this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
365 points (98.7% liked)
Greentext
7994 readers
596 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
no, but exhibitionism is.
Wearing a bikini top in hot weather isn't exhibitionism.
look ricky, i know you're reasonable. we're not talking about the character in a vacuum, we're talking about kojimas extreme defense of what would otherwise have been accepted as just standard fanservice, and the fact that the excuse was so flimsy. quiet doesn't fit into her setting, sure. that happens in a lot of japanese media. but kojima made such a big deal about it before release that she somehow fits in worse than if he had said nothing.
Deflection / Framing Control
That's what you're talking about.
You're dissatisfied with the canon explanation for Quiet's exposure, you think Hideo made too big of a deal about it, that Hideo should have just said 'yep I'm doing fan-service'.
Ricky is just stating that he finds conventionally physically attractive women physically attractive, that this is not a fetish, that wearing clothes that broadly fit the climate and Quiet's combat role is not exhibitionism.
You keep talking past him, and the original commenter, never acknowledging that you keep throwing out tangential exaggerations, based around Kojima, that don't apply to the people you're talking to, the things they are saying.
You're talking, but you're not listening.
wow, good analysis. genuinely, you managed to de-escalate any tension before it appeared. not sarcastic.
the reason i'm talking about framing is that that's what the thread is about. saying "i enjoy attractive ladies in games" in this thread is implicitly in the context provided by the OPs image; the implicit sentence here is "personally i had no problem with quiet in particular". my original pushback was that context matters, and that the stated reason something is made needs to be taken into account. like, since kojimbo stated that there was a very good reason for her to act and dress like she does, the fact that the reason is bad makes the decision worse. that's a hole he has written himself into, it's a very weird inclusion, and the fact he keeps defending the decision just makes it weirder.
i also like sexy women in my games, but i'm not the kind of person to just slap nude mods onto tomb raider or resident evil. there is a time and a place.
Sure.
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.
Never owned up to throwing out nonsensical accusations, made against Kojima, but actually said to Not Kojima.
I already explained what you are doing.
I understand.
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.
You described wearing basically a bikini, sheers, some tac rigs, boots, etc...
As exhibitionism.
Thats a signifcant exaggeration / misunderstsnding of exhibitionism.
https://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.
Exhibitionism is flashing your nude body to a crowd of onlookers.
Exhibitionism is a 'Free the Nipples!' protest.
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.
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 wikipedia article about a psychologic disorder, not about the fetish. they are two different things, one way more serious than the other.
I agree with most of this, save for
it definitely is a fetish, just one of the most socially accepted ones.
... I see where you are going with this, but as with 'exhibitionism', ... that really strains the definition of fetish.
Thats... basically just preference, in terms of sexual/aesthetic attraction.
A fetish is an obsession with ... essentially, a particular body part, a particular kind of activity (which may or may not be typically regarded as related to sex or attraction), a particular kind of clothing, a particular kind of body form/feature.
Regardless of where and how exactly you draw the line there as to what does and does not count as a fetish... a core of the concept is that it is fairly uncommon, and particular, specific, distinctive.
A guy, being broadly attracted to women who are generally considered attractive, just, in that broad of concept... yeah, its heternormative as hell, but its basically the opposite of a fetish.
What is and what is not 'a fetish' is basically the opposite of what is extremely socially accepted.
While I totally think that the actual attempt to draw the lines of what is and is not a fetish... reveals the concept itself to be kind of fundamentally nonsensical... the general idea is that it is unusual, and that is the core of what the vast majority of common usage of the word revolves around.
her whole deal about being near naked and ONLY HER is that she breaths through her skin. it’s nonsensical, it is unnecessary for the the multiple plot arcs, she also can’t talk or she will die/kill others. because he likes his women silent. there is a plot point covering it, but again the other soldiers didn’t have to take vow of silence, they just became sterile and were cured, but not her.
but jesus christ, Quiet is legues and bounds better then what he did with Paz, like what the absolute fuck?!
I know why she has to have exposed skin, but... it still doesn't constitute exhibitionism.
As far as the in universe explanation goes...
I mean, does it biologically make sense?
No, not really, but also, its sci-fi.
Does it thematically make sense?
Entirely yes.
All of MGSV rotates around questions of identity, connection/relation to yourself, and others.
Yep, she basically appears to be handcrafted as a beautiful woman who has a ludicrous reason she has to be scantily clad, and she can't talk back, for roughly equally contrived reasons.
... Can you see past that?
Can you see the person inside, beyond the distracting skin, deeper than that?
Do you grow to respect her and her choices, as a person?
As the game progresses, and she's in more ludicrous scenes... do you actually find youself feeling disgust as a voyeur... because she shouldn't be treated that way?
If you just get stuck on the 'Kojima is just a horndog' angle, I'd argue you missed the point he was trying to make.
Basically, he keeps trying to get you to objectify her so hard, view her as nothing other than over the top fan service.
But there's a person in there, a kind of strange, awkward person, but one with a ferocious sense of duty and responsibility, who is extremely capable.
She 'speaks' through actions.
Do you see her, or only her outward, superficial appearance?
Its... fairly notable that Kojima's whole way of doing many 'cutscenes' is that they're often in first person, or can be, and where you are looking, what you are focusing on... can significantly alter the actual scene you experience. Characters react differently, say different things, depending on where you are looking, at what point in the 'cutscene'.
You're the often the one choosing or not choosing to oogle her.
You can just not.
As to Paz... yeah, RIP, life and war are full of horrible tragedies, they hurt more when you care about them, when you can empathize with them, when you trust them.
What, did we... think war and conspiracies of power... did not involve innocent young women being forced into impossible situations with basically 0 'good' possible outcomes?
... Have you heard of maybe this whole Epstein files thing?
Tiny smidgen of the amount of horrific shit that's been done to women in war, that's happening somewhere right now.
kojima made a scean where big boss fucked paz in a box, when he thought she was 16. he fucked that up so bad that in later game he retconed her as a 21 year old, whos job was to seduce targets in an attempt to shift blame. but even if that was true, kojima still had big bod have sex with some one he thought was 16.
Can you really call it exhibitionism if it's a constructed storyline?
not sure how to answer that actually.
If it has to be sexual than it wouldn't be possible. This is the real question.
So it licking feet. Nothing to be ashamed of
Man, I heard people talk aboit Tarantino's foot fetish, and I had not really looked closely at it until I went to see Kill Bill in a theater a few months ago. Now this is a movie I have watched a LOT, but after the 6th time we got a close up of Uma Thurman's feet, 20 feet tall on the screen, god, I realized then who people pointed out his foot problem.
absolutely. but trying to deflect it like kojumbo did shows that he definitely was ashamed.