A discussion about Male Frontal Nudity

So I talked about this trope called Male Frontal Nudity on ATT if they should have a female counterpart trope or this should bring to TRS for being ZCE on most examples. But someone suggested me to bring it here. Do you guys agree that I should make a female version of this trope or I should bring this to TRS?

I think this is chairs to be honest.

Yeah "a guy is au naturel at some point" is PSOC, pretty much by definition. There's some meaning in the concept of something like "someone is confused for a nudist due to being naked once in an out-of-context scenario", but IDK how distinct that'd be from Naked People Trapped Outside. Here's an old TRS thread that went nowhere.

The trope's main page mentions that male nudity is so discouraged that "when one does pop up, whether it be Fanservice, Fan Disservice, or just there, expect it to be the only thing anyone talks about". And Nudity Tropes mentions that this trope is about: "Works with visible depictions of penises and the controversy surrounding them". That sounds like an Audience Reactions.

I think the idea is tropeworthy though, since a creator just doesn't show a penis on the screen by accident, it's a deliberate action (although some examples on the page are accidental, but still). So either the description has to be more objective or the trope should be YMMV.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Nov 23rd 2023 at 4:15:58 AM

Agreed, so I don't have to make a female trope about it?

No, I don't think so. Before trying to come up with a sister trope, we should first figure out what to do with this one.

Hmm. The description is pretty much unchanged from the oldest copy in the Internet Archive or the original YKTTW. Most of the examples back then seem to center around the controversy surrounding it, but the line about European works suggests it's supposed to be the more chairs-y definition, and some of the archived discussion centers around it being considered Fanservice.

Note that if this is about the controversy, it seems to be framed as the Spear Counterpart to Nipple and Dimed, which is treated as an objective trope. But if that's what this is supposed to be, shouldn't it cover both genders' genitals?

Edited by MorganWick on Nov 24th 2023 at 12:12:01 PM

The first paragraph argues that showing a penis is way much taboo than showing a vagina. But I think in practice both have the same effect.

I don't buy that sentiment either. If there's a trope here it's probably to make the audience uncomfortable. We do have Naked People Are Funny for evoking another emotion from nakedness.

Edited by eroock on Nov 25th 2023 at 11:22:18 AM

I don't buy that showing either set of genitals is more taboo than the other, either. Just because something is less common doesn't mean it's more taboo, female fanservice is just more common in general because a lot of media is targeted at straight men. I don't think it makes "a penis is shown" any less chairsy.

So, it's been suggested to mean:

• Any time a penis is shown (PSOC).
• Showing penises is more taboo than showing female genitalia (possibly objective, since Nipple and Dimed is objective, but it's dubious as to whether the assertion is true).
• Exposed penises are all the work is known for (YMMV, but possibly covered by Best Known for the Fanservice).
• Exposed penises played for Fan Disservice.

Do I understand it correctly?

honestly nipple and dimed is also a confusing trope (the description says that the trope is "it's okay to show 99% of the breast as long as the nipple isn't exposed" while the examples are basically just "any example of bare breasts regardless of whether the nipple is covered or not"), so if male frontal nudity is its sister trope, then it's fitting that they boil down to "breasts and dicks exist". but they're both getting at a double standard that exists with nudity in media — female nudity is sexual, male nudity is comedic or shocking — so i wonder if that's what the tropes should be redefined toward.

I don't have time to look at the MFN page and won't for a while, but I do want to ask how many of the examples deal with the naked men being done for sexual/erotic purposes and how many deal with Fan Disservice, horror, and other completely non-sensual circumstances. If there's enough to make a distinction, then it may be worth splitting them as since a dude's junk is a lot more visible than a woman's, seeing said dude in the buff in a situation that is either creepy, sad, or just plain disturbing adds an extra visceral punch.

It may be tropeable to look at visual media that shows full nudity without playing it up for either comedy or titillation (most obviously, by using actors who are not particularly attractive) to get "We will show you unvarnished reality" credibility. Something like Normalised Nudity.