Bjorn

Baby Got Backstory - A trope creation thread

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, you know what's shit about that explanation in universe? My friend brought this up and I completely forgot.

 

Remember The End? He had photosynthesis powers that recharaged his health. He would recharge anytime you left him alone for too long during the boss fight. If I recall The End was fully clothed, not walking around in a codpiece with his chest hair out. Fuck off Kojima with the "words and deeds" BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really been keeping track: is the justification for Quiet photo-synthetic energy? For some reason, I thought it was heat dissipation.

 

Oh, it looks like it's a grab-bag all-of-the-above situation:

Due to her injuries, the parasites compensated for her burned epidermis, giving her the ability to "breathe" through her skin rather than her lungs, negating any problems that could come from sway that could be the result of breathing too much while sniping, but also requiring her to wear as little clothes as possible, as covering her skin would suffocate her. As additional aid, the parasites compensated for the digestive organs she lost from her burns, enabling her to "drink" through her skin when showering so long as she did not move too much while in fresh water (saltwater burning her instead), as well as receiving carbohydrates through photosynthesis, much like The End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video has a lot of crossover with this topic:



Also, The End had a photosynthetic camo outfit that you could get by beating him non-lethally, he got his powers specifically BY wearing clothes. I find the contrast amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Actually you get his camo outfit by sneaking up on him and holding him up, but yeah the difference is striking - and by striking I mean "lol kojima".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a good test of this trope would be to imagine a conversation in which someone points to Character A and says, "Sigh, yet another character designed to appeal to dudes who like big boobs [or whatever it is]."  If someone could respond, "No, Character A looks/acts/is dressed like that because...[details from the story]" then it's a Baby Got Backstory situation.  It doesn't matter if the justification is sexual or allegedly non-sexual.

 

To take Firefly as an example, Zoe, Kaylee, and Inara are all played by very attractive women, but there's no in-universe explanation for why a pilot or an engineer should happen to be so attractive.  But Inara is attractive and wears sexy clothes because she's Got Backstory.

 

Lots of stories have sexy people in them, because audiences* like sexy people, but in this story Character A is Sexy For a Reason.

 

(*I'd argue that the main reason it gets problematic is when the sexy is consistently designed to appeal to one particular audience to the exclusion of others.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I think this one qualifies??

 

17c02000d02ada7a598edc041186b673.jpg

 

It's gonna take some explaining, so strap in! Or don't.

 

Bishamon is the god of war in the anime/manga series Noragami. Gods in Noragami have Regalia, which are formerly-alive human spirits whom the gods adopt as part of a... family, shall we say. These spirits can be called upon by their weapon name, and this enables the gods to fight whatever they need to fight. Bishamon, when not dressed for war, wears rather normal clothing. But when she calls upon her fighting Regalia, this includes changing her outfit (as well as potentially equipping her with a giant-ass sword, a deadly whip, a pair of twin revolvers, and a goddamn lion with an eyepatch (f'real)).

 

So, the backstory is that this is the armor she wears to fight... I think qualifies?

 

(Also, if someone can explain to me why I find Bishamon to be badass instead of pandering, while I find other similarly dressed women in anime to be pandering instead of badass, even when they are actual badasses, please do. I can't make peace with this fact, for some reason. I've posited that it's because she's never framed sexually by in-world characters (no perverted stares, not a single one!!!) or the camera, but, for example, Yoko from Gurren Lagann has bouncing boobs all day long.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's weird, I just tweeted about this thread today and then re-read it #spooky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.destructoid.com/halo-boss-cortana-not-really-nude-appears-without-clothes-to-attract-and-demand-attention--318290.phtml

 

"She's not really nude … but that's what it makes you think of," O'Connor said. "So one of the reasons she [chooses to appear without clothes] is to attract and demand attention. And she does it to put people off so that they're on their guard when talking to her and she has the upper hand in those conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has me thinking about a recent meta discussion on a discussion about 'logical boobs' where a bunch of people were pointing at the new Lara Croft body and feeling that it was a good change because it was more logical for her to have this new chest size.

I'm thinking that a lot of the comments here and the BGB idea in general is concerned primarily with the logic of having say a largely attractive and sex positive female firefly cast (let alone a decent range of conventionally attractive men about).

