Not Tropeworthy: Vapor Wear

This trope is about characters who are obviously going without underwear, and that's it. While the description offers several possible meanings, they're rarely used in examples, off-page (didn't check on page) and that's when the trope is being used correctly at all!

The Vapor Wear Wick Check shows that it's a mess of usage, as well. Examples about characters being barely clothed, examples where characters' lack of undergarments has to be revealed to the audience, and even examples where the supposed to be obvious lack of underwear is actively hidden from the audience are included alongside the usual ZC Es, a typo for Vapor Ware (which this trope is obviously a snowclone of) and correct but meaningless examples. Out of the 57 wicks checked, 19 were correct but lacked any explanation for why they go without (and, per the precedent set by Does Not Like Shoes, there needs to be meaning behind an aspect of their appearance for it to be tropable). Another six offered some explanation, but the use on those pages is all over the place, and two of them are from playing with pages, so not exactly proper examples.

I think disambiguating between Stripperiffic, Going Commando, Theiss Titillation Theory, and potentially other tropes is the best option for this page, unless we can find some meaning to coalesce a trope around, and I'm not sure we can.

Opening.

to disambig, the tropes listed already have far more coherent descriptions + narrative meaning

Disambig. The description seems to be mostly "Going Commando as Fanservice", but Going Commando as it is doesn't exclude fanservice, so this trope is redundant.

The concept of sexually loose characters obviously not wearing underwear does sound tropeworthy, but it seems the examples don't really reflect that. I feel that's at least worth yarding.

Otherwise the disambiguation suggestion is sound.

I think Vapor Wear is specifically a clothing style (similar to Impossibly-Low Neckline), whlie Going Commando is a personal choice. Unsure if this is accurate.

I agree, and I'm in favor of disambiguating the current page because of that.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 21st 2024 at 7:56:00 AM

I think that hits the nail on the head. Vapor Wear is a clothing style where clothes are designed to reveal that the wearer is not wearing anything underneath. The titillation aspect is not necessarily that you see a lot of skin, but the lack of underwear.

I think that as such, it's tropable (as a fashion trope and/or a fanservice trope), but I agree that there are a ton of problems with how it's used on the wiki. Most of the legit examples could probably be covered by Stripperiffic, and a lot of the non-fanservice misuse can be covered by Going Commando.

Edited by GnomeTitan on Apr 21st 2024 at 4:34:06 PM

Clothes that are designed to reveal that the wearer is not wearing anything underneath are, for the most part, already covered by Sexy Backless Outfit, Impossibly-Low Neckline, Navel-Deep Neckline, Sideboob, Underboobs and Stripperiffic.

Also, I was sure there was a trope for slit dresses that are slit too high, but couldn't find it. Ah, probably not.

Edited by kundoo on Apr 21st 2024 at 7:57:33 AM

Perhaps you're looking for Sexy Slit Dress.

Oh, thanks! For some reason the search didn't give me this result when I was looking for "slit dress"

Most examples fitting Stripperiffic as well is a solid argument to disambiguate.

Isn't Stripperiffic a supertrope of Vapor Wear, and many other tropes listed above? Or, if it isn't listed as one, shouldn't it be? Examples of a subtrope fitting the supertrope isn't an argument for disambiguating the subtrope, is it?

You're right, the tropes listed cover (pun intended) most of the cases. Cleavage Window may also apply, if the window is large enough.

The exception is when the clothes are modestly cut, but transparent. Sexy Soaked Shirt is the special case where the transparency is due to the clothing being wet. Do we have a more general trope for transparent clothes in general?

Edited by GnomeTitan on Apr 21st 2024 at 5:26:39 PM

I'm not super-concerned about trope overlap, and as a concept, "outerwear that indicates the wearer is Going Commando" is a valid trope. However, in order to coexist with the various other "sexy clothing" tropes, each example would probably need individual confirmation that the wearer in fact isn't wearing underwear: for example, IRL they make strapless and even backless bras to wear with revealing women's tops.

As an example, back when I was writing fanfic on the Star Trek Online forum, there was a prompt about your character going clubbing, and one writer had their Trill in a club dress with completely sheer side panels (because the spots go all the way down), which she openly admitted to a friend made it impossible to wear panties.

Edited by StarSword on Apr 21st 2024 at 11:21:54 AM

From a fashion perspective, I'm not sure if there's much of a difference - surely it's the visual effect that's the important thing, and not whether, say, a woman is wearing a strapless, thin bra or no bra at all. But if you see it as a fanservice trope, the difference between invisible underwear and no underwear can be important, of course.

Edited by GnomeTitan on Apr 21st 2024 at 5:25:20 PM

It also may share issues with Personal Appearance tropes, there's no contextualization for something self-evident.

I'd be happy to see this cut. Never saw this as a trope, at least not as having a meaningful distinction from the other "skimpy outfit" fanservice tropes. The whole thing just seems to be an excuse for a punny trope name.

I'd say that there is a distinction, because of the somewhat neurotic attitude many societies (including the U.S.) have about underwear - not wearing underwear is seen as wrong and/or indecent, so clothes that show off the fact that the wearer isn't wearing underwear have an extra titillation factor over clothes that are merely revealing.

The question is of course whether this warrants a separate trope.

When I first saw these tropes, I thought there was redundancy between Going Commando and Vapor Wear and then I realized that Vapor Wear is used for fanservice. I agree with organizing better, but we should organize optional styles or fanservice.

Expand

I know there's a lot of tropes that characterize Vapor Wear. In my opinion, I think we could turn this page into an Index instead of a disambiguation, showing Penelo's photo, the page explanation and the list of tropes, highlighting which part of the body the character is not wearing underwear.

I don't think this has any strict subtropes, so it would be awfully specific for an index.

I agree with Morgan Wick

I suggest modifying the definition of the trope rather than disambiguating it. The trope should be focused on being a kind of Fanservice trope where the outfit's design gives away that the person is obviously not wearing undergarments (such as having slits in the pants that show that the person could not possibly be wearing underwear). Try to focus on moving examples where the lack of undergarments is NOT obvious (such as a skirt with no underpants underneath and also no slits in it to give away the lack of underwear) to Going Commando instead. Granted, this trope could be analyzed as a fusion of Going Commando and Stripperiffic, but there are enough "tropeworthy" tropes that can be analyzed as the result of fusing tropes together that there's a Just for Fun page about it (the page in question is https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/FusionDance )

Edited by DeadlyEspresso on Apr 23rd 2024 at 6:14:45 AM