Bjorn

Baby Got Backstory - A trope creation thread

Recommended Posts

Wait, I thought the trope specifically was the random exculpatory detail that doesn't serve a purpose beyond explaining away distracting sexiness.

"Distracting Sexiness" being defined as sexualization that is present solely for titillation.

I don't know what to think now... :(

By introducing subjectivity (because everyone's going to have different opinions on the quality of execution of the trope) things get crazy!

For example I don't think the Firefly character's execution is poor, but obviously brkl has problems with it!

Similarly, I think Kill la Kill's is largely justified, but that's because I'm familiar with anime in general and the tropes it exploits in particular. Someone who isn't a fan of anime like I am will probably immediately fund it all repulsive. And that's not wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Kill la Kill is doing a specific thing about body shaming and social control. It has something to say that removing the sexuality would change, whether you agree with it or not. BUT they also have a line that gives a pointless scifi reason for the skimpy outfits so the version of this trope that might only exist in my head is on display in KlK.

"Female Character is written to be conventionally sexy for any reason" doesn't really seem like just one trope and lumping Bayonetta and Miranda and Zhaan and Nami in one category doesn't seem all that illuminating is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to see things like Reyturner, actually: the problem with this trope, as defined, is that it comes from a place of assumed intent. It assumes that the character's backstory is there to support him/her being sexualized, and not the other way around.

 

That's a pretty easy, probably safe assumption to make for a large percentage of entertainment media (especially in video games). But it's still an assumption, and quality of execution is absolutely not the only subjective element here. I don't think a serious (or any) story about a stripper/sex worker would fit into this trope, for example. I think Inara from Firefly probably does, but I recognize that I'm making a judgement call. There's definitely points in between that are even fuzzier.

 

NOTE: I still like the idea of this trope and think it's useful to have an (awesome) term for it and to point it out, but I don't think it's possible to eliminate subjectivity from its definition (or even reduce it very much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, then who should be making the final call, if we're going to start bringing judgment or worthiness into this? That's obviously a question you can't answer. Nor can I. So our options are to be arbitrarily subjective about it all or just include any example, justified or not.

 

I think my earlier distinction - body structure vs. sexy outfits - is more important than this one about justification. But that's maybe me being selfish.

 

Inara from Firefly is naturally an attractive woman, but, AFAIK, there's no genetic modification to make her more beautiful. (It's possible I just forgot or am unaware of this, if it does exist.) She wasn't built to be beautiful. She just is, and then took advantage of that. She'd fall into the sexy outfit category.

 

That's in contrast to Miranda, who WAS built to be beautiful (and perfect in other ways). Same with EDI (or any fembot) - built to be beautiful.

 

Moxxi from Borderlands would fall into the sexy outfit category. Bayonetta, too.

 

Etc.

 

Also we're so far just a bunch of dudes (or at least mostly dudes, from what I know) talking about this. It's even more likely, I think, for a woman to see something as problematic and unjustified than we would. Sooo there's that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand either why Inara would fit this trope. I guess she makes herself look better than other female characters on the show, which is explained by her profession, but I don't think she is more sexualized/fits conventional beauty standards more than any of the others. And we don't see her more naked more often either, as far as I can remember. Sooo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally find the concept more useful when it includes sexualization of any kind, wardrobe simply being the most common. But the essence of the trope remains the same whether we sub-categorize it or not, I think.

 

And to more concisely state my opinion: when we discuss this trope we are absolutely talking about instances where the backstory seems to be there to justify the sexy; that's what makes it a trope of any interest at all. Either we choose to reflect that in our definition or we don't. If we do, the definition can't be very rigorous and (ultimately) becomes an exercise in guessing authorial intent. If we don't, the definition becomes (as Reyturner put it) "character is written to be conventionally sexy for any reason". I guess either works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A trope by definition is just a storytelling device, right? But one that's become so common as to almost be ubiquitous. The trope here is: background/backstory justification for sexualization. I'm not sure it's useful to start judging the execution of the trope... It LOSES its usefulness, in my mind, once we start picking and choosing which ones qualify based on whether they're well or poorly executed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I agree. 

