>>104351325I think that unambiguously, drawing a woman with GIANT tits and putting a huge hole in her costume so you can see those mighty breasts as much as possible, is objectification.
You can write her how you like, but when you draw her so you can see her very large boobs real good, you objectify her by making her character a vessel to let young boys see milk bags.
It'd be like if you could see a clear outline of Batman's dick in every shot, and then someone calls him out on it as he says:
>It represents a foundation of my character! It's my hard-on for justice! But why'd they draw it so huge? And why'd they draw it in such detail and pose the camera so it's always in full view?
Batman would become objectified because they just wanted an excuse to show off his sexy dick. To sell comics or because the artist had a lustful need. He becomes objectified because he becomes a vessel to show of dick for horny gays or ladies.
And you can't argue that Batman just really likes showing off his large penis and scrote, because the writer clearly just wrote him saying that to excuse the desire to draw his dick a lot.
The sexism is the idea that females are placed in this situation way more than men, and they'd probably be more cool with it if we had more pointlessly sexy men. So I'd weigh on the side of her being sexist. I don't think it's immoral, but I do find it a bit embarrassing.
