[VonPooten]

Regarding the possible reluctance to depict sexualised figures "aimed at children," I think it's a really interesting topic that could very well hold water! The sculpts are getting less and less toy like and more "realistic" (as far as comic realism is concerned), so is that an issue? With the new female buck we've got some very accentuated hips and thighs, so a thong on that sculpt might be too risque for Hasbro to feel comfortable in selling to children.
On the other end of the scale, how unlikely are we to see a new Hercules figure, complete with chest hair? What about All-New Odinson? These are figures which, while not sexualising the male form, depict it pretty frankly. How often have we seen nipples on a Marvel Legends Hulk? A no-nippled Hulk would probably scar children more than a regular shirtless man or a woman in a bikini imo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Nash

Good point, to add to that Black Cat was also fairly amply sculpted (trying not to be offensive) in that area as well. So maybe that wasn't the reason. I might be seeing things that aren't there, so to speak.

I'm actually glad we are talking about this and why it might limit some characters. It's not meant to be sexist or misogynistic in anyway, just that it's a fair point that there may be some characters/sculpts/outfits that Hasbro wouldn't be willing to mass produce.

Oh no, it's been a very logical conversation so far. It's not like the demand for buttfloss is palpable!