 

But then I also think that the judgement-less version of this trope is extremely broad and largely uninteresting, and so, maybe, trying to define this phenomenon as a "trope" is similarly uninteresting.

 

To be clear, the distinction I see here isn't one of execution quality, it's intent. The idea that something is being "justified" at all. In my hypothetical example, a story about strippers, is the story "justifying" the sexualized appearance of the subjects when the story is about their sex work? I mean, I suppose it is. But is this a trope worth pointing out?

 

And in case it comes up: I generally subscribe to a "death of the author" attitude when it comes to serious literary/entertaiment criticism. I'm aware that my earlier statements would seem to contradict that. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't include that no. That's more an example of a setting than it is a character trope, to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I asked "is it possible to justify a conventionally sexy female character" earlier. It kind of sounds like the answer in this thread is no.

If that isn't the case, what are the criteria? That's where the value of this trope is in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I wasn't trying to make any objective declarations with the original post, I was just copying what everyone in the previous discussion had said and didn't want to make any judgment calls myself in introducing it here.

I agree with this most strongly:
 

And to more concisely state my opinion: when we discuss this trope we are absolutely talking about instances where the backstory seems to be there to justify the sexy; that's what makes it a trope of any interest at all.

 
In the original list, I think Edi is the one that is absolutely most emblematic of it.  Her NPC form could have conceivably taken a bunch of different and interesting forms, but ultimately a backstory was created whose sole purpose seems to be to justify giving her a hot fembot to cruise around in. 
 
I'm also onboard with a lot of Reyturner's criticisms.  It's that link between, "This character seems kinda sexist and male gazey" and "Oh, but wait, she's that way because arglebargle!" that makes it interesting and not just a trope about sexist/sexy design. 
 
And I agree that it's important to remember that a trope isn't a condemnation, just a description of a routinely used practice.  It seems like most of the things thrown out as examples so far all come from things that one or more of us like (in fact, we seem to be more likely to identify the ones that actually come from shows/games we enjoy).

 

Dollhouse most obviously, but Firefly has a character whose backstory is constructed entirely to create circumstances in the fiction in which buying sex is not morally suspect but taking part in some noble tradition. Sci-Fi is full of these well-adjusted prostitutes for whom offering sex to timid males is a service provided with a smile, as if turning your body into a commodity is of no consequence.

 

I don't want to derail on this, but it seems like you are saying that selling sex is, by default, morally suspect and can't be noble. I haven't ever watched Firefly, so I don't know how it's presented there. But there is an established profession of sexual surrogacy and therapy, and it pretty readily shows that there exists a kind of sex work in which people are happy to provide a needed service to help someone's life. I'd argue that anyone who does physical labor has turned their body into a commodity (or really, if you take a job at all, you've commoditized yourself), and limiting our language use to talking about sex as commoditizing someone's body is a very stigmatizing way to talk about it. I have a friend who has periodically done sexual surrogacy, including working with people with disabilities and working with adult virgins. While the work is challenging and can be draining, she's overall felt that it has been some of the most fulfilling and satisfying work she's done.  Not that there haven't been some rough spots (certainly, and the emotions involved in helping someone in this situation can be intense), but still a lot of good.   Knowing this woman over the last few years has gotten me to challenge a lot of my own default reactions and thoughts I've had about sex work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I asked "is it possible to justify a conventionally sexy female character" earlier. It kind of sounds like the answer in this thread is no.

If that isn't the case, what are the criteria? That's where the value of this trope is in my mind.

 

My distinction, being the one who asked if a name existed for the trope in the first place, if that the backstory replaces the obvious fact of sexuality, rather than just supplementing it. For instance, no one ever calls Ryuuko or Satsuki sexy. Their appearance and everyone's reaction to it are described entirely within the terms of the fiction, even though it's plain as day that they're half-naked and sexy. The latter never (or hardly ever) comes up. On the other hand, Inara from Firefly is depicted that way because, within the context of the work, she is attractive and a prostitute. The show and its characters bring this up repeatedly, so her sexuality is definitely the principle reason for her being this way, even if the fictional universe has some odd rules about it.