I think the difference between a female sexworker who at multiple times states that she enjoys her work and feels like she owns herself versus Major Kusanagi and Yoko is that the former acknowledges and participates in her own sexualisation. Many of the BGB characters don't seem to take part in their own sexual appeal, instead they wear paper thin 'logical' in universe explanations like the less clothes for camo thing or just ignoring that a bikini they wear is inherently sexualised and it's actually all about that freedom of movement yo.

I think fundamentally we're all asking for a larger range of representations right? That there still would and should be some sexualised representations should go without saying I think. But the major thing that makes any of the sexualisation gross to me is that the characters are either treated as too cold, too oblivious, too damaged, or too childlike to enjoy themselves which to me is the real reason they come off like little dolls being made to breathe by men.

I think Quiet is the ultimate example for this. Instead of just inexplicably having yet another sexy bikini girl sniper in media we get someone who can't talk, can't wear clothes she wants to, is supposedly forced to act in super childlike ways. All because of her debilitating physical injuries (are the emotional ones even addressed?) that force her to breathe through her skin. So the in universe explanation ends up taking a giant dump on her to justify her 'sexy' design. But aside from the way she poses in the end it's the game's camera that does most of the sexualising legwork.

So I think after listening to a lot of sex positive discussion about things lately the sin isn't that we have yet another character that little boys and men can get off to; it's that despite being obviously designed to serve that purpose she herself doesn't get to feel sexualised except through a gross sexual assualt. She's a stoic one woman act oblivious to the fact she presents like a bombshell pinup because of her debilitating BGB reasons that are supposed to be there to explain why she's so sexy. She's being oppressed by her backstory just so she never has to wear clothes.

Anyway I haven't read the whole thread and it's hard to review a post through a phone especially when you've just woken up so if I'm eating my own tail here or completely talking past everyone's concerns then sorry, my bad.

I dunno I just feel like in a media environment where all of the cool shit happens 'just because' arguing whether female sexiness is justified because of the amount of logical sounding lore in place feels like a miss step even if our time investement in that reasoning is to poke holes in it; I feel like there are better ways to address the idea that so many female characters are glorified dress up dolls without tangentially arguing with nerds about lore. To paraphrase Dungeons of Dredmor, are we the demons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also typing on a phone, so I'll be brief. I don't think that Firefly example fits at all, and I don't think this thread/trope is about the logic of having attractive/sex-positive female characters. It's about cases like Ghost where the female character is highly sexualised/objectified and the creator jumps through hoops to come up with some backstory/lore explanation instead of admitting they just wanted to appeal to horny men. It doesn't matter what that lore is, so ideally the conversation should not veer off into nerdy lore debates. Really though, it's just a trope, I don't think we should expect it to act as the bedrock for a serious and deep discussion on misogyny in media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and Twig, I don't think your one counts because the lore explains why she wears it but not why it looks like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you have time you should read the earlier posts Moddy. If I remember right we spent a long time trying to narrow to something like this idea of trying to make a sexualisation logical instead of handling it just as sexualisation.

(also did this discussion happen on Justice Points? If so I've heard it too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Twig's latest example doesn't count, then Quiet shouldn't count either, or the other way around. There is nothing in the MGS lore explaining why she's hot, only explaining why she wears a skimpy outfit. 

 

Also, concerning Inara in Firefly, does that really count? Her backstory is that she is a prostitute. It's not really a stretch to assume an upper class escort/companion should be attractive and are selected for training upon that criteria. It's like saying Morena Baccarin is attractive because she's an actress, therefore is part of the BGB trope. 

To clarify, I think Inara is the inverse of BSB. She's a companion because she's attractive, not attractive because she's a companion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her outfit is part of her sexualisation, so yes the Quiet counts undeniably. The female character is rendered a sexual object, that includes how she's dressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by that logic, Twig's example counts. I'm not saying either way is right, but I feel like if one is an example of BSB, then the other should too, or not. 

 

If I understood his example correctly, she wears it because it's her fighting gear, which is awfully similar to Quiet wearing next to nothing because it's her...breathing gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inara has that totally unneeded sponge bath scene in thte first episode. The episode where she has a female client was also pretty unnecessary and was used for comedic purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? There is no lore explanation of why Bishamon's outfit is so sexualised, only of why she changes into a different outfit (which could be anything). MGS V specifically comes up with a lore explanation of why Quiet has to wear as little as possible.

