Revert to old definition : Hourglass Hottie

Well, my only issue with Animated Hourglass Hottie is that it implies that this is exclusive to animated works. This trope still applies to stuff like comics and such.

I personally prefer Impossible Hourglass Figure and my reasoning is that an hourglass figure already heavily implies hotness - it's the desired female shape in most media. Adding animated is good in order to prevent real life examples though, but I find it clunky for a title.

EDIT: captainpat brings up a good point, this is not just animation we're talking about here.

edited 15th Sep '11 1:50:38 PM by Gillespie

Yeah, I don't like animated when so many of the examples come from still media. I don't think Impossible Hourglass Figure sounds off. I think it's probably the most descriptive. After all, there are often animated examples that don't have the level of impossibility this trope is going for.

Impossible Hourglass Figure works for me.

The comic books issue is a serious one. Animated doesn't work. However, the IHF option, still misses that this is a trope about beauty.

Hopefully we can find a better option. Hmm, does the word "cartoon" apply to animated as well as still, or only animated?

Cartoon does not apply to comic books. Nor does it apply to CG women who also count for the trope.

edited 15th Sep '11 3:01:11 PM by shimaspawn

Hmm, doing the Impossibly Cool Clothes snowclone proper would be Impossibly Pretty Hourglass Figure. Would solve all our problems, but create a new one - it implies a judgement that "The thinner the prettier".

Hmm, maybe Pretty Impossible Hourglass Figure? the double meaning of "Pretty" makes it kinda a pun, tpp.

I really don't think we need to emphasize beauty in the trope name. It's just adding words to add words. Most of our trope tiles don't go out of their way to point out "and that's hot." Besides, the hot is the least important bit of the trope and the one bit that's completely subjective. No need to mention it in the title. In fact, I think it's better if we don't. People will be less likely to misuse it for just calling out hot girls that way.

edited 15th Sep '11 3:11:38 PM by shimaspawn

You do have a point there.

Still, I prefer titles to pinpoint the entire trope if it can be done with a reasonable phrasing. Thus I prefer the four word version. I'm okay with the three word version too, it's just that I find it less preferable.

This is the kind of issue that crowners are perfect to solve. As it currently stands, I'm gonna up-vote both versions, and eventually we'll see which one gets the most votes.

But first, lets see if someone come up with an even better option.

Hourglass Figure is pretty much exclusively used to describe hot women in any case; I don't think we need to pile on implications.

As for the deeper issue, I claim that there are two relevant levels of beauty: Intended and subjective.

In comics and cartoons, it is almost always easy to pinpoint whether a character is intended to be beautiful or not. Thus, the beauty is objective in this narrow context. Whether or not you personally agree with the aesthetics of the authors, now that's an entirely different matter.

Good point.

The four word version sounds awkward, makes the trope harder to figure out, and encourages shoehorning, and discourages good examples. In all those ways it makes things worse than not having the word there in the first place.

Don't see your point, exactly. Do we REALLY need to make a distinction between "impossible and meant to be sexy" and "impossible but not supposed to be sexy"? The reason that artists exaggerate the waist so much is to enhance the sex appeal, no one would mistake this. Is that not obvious already without sicking "hot" or "pretty" on the title?

EDIT: response to Xzenu's previous comment.

edited 15th Sep '11 3:33:42 PM by Gillespie

I can see the shoehorning issue. Disagree on first two issues, and I can't see how it could possibly discourage good examples. Care to explain that last one? Just curious.

Impossible Hourglass Figure, works better imo. The main crux of this trope is that these are female characters with hourglass that would be impossible in real life, without a corset ofcourse. While they're usually portrayed as a Ms. Fanservice or Hello Nurse, the main point is that the artist is depicting them with exaggerated proportions.

If someone doesn't think a character is pretty, they will not list them on a trope with pretty in the title even if they fit the trope and are meant to be this trope.

This really needs to focus on the impossibility of the proportion, NOT on how hot these women are. It blurs the focus of the trope, that's all.

That's what I just posted.

edited 15th Sep '11 3:43:50 PM by captainpat

Aha. Okay, go with the shorter title.

Impossible Hourglass Figure sounds good to me.

Description, v3

A woman in comics or cartoons doesn't have ribs like a real actress does. Thus she can easily have a far narrower waist than would be possible with even the strictest of corsets - and usually without even wearing one!

A woman with Impossible Hourglass Figure has generous curves, with an impossibly narrow waist as an unproblematic part of how she just happens to look. Thus taking the classic "hourglass figure" beauty ideal Up To Eleven. She's always designed to be attractive, even in the cases where she's not Ms. Fanservice or Hello Nurse: Monsters with insect-like narrow waists does not count, even if the shape reminds of a hourglass.

No Real Life Examples Please.

edited 16th Sep '11 1:50:31 AM by Xzenu

I'd take away the Of Corsets Sexy pothole in the first paragraph, otherwise I don't see a problem with it.

edited 16th Sep '11 6:39:50 AM by MarqFJA

I like it. We should have a crowner for name?

I don't think we need one. We've talked it out and there doesn't seem to be any more objection to Impossible Hourglass Figure.