Comment on Anon notices some fan service
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day agoSure.
Keep explaining why you’re saying what you’re saying.
Yep, your understanding of the implicit context is such.
Other people can have different implicit understandings of context.
And you still aren’t listening, you’re rationalizing, explaining yourself.
I already explained what you are doing.
I understand.
lime@feddit.nu 1 day ago
okay, then explain the alternative interpretation of the context. explain to me what i should be picking up from these unqualified statements that i am not.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
You described wearing basically a bikini, sheers, some tac rigs, boots, etc…
As exhibitionism.
Thats a signifcant exaggeration / misunderstsnding of exhibitionism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitionism
Exhibitionism is basicslly flashing, intentionally showing off the bits that are in this image, not visible, specifically to an audience.
Exhibitionism is a nude bicycle parade.
Ehibitionism is flashing your nude body to a crowd of onlookers.
At least by the framework of the game world being a consistent universe unto itself, Quiet is not an exhibitionist: She is a sniper, who prefers to operate very far away from other people.
Sure, if you want to expand exhibitionism to include breaking the 4th wall, to ‘being viewed by the audience of gamers’, then… ok… but… can you see how that creates a standard where any character that is depicted nude, is then an exhibitionist by way of existing in a form of media?
So its pretty innacurate to describe either Quiet, or gamers seeing Quiet, as an exhibitionist, unless she is actually doing an exhibitionism.
Being eye candy is not the same thing as exhibitionism.
Telling someone they are either into viewing exhibitionists, or are themselves an exhibitionist… for seeing a scantily clad character… thats not correct, just factually, unless you want to bend the meaning of exhibitionism to the point that it basicslly breaks.
lime@feddit.nu 1 day ago
so you completely misunderstood my meaning. that’s fine, i should have expressed myself better.
i am not describing the character as an exhibitionist, nor am i saying that the people who enjoy the character are into that. i’m saying that the creator of the character intentionally designed her according to his tastes, context be damned. and he designed her to be a character that enjoys showing of her body, or at least acts like it.
people are not into a specific thing just because they like something that incorporates that thing. however if you intentionally put that thing into your work, especially when it clashes with the rest of it, you definitely are into that thing.
also you linked a wikipedda article about a psychologic disorder, not about the fetish. they are two different things, one way more serious than the other.