I never said you said anything about actual women! You're lying again.

What I said is that two people can both oppose your puritanical bullshit for different reasons, and I used a real life analogy to illustrate that point.

The question of restricting dress in real life and criticism of fictional characters are wildly different. I never said you said I am talking about real women, I said you are conflating these two subjects, which you continue to do. Pin-up girls (such as are painted on bomber jets or whatever) are typically not feminist, and indeed are typically misogynist. Forbidding women from dressing the way pin-up girls do in that art would also be not feminist, and indeed is typically misogynist. This is not a contradiction. I have no problem with women dressing as they want, and I also think the way women are portrayed in media should be scrutinized because of deeply-embedded cultural sexism.

So you can dissect every piece of art and if you find one single element

"Why would a communist have tolerance for some kind of 'ruthless criticism of all that exists'?!?"

More seriously, there is a difference between diegetic and non-diegetic sexualization*. The central point I made in my original comment is about non-diegetic sexualization, through the process of choosing which details to remove and which not to in the highly abstract medium of cartooning. Choice of dress would be a diegetic method of sexualizing the character which would much more strongly suggest the characters trying to appear sexually attractive, which I think would make the art more overtly creepy, but that's not the only thing that can possibly be criticized and not especially worth mentioning in the line of criticism that I took (though I humored it with the aside about the US waifu).

*If a decent feminist with media criticism abilities (so not you) would like to contend that sexualization is necessarily non-diegetic and I am therefore talking about sexualizing via character writing vs audience perspective, that's fine.