Talk:Nutcracker/@comment-24231905-20150922074546/@comment-10733658-20150923052803

@ SaigonAlice, the statement might have come off a little crude.....but the point stands. There is a greater suspicion when a creator is a cisgendered man, as opposed to any other identity. (Though even Trans women that haven't had bottom surgery are subject to some of those harsh views as well.)

Nutcracker is clearly not intended to be a positive example in the series, but rather an example of the ugliness of the world. She's a little girl that grew up equating materialism and sexiness, which damaged her and drove her to do a lot of awful things. (There's issues in real life with things like Compensated Dating and the like.) She also has hints of sexual abuse, and unhealthy attitudes about her own body as well as how she relates to sexuality and others.

As I said before, a male (or dmab) author should not be precluded from ever using a hypersexualized female character. Characters and Tropes are Tools, it is simply a question of how the creator goes forward in using said character.

Had Ishida left Nutcracker as nothing more than a sexpot villain, then it would be exploitative and a problem. But Ishida started with the blueprint, and constructed a character that touches on numerous disturbing and dark topics. He also created someone that is at once monstrous and tragic, that is recognized as horrible but also very broken and capable of gaining sympathy from the audience and characters alike.

Like Anon asked, the question is whether Nutcracker is being portrayed as something people should emulate. (Or alternately, something Bad and Shameful.) The answer is "Neither". Her confidence and strength are positive, but she's also shown to be incredibly damaged and part of a cycle of pain and violence.