Discussion Main / PantyShot

Definition-only is perfectly fine, but does it really need to be so very bare-bones? I mean, even excluding any details of the fanservice side, as I mentioned previously on Discussion, this trope's use has changed over the years. Today, it's almost always used for fanservice, but for a very long time it was used with great frequency as a demonstration of childlike innocence, showing that the child is still too young and unaware to notice or care about such things. Heck, this continued all the way into the 90s at the least with Batman's Baby Doll's underwear showing with great frequency, with no indication that there's supposed to be anything to this outside of a demonstration of just how tiny and babylike her body is, accentuating the contrast against her very much adult psyche.

I believe that they should just have one example for each category.

i agree

Is there a reason why tropes such as "panty-fighter" have their own set of examples and panty-shot does not? I see no harm in listing examples for this trope.

... that's entirely unrelated. Panty Fighter is an entire genre, rather than listing specific examples of every time you can see a girl's panties in a work.

Then perhaps a list of works that contain Panty Shot? an individual listing would be chaotic and huge, yeah.

I propose adding the following to the first paragraph after "a gratuitous exposure of a female character's panties."

"Note that if the underwear in question is expected to be seen - cycling shorts, bikini bottoms or gymnast leotards - it isn't this trope - especially in the case of a someone doing a gymnastic or dancing routine where such exposure is unavoidable."

I agree. While this is usually Fanservice these days, in the past it was often an indication of innocence, showing that the girl was too young to care about such propriety. This includes a lot of old Western cartoons, and is also the case with My Neighbor Totoro: yes, their panties are showing all the time, but there's no sense of Fanservice to it, just a part of how innocent they are and how focused they are on playing.

You ought to ask the Trope Finder for this.

My impression is that it has something to do with Google's standards for its ads.

That and the examples were getting downright creepy. I mean, not only listing stuff where it was clearly intended, but along the lines of, "If you pause it at exactly 2 minutes, 3.7 seconds into the episode, you can see seven pixels of grey that are probably her panties." and just generally being real obvious that some people were spending way too much time looking for it where it wasn't intended.

I know this is an old(ish) discussion, but there are still some articles with Panty Shots exemples, like the Tales of Darksides Movie, including the EXACT time of the panty shot in question.

What can, or should be done?

Too creepy? Why not set some standards that you have to follow before adding examples? Why even have this page if we can't have examples?

Well, standards are sadly disobeyed rather frequently. Plus, part of the problem was that the list of panty shots gave a creepy vibe.

As for the second question ... the trope is still there.

Irony: I came to the article hoping for exactly that — an overly precise note as to where a panty shot in a certain work occurs. Less creepy because I'd just made an argument with someone about what the lack of panty shots or shots focusing on boobs, butt, legs, or hips says about the work in question despite the costuming of certain characters (characters in fetishy outfits but without any of the stereotypical "male gaze objectification" shots), and I see an entry on that films page for panty shot that just says "Only if you're looking for it!"

I was actually banking on extreme creepy over-precision, and am disappoint. =/

Tropers from further back will recall the Troper Tales page was pretty over the top, so I wasn't surprised to arrive and find the examples gone.

• sigh*

All I was saying was that the scar text seemed like it was hiding the full story of what the hell happened...

I understand why the majority of examples are banned, but couldn't some manner of examples be permitted, perhaps only permitted by request to prevent stuff like the former abuse? There are series where care is taken to include as many shots as possible, or even guarantee that panties are never hidden (like Strike Witches), series where one or two shots occur but the design of the scene is clearly meant to emphasize them (like in Light Novel/MM, where Magic Skirt dominates until the very end of the last episode, at which point the heroine pulls a drop kick that exposes every inch, and finally there are a few in which panty-shots are actually plot-relevant (such as Bitter Virgin, in which the exposure exposes a significant scar). If nothing else, it seems appropriate to mention works in which there's some significant reason or value given for the shot.

Agreed. There should be examples for this.

Is the difference important? My bet is "no".

Because "family friendly" here has a specific meaning (Family Friendly, as well as No Lewdness, No Prudishness) that this page doesn't violate.

Merely talking about sexual topics is not family-unfriendly.

I'm guessing there's a lot of panties being seen here. But yeah, I guess this would be called a Super-Trope, or at least a broadly-defined term. It can be played as fanservice or squick, or neither depending on the situation.

never mind.

That's more of a naked people are funny example, then a panty shot

Don't think so. I thought there was something in YKKTW concern the kind of black holes you can have show up in games sometimes, but I'm not sure if I remembered that properly or nothing came of it. Seems like a substantive enough subject to me, but I am far too lazy to propose it.

If it's acknowledged and deliberate, I'd say it fits.

(man I feel so dirty judging all these examples...)

The lengths one has to go to as a troper, huh? *grin*

My personal rule is that if I don't see it, it doesn't count in my por—book.

But this article's featured picture tells it all: Implication is enough to count. So add away.

Maybe this article's featured picture is wrong though. Maybe we need a new one.

I suspect that at this point, Mahoraba's not going away anymore; it's become this article's definite picture, as much as it frustrates me to no end.

So instead of replacing it, can we put in an additional image that, y'know, actually demonstrates the trope in question? I mean, Unwanted Harem has an image of a harem...

Me after removing non-examples: [1]◊

Holy crap, man. (Now, it's possible that I was disturbed to the point of removing some actual examples, but geez.)