 

I agree with Griddlelol on Inara. And the spongebath stuff etc doesn't have a lore explanation for it. If we found out that she gains special powers from rubbing herself with the Mystical Sponges of Planet Kardo'h then it would count. As it is, it's purely a "look, she's sexy" scene with no hoop-jumping to excuse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I've re read the thread again. I did skim it earlier and was around for the original stuff just haven't had anything to say and it's been ages and bleh.

Anyway so its mostly about making something for people to find attractive but the creator or fandom doesn't really have the courage to say "Yeah she's like that because we want her to be"?

 

It was JPs that, that particular discussion came up although something similar (more directly related to BGB) came up in Podquisition recently with Kojima's whole "You'll feel ashamed you thought it was this" statement.

My first firefly statement was mostly riffing about Urthman's post and somehow I blended it up into a meta thing about the whole thread.

I still stand by what I later said about Inara I think from what I remember of her as a character she did things that were in line with her personality (so what Griddled said I think). The show and camera deciding to interrupt her  frequently when she bathed or whatever might've been a different story but it's been ages so I can't do much more than say yeah there was probably something problematic at some points?

 

Anyway sure people don't all want a deep discussion about misogyny in media but it's a thing I from time to time enjoy talking about so well bleh. Don't feel forced to take part in that if I do? I haven't expected it all to support more serious discussion I just get into modes when I'm inclined to lean into one.

 

Anyway for me personally of the alphabet soup of problems with BGB works is when the character doesn't take part in their own sexuality.

 

Like for me I think that yeah there's currently an issue with how female characters in Dota 2 are all good looking and we have a literal succubus running around. But if they introduced more divergent humanoid female designs and started to actually include visually appealing men (beyond what, Sven, Juggernaut, and .. Axe?) things might start looking brighter for it.

 

As for the current one Twig's talking about. Are you guys saying it doesn't count if it's just implied? Like what sure lore says she has to change her clothes if she goes into her super mode but like, did her spirit friend pick that outfit for her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inara has that totally unneeded sponge bath scene in thte first episode. The episode where she has a female client was also pretty unnecessary and was used for comedic purposes.

 

I'm not arguing she's not sexualised. I'm arguing her sexualisation has nothing to do with BSB.

 

 

Eh? There is no lore explanation of why Bishamon's outfit is so sexualised, only of why she changes into a different outfit (which could be anything). MGS V specifically comes up with a lore explanation of why Quiet has to wear as little as possible.

 

Oh, I see where you're coming from. Never mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Ben, you're right. I was thinking the same, just didn't wanna commit to it without asking others first. Scratch that one off the list, then!

Quiet definitely counts, also cause of the reasons Ben stated.

Inara definitely doesn't count. It's be different if, for example, she was sexy because sex workers in firefly were genetically designed to be sexy. Think Miranda from mass effect (she's not a sex worker, but she does have a REASON for being sexy that is not her choice).

I think maybe choice vs no choice is the other deciding factor here guys.

So:

1) it's an in-lore explanation for why they're sexy and

2) the character itself has no say in the matter.

Inara qualifies maybe for 1), but does not for 2). My proposed Bishamon qualifies for 2) (or at least she never outright says she wants to be sexy), but not 1)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway so its mostly about making something for people to find attractive but the creator or fandom doesn't really have the courage to say "Yeah she's like that because we want her to be"?

 

Essentially I believe the idea is that sexy characters are given excuses to be sexy. The excuses can often be ridiculous (see: MGSV Quiet) but are never just because, they instead conjure an excuse when it's clear that the design came first and the reason later. Which is problematic since it means the female character is not being considered as a human character, so much as they're designed to look a way as a sexual prop that then needs to be justified elsewhere. Bonus shit points for the fact that reasons often give her no agency, instead making her a target or victim of others' actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway sure people don't all want a deep discussion about misogyny in media but it's a think I from time to time enjoy talking about so well bleh. Don't feel forced to take part in that if I do? I haven't expected it all to support more serious discussion I just get into modes when I'm inclined to lean into one.

 

That's a thing I want and enjoy, I just don't think this narrow trope supports it in its entirety! Basically, if something isn't an example of this trope that doesn't mean it's not problematic.

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