Sorcerer in training
- Possibly Nyu from Elfen Lied. Her other personalities don't seem to have the same bisexual tendencies, however, they're focused on Kouta. Nyu could be a way of projecting their bisexuality.
"Possibly" and "could be" are the same as "arguably" in this context. Either that personality is bisexual, based on evidence in the manga and/or anime, or she isn't.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rename - Unstoppable misuse
, started by TwinBird on Jul 18th 2011 at 6:00:27 AM
This would require some heavy Trope Repair Shop, mostly, a rename. The current name indicates that the character would have sex with literally anything that moves, but the description makes clear it's Extreme Omnisexual. Also, we have Depraved Bisexual and Really Gets Around, with the borders being rather murky.
Hide / Show Replies
Eh, is there evidence of confusion? With 2600+ inbounds and 1556 wicks one would expect some misuse.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Ugh, this description spends more time describing what it ISN'T than what it IS. And in a hideously disconnected and messy way, as well.
So it isn't Extreme Omnisexual, it isn't Really Gets Around, it isn't The Casanova or Lovable Sex Maniac, it's not about perverts who go beyond the bounds of morality, and (despite how the rest of the wiki seems to use the term) it's not about bisexuals being depicted as promiscuous. So what is it about, that's distinct from all those tropes?
I came to this trope expecting to see The Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells from the second season of Black Adder and was dissapointed to see he wasn't here. There's even a quote by him: "I am a colossal pervert. No form of sexual depravity is too low for me. Animal,vegetable or mineral - I'll do anything to anything."
Hide / Show Replies
I suggest the following joke (that I may or may not have taken from Sickipedia) as the page quote.
Two Marines were sitting around talking one day. The first Marine asked the second Marine, "if they were to drop a bomb right now, what would be the first thing you would do?"
The second Marine said, "I would screw the first thing that moved. What would you do?"
The first Marine replied, "I would stand very still for half an hour."
I'm a little confused about what this trope means myself. At first I thought this trope was just for bisexual characters. But then it says in the summary that the character can be hetero, gay, or bi. But then a bunch of other links on this page say the character has to be bisexual. Then there's the Really Gets Around trope, which seems to be for characters who are more picky about what gender they sleep with. Unless this is the one for bisexuals, I fail to see the difference between Really Gets Around and Anything That Moves.
Hide / Show Replies
I agree. From the description, Bob could fall under this trope if he'll sleep with any woman on the planet; tall or short, fat or thin, young or old, pretty or ugly, it doesn't matter. He has no standards.
Looking through the examples, I can find at least a few that mentioned characters who would sleep with aliens, inanimate objects, animals... these are clearly examples of Extreme Omnivore. And some look more like cases of Really Gets Around. I THINK the difference between that trope and this one is that Anything That Moves implies a lack of standards, whereas a person who falls under Really Gets Around HAS standards, not just about gender, but things like age, attractiveness, etcetera, but it's hard to tell because of the ambiguity.
Maybe it should be brought up in the Trope Repair Shop? If it was renamed something like Has No Standards and the descriptions (both for this trope along with the other two mentioned here) were clarified, I think it might help avoid the misuse and confusion.
What about Panty from Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt? She at one point even aimed to bang 100 men in about a day/week.
I disagree with Valentine Michael Smith. While he was all about the Free-Love Future, it's blatantly stated that, while he did not dislike homosexual men, he didn't understand them, either and they made him uncomfortable.
Author of TROPEFEST!: Attack of the Killer Cliches. Available on Amazon. Hide / Show Replies
If I'm not mistaken, that's only speculation by one character. I don't think we're ever privy to what Smith himself thinks of it.
Smith and the other Heinlein characters are definitely not this trope. Smith is only capable of sex with people for whom he is in complete spiritual partnership; to him, sex and love are inseparable. Friday is also not a sex maniac; she outright refuses propositions from people whom she finds disgusting or abhorrent. In fact, I can't think of a single Heinlein protagonist that fits the trope as written. Maybe Galahad from Time Enough For Love, but if so it's by reputation more than fact.
His characters are free-spirited and uninhibited, but they are choosy.
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
aayero
This trope is full of so many contradictions. Especially in the introduction, where it is very poorly defined. It's mostly a bunch of excuses saying "it's not this, it's not that". So then, what exactly is it?
It's kind of ironic for a trope about low sexual standards to have such high standards (but to then again have those standards so poorly defined).
Edited by aaeyero
Does it count if the character in question copulates with a variety of fantastic races?
Dread Sorcerer of Auchtermuchty
Should we alter the disclaimer to read "all sexes of them" instead of "both sexes of them" After all, some aliens are monogendered hermaphrodites, and some have three or more sexes?
Keeper of The Celestial Flame Hide / Show Replies
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
So, while we have sufficient gender- and age-indiscrimination examples, why is it that the example list appears to be completely devoid of cases where the Anything That Moves character is truly indiscriminate when it comes to his/her partner's personality?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I added a new picture (still Jack Harkness, but more than Just A Face And A Caption). If anyone objects, has a better picture, or has a caption to go along with it, feel free to add it.
Hide / Show Replies
What, no Ianto and Gwen?
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
Resident Railroader
Why does the page link to itself so much? There are roughly four links to itself in a three paragraph section.
Too Face And A Caption, apparently.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
I know that but it is not true Jack flirts(and sleeps with) men woman and aliens.
Dunkies addict
Uh... Ziva?!
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger. Hide / Show Replies
That's exactly what I was thinking...she's hinted that she's used sex as a tool in her Mossad days, but she hardly qualifies for this trope.
Merged with Extreme Omnisexual per TRS:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16780443390.09707500&page=2#comment-38
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.