 

The example I was going to bring to the table is something a lot simpler, Yoko from Gurren Lagann. She wears a bikini top and hotpants, explicitly not because she thinks she looks good or whatever, but because she doesn't like clothing that "restricts movement."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I asked "is it possible to justify a conventionally sexy female character" earlier. It kind of sounds like the answer in this thread is no.

If that isn't the case, what are the criteria? That's where the value of this trope is in my mind.

 

That question sounds like it's trying to analyze how effective an instance of the trope is rather than whether or not it falls within the trope.  I think the answer to your question can be "yes" and still fall within the trope.  I would say that Firefly's Inara does it.  She's sexy because of a conscious effort on her part to be sexy.  She was specifically trained in how to be sexy.  I think the way it's presented is reasonable but it's still an explanation of why.  Contrast that with the other main female characters who are presented as attractive as well but without any specific reason other than that's who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should include a level of hoop-jumping by the author. It's not stuff that puts supermodels or strippers in there because supermodels and strippers are sexy, it's stuff that has a Victorian school ma'am wearing a miniskirt because, um, well, she has a rare disorder that means she breathes through the back of her knees and so needs them uncovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power Girl actually says in one of the comics that her boob window is there because she couldn't think of a symbol to put on there. (Real.)

 

Did you know that Lara Croft has massive knockers because she stores the souls of her dead parents in there, so they can take sustenance from her heart? (Fake.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should include a level of hoop-jumping by the author. It's not stuff that puts supermodels or strippers in there because supermodels and strippers are sexy, it's stuff that has a Victorian school ma'am wearing a miniskirt because, um, well, she has a rare disorder that means she breathes through the back of her knees and so needs them uncovered.

 

Yeah, a fictional universe full of strippers and supermodels and prostitutes is a different trope. For me, this trope is a female character having a huge pair of boobs because of a very good reason that has absolutely nothing to do with sex, why do you ask?

 

Dozens of superheroines wear skintight bodysuits because they supposedly give better freedom of movement (or something equally facile). Major Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell strips naked for infiltration missions because optical camouflage doesn't work with fabric over it. The titular character from the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series of books eventually acquires a type of vampirism that lets her feed off of people by having sex with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a fictional universe full of strippers and supermodels and prostitutes is a different trope. For me, this trope is a female character having a huge pair of boobs because of a very good reason that has absolutely nothing to do with sex, why do you ask?

 

I'm not accusing anyone in here of doing this, but one gross implication that tends to pop up in conversations like this one is that large busts are inherently sexual in a way smaller ones aren't. I guess the fact that some writer would feel the need to "justify" a body-type like that is an example of how pervasive this unfortunate attitude is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I like small boobs! Is this getting too personal? Sorry.

 

I think the point is that it's a common practice to make women hotter in fiction by giving them ample bosoms, and that's why it's an easily identifiable characteristic of the over-sexualization trope - whatever context that is. We're not making a judgment on what is sexy; we're identifying common examples of what a creator deems sexy and then assigning it (or not assigning it) the more specific trope of sexualization by backstory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, understood. I always feel the compulsion to bring that up either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should include a level of hoop-jumping by the author. It's not stuff that puts supermodels or strippers in there because supermodels and strippers are sexy, it's stuff that has a Victorian school ma'am wearing a miniskirt because, um, well, she has a rare disorder that means she breathes through the back of her knees and so needs them uncovered.

 

I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail on this, but it seems like you are saying that selling sex is, by default, morally suspect and can't be noble.

 

This is a complex issue that ought not be discussed here. I'll just point out I was talking about buying sex. Whedon constructed his fictional world to remove the moral quandaries from buying sex. Your friend's and her clients' situations are pretty rare when it comes to the history of the sex trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this.

 

Can we try to float some one-sentence definitions of this nascent trope, then?

 

I thought for a while, and this is the best that I have: "Baby Got Backstory: when the creator of a work gives a conspicuously non-sexual explanation for a character's sexual behavior or appearance."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's pretty apt, except that the term "non-sexual" might get in the way. Isn't a fembot being designed to be sexy inherently sexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about...

 

"When a character's behavior or appearance seemingly serves as sexual titilation/fan service, but has some in-fiction explanation meant to legitimize it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

suspiciously exculpatory details [regarding the sexualzation of a female character] included seemingly only to exonerate the author 

*fart noise*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now