There's a few arguments they make for why conventionally attractive females must be done away with in media, but there's really only three you need to concern yourself with: The argument that they are somehow offensive because such a physique is "unattainable," that they are bad because they are hypersexualized and this is designed to appeal specifically to straight men, and that it is somehow exploitative because of the portrayal of the character. Let's break down each of these and analyze them closer.
The first one, the argument that such a build is unattainable, is an argument that stems from jealousy. For a moment, put aside characters that are stylized and basically impossible to emulate; focus on characters that are more realistic, and why someone would make an argument like this. The answer, simply put, is because they won't ever put in the level of effort this fictitious character has to look good. They feel they shouldn't have to, and that falls into the same lazy, blunted attitude fostered by so many modern progressives that argue that meritocracy should be abandoned. Because of this, it's safe to assume the most logical conclusion, which is that the first argument is made because they know they can't compete with a fictitious character - so they seek to censor it.
The second one is based on the idea that there is not parity within media; that the sexy characters that appeal to straight men (because Lesbians do not exist, apparently) because it doesn't put men in the same situations. Anyone with even a passing understanding of comics history knows that's a crock. Moreover, This same argument frequently also carries the canard that men cannot be objectified, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The argument is that this makes media less inclusive because there are women who are an untapped market. The giant hole in that argument is that media is not monolithic - there is a plurality of markets and genres and such for every taste. Ya boi the Free Market has already proven this one a few thousand times. In this case, they hate the character for standing in the way of them ideologically - so they seek to subvert it.
The third argument is based on the idea that it is somehow exploitative for a character who does not physically exist to be sexually exploited. This argument has never made sense to me, since the argument is essentially that an attractive character somehow is hurting women if she in any way is pleasing to males, and that this somehow enforces male superiority and female subordination (once again, pretending Lesbians do not exist). This argument basically attempts to argue that all attractive women in media are, in essence, pornography, regardless of any other factors, and is basically the argument that Andrea Dworkin has made about porn in general for decades. Because when you want advice on what should and should not be masturbated over, you totally want the input of someone best known for her argument that all heterosexual sex is rape. This argument boils down to the fact that they ultimately don't like it because men do (again, Lesbians don't exist in this worldview, apparently) - and so they seek to eliminate it.
At the core of all three is envy. They can't compete with women who do not physically exist, so they seek to censor them. They cannot claim they have a mandate to do this censorship because there is a market that will happily spend money on it, so they pretend they have one anyway and use this to push their angle, even as it fails over and over. And they do it, specifically, because people enjoy these attractive female characters, and not their shit.
Also the fact that they pretend that women don't project onto such characters as part of power-fantasies and that lesbians don't exist is fucking retarded and shows a level of hubris worthy of the lolcows we cover on this site.
", so maybe that's a better approach overall.
