The thing is @warworksdk, it is not nudity that makes an image objectifying, but agency, or rather its lack – a woman who freely chooses to present herself in a sexualised or titillating fashion or context is expressing herself as is her right. The women you list certainly trade upon their appearance as part of their careers, but no one is doing it to them (well, there are question marks over how truly free some of them were in their choices in their early careers, but for the most part they seem to be making their own decisions for their own reasons). That is very different from an image of female nudity created by a man and primarily intended for consumption by a majority male audience, where there is no aspect of female agency represented.

The one thing that is consistent across both those scenarios is the broader social context, and that context is one of the obvious commodification of women’s bodies in a fashion that minimses the humanity of women in pursuit of the exact kind of ‘sex sells’ mentality you describe. Even where a woman chooses to publically express her own sexuality for her own reasons, that context still exists, and can still cause problems not because of what she has chosen freely to do, but because of how others may interpret that act, both in regard to what they (almost certainly unfairly) think it says about her as an individual, and what pervasive attitudes it may help to unintentionally reinforce about women as a group (also entirely unfairly). It is completely unreasonable to expect women to curtail their expression because of harmful attitudes held in broader society, rather it is those attitudes that must change. Unfortunately, the myriad sexist images and mindsets to be found in popular culture – such as that embodied by this sculpt – serve to reinforce just such harmful attitudes. That is why it matters, and why a stand should be taken against this kind of sexism wherever it appears.

Also, when drawing comparisons between, say, the images seen in comic books with spandex-clad characters, one cannot simply ignore the established social power gradients with our society. Attitudes surrounding sexual images of men and those pertaining to women are very different – in its simplest expression, all too many people are quick to habitually render women down to their notional basic sex appeal, and it is this attribute that is held in esteem above any of their actual educational qualifiactions or other life acheivements. The same is not true of society’s attitude toward men.

Then there is also the point that it is not just the apparel, but also the poses that convey the social coding in such an image; female comic book characters are usually depicted in a pose that emphasises things like their breasts. As an example, consider the infamous ‘butt & boob’ twist, where both a character’s breasts and buttocks are simultaneously toward the viewer’s point of view. Such a pose would, to put it mildly, cause serious spinal trauma to anyone who actually attempted it, especuially on a regular basis. Oddly enough, male super hero characters are basically never depicted in such a pose. Why would that be the case, if there was no imperative to sexualise female characters in a fashion different to that of male characters? If you are prepared to brave a rather great degree of unintended but still toixic transphobia, then I would suggest that you take a look at the Hawkeye Initiative (check the end of this post for a link). That site shows very clearly the differing ways in which male and female comic book charcters are proportioned and posed, and how differnt the male characters would look if they were truly posed in the same way as the female ones.

http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/