive a character is with nary a mention to any such aspect.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
How about we see if there are tropeable patterns in the sexualization/fetishization of groupings of closely interrelated professions? The key to this approach would be to first identify natural groups of professions, before we look into each group and see if there's a distinct pattern in how and/or why it's sexualized/fetishized that sets it apart from other groups.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I would disagree, things like Hot Teacher or Hospital Hottie ARE usually mentioned in the work and lusted after by students and such. As well as usually those characters will wear revealing or stereotypically fetishy clothing and such.
I mean things like Persona 5 feature a doctor wearing a spiked color, a lab coat, high heels, really damn short skirt and legs for days [1]
◊. the latter are even shown off in the menus
◊. That aint 'Hollywood beauty standards'. EDIT: oh and she is also a potential love interest. And dont even get me started on this school doctor
◊
Even a lot of Hot Scoops will use their attractiveness in plot as well to gain info, even PG works like Ninja Turtles have April Oneil doing it.
edited 20th Apr '17 1:00:57 PM by Memers
No, the issue is that tropers will treat all such tropes as "attractive character". That does not merit subtropes. Also, the things you mention are fairly common among all these tropes. They can all be mentioned under Hollywood Beauty Standards.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Agreed. Students lusting after adults in their natural social environment might be a trope (a plot trope at that, not an appearance one) but "the teacher/nurse happens to be attractive" is not.
A report using seduction to gain info sounds like a reporter using The Schlub Pub Seduction Deduction. I.e. not an appearance trope.
Finally, a character who wears fetishized clothing is Fetish Fuel, which we don't do anymore.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Doesn't that last one fall under Sexy Whatever Outfit?
Anyway, about the two examples brought up by Memers... I've noticed one common factor between them that also applies to a lot of other examples I've encountered in fiction: The character is wearing one or more clothing items in addition to their uniform that are explicitly inappropiate for their profession/occupation, and/or wearing their uniform in a way that is similarly inappropiate for their profession/occupation. That seems like it falls under the trope Stripperific and/or Custom Uniform of Sexy; am I correct?
edited 20th Apr '17 3:29:21 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Nice Hat is a rather pointless article mostly consisting of lists of characters who wear hats.
Not a uniform though.
Nice Hat really needs to be made about a signature piece of a character, like its unique, unusual, or they literally never take it off even in the bath tub [1]
◊ and such.
Also we have Teacher/Student Romance for a student lusting after a teacher. The plot is a trope. A random teacher being attractive is not.
The big problem is that media sexualises everyone and anyone so often that a character having a fanservicy outfit is just sort of expected. It doesn't actually mean anything in most cases.
edited 21st Apr '17 1:31:03 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
"Fanservicey outfit" includes clothes whose express primary purpose is fanservice, such as skimpy bikinis and sexy lingerie. On the other hand, fanservice-ized versions of outfits whose original purpose has nothing to do with fanservice, or even forbids fanservice-iness in the outfit's design as a matter of ethics/professionality, merits consideration as a distinct phenomenon.
Thus, Sexy Whatever Outfit. That plus the hypothetical Hollywood Beauty Standards would cover any and all sorts of "Hot X" tropes.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
And to repeat a prior question (in different wording) that hasn't been addressed yet: Do the tropes Stripperific and Custom Uniform of Sexy apply to such examples as well?
That aside, on the issue of things like female reporters exploiting their attractiveness to get their way while on the job... Is there a case to be made for the tropability of the idea that certain occupations have earned a reputation for being prone to using sex appeal for self-serving purposes?
edited 21st Apr '17 11:01:09 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Stripperiffic is where a character is wearing a skimpy outfit that inappropriate for their profession. So if that's the case then yes.
Custom Uniform of Sexy seems more specific. That's were a character is part of a group that has uniform but theirs is either modified to be more skimpy or is a entirely different skimpy outfit.
edited 23rd Apr '17 7:39:29 AM by captainpat
World's Toughest Milkman
For the intersection of jobs and attractiveness, I see at least two potential tropes:
- Attractiveness Is A Job Requirement: would cover, for example, the case of tv newsreaders and actors, among others.
- Attractiveness Is An Unfair Advantage: would cover cases like the classic "dumb young girl with big breasts gets the job instead of the experienced-but-plain woman."
Of course, those names aren't very good, but we can work on that if others agree with my assessment. Note that both are plot tropes rather than character tropes.
edit: tyop
edited 23rd Apr '17 1:27:51 PM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
I like that idea.
Hired for Their Looks seems to cover both of those.
I was thinking that as well, just could not remember the name.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
BUMB. Where do we go from here?
Need to toss the supertrope into TLP.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Some examples for this thing would really help.
What do we need to do to get Hollywood Beauty Standards up and running?