This is all assuming that there is a "right way" to inform what is "appealing", that there is a "right way" to draw characters.
There is no assumption on my part that there is a "right way" to draw characters. You don't think there was any "sinister plan" behind George Kamitani's designs, and I only pointed out that there doesn't need to be one for the designs to be pandering.
And whether people are conditioned by beauty standards or social factors and whether that should have any bearing on the quality of a character design is much more complex than you are making it out to be, in my opinion.
I never said it was simple, just that it exists and is worth discussing.
I also find it a bit strange that you dismiss intention at the start of your post, yet at the end, you're talking about how consumers and artists might think certain designs are ideal or marketable. Is that not a matter of intention as well? Perhaps subconscious intention? And in going that far, are we not assuming a little too much with very little science to support that?
Not really. We are socially conditioned about a lot of things that we might not be cognizant of. Associating colors, clothing, careers, etc. to specific genders is a practice invented and perpetuated by humans that feels "natural" to some people because they internalized the conditioning to the point that it becomes subconscious to them.
The way women are depicted in media works the same way; certain designs are normalized or prioritized over time and become a framework that informs how everyone, from creators to consumers, perceives them. No one authoritatively stated at the dawn of media that "Attractive Female Design=Big Boobs and Butt!", rather people created variations on preexisting design standards that evolved over time. Being aware of that fact allows one to take advantage of it ("This is what people find attractive, so these designs will help the game sell better.") or subvert it ("We don't see a lot of designs like this, so let me try something different to be unique."), but even if you don't care about it ("I'm just gonna make a design that I find appealing.") you can't escape the framework that informs what you find/don't find appealing.
Whatever appeals to me or you is inevitably a conscious or subconscious acceptance or rejection of what your society/culture finds appealing, and it's important to be cognizant of that fact for the sake of analysis and critique.
Look, I get that there are definitely beauty standards in this world. But I don't necessarily think that a character design is immediately to be deemed "bad" because it appeals to these supposed beauty standards, or that they have the greater social implications that you seem to believe. In any case, I think it is a much bigger discussion than just "Is this design good or bad?". And I don't think answering that question with "yes because male gaze" is a very constructive or thought out stance to hold. But in the end it is all opinion, so I suppose I am in no place to say what is and is not a well thought out opinion.
I mean, yeah, opinions man, they're just everywhere.
In all honesty, it is ultimately subjective and I'm not looking to deem a design as "objectively" bad "because male gaze". All I want to do is point out that a design doesn't need to be intentionally pandering to be pandering. I find it annoying, bothersome, problematic, etc., but that doesn't mean I think you need to follow my opinion. If you like a design that I don't like, great, more power to you. If you don't think that social factors play that big of a role in people's design tastes, I'm fine with that. At the very least I hope you find that my opinion is at least more thought out than you initially gave it credit for, even if you still don't agree with it.
