I don’t mind sexy girls in my games.

i mind when there’s some weird-ass rationalisation for the creator’s barely disguised fetish. when asked why 2B was styled that way, yoko taro said “i like looking at girls”. when asked why quiet was styled like that, hideo kojima said “when you find out the reason, you will be ashamed of your words and deeds” only for the reason to be fucking nonsense.

just own it man, geez.

Liking pretty women isn’t a fetish

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.

we’re not talking about the character in a vacuum, we’re talking about kojimas extreme defense of

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.

I agree with most of this, save for

conventionally physically attractive women physically attractive, that this is not a fetish

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.

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.