this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
353 points (98.9% liked)
Greentext
8036 readers
995 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
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.