To clear up what might just be misunderstandings I’ll respond to both ‘Audrey HB’ and ‘Guest’ mixed together as they are connected remarks.

–the hair thing– The point in the skin tone (though that wasn’t picked up on) and bald head was to show lack of specific race as being picked out for special treatment. Your comment makes it sound like it either wouldn’t have mattered if I had been insensitive in that area, or it is possible to find something to dislike either way, which makes it hard to anticipate (since avoiding that is something I try for). Personally I thought she was more attractive with hair, but thought the bald thing made more sense as a ‘body’ not an ‘individual’ (the same reason they shave your head in the army). The entire point of that panel, with the exaggerated body and the point of me inserting the word ‘creepy’ was to illustrate the objectification of the female form historically and how that could potentially relate to a conscious or unconscious familiarity and popularity of the heart-shape. That’s why it’s relevant ( ‘literally’ has something to do with my point) and separate from it’s origin as the fig leaf–that’s why I started there. I’ve never heard of the lack of hair being ‘basic in hyper-sexualizing the female body’, and I’d like to think that as a consumer of pop entertainment (specifically comic books/video games/movies etc) I’ve come across (what seems like) the whole gamut of hyper-sexualization. Yet that’s never come up. If that actually is a thing, and has somehow passed me by, then I’d be interested to learn about it.

It’s very difficult to offend me personally, but saying things like ‘whether or not you meant it this way– this is what it means’ comes close (the accuracy of your conclusion notwithstanding). Unless you’re my personal psychiatrist telling me what I mean despite myself, I know what it means because I drew it and my mental faculties were in place while doing so. Whether it comes across in a completely different and unintended manner on the other hand is debatable, and I’d prefer it to be phrased as such.
 
It might be worth pointing out here that the panel originally used different adjectives that I thought emphasized the point of objectification further, but might have come across as (actually) unnecessarily objectifying/distracting from the point, so it was changed.

I don’t think it is objectifying a gender to say they are attractive to the opposite gender by default, birds with amazing plumage and a song and dance are attractive to their counterparts by default etc. It’s part of sexual selection. If you think that is ‘based on nothing’ because either it can be offensive or there can be caveats then we’d split hairs on definitions rather than content.

Same thing applies to the Dionysus scene as it does to the previous panel, a lot of crazy sexual activities happen on those pots, and this is me poking fun at that (because it’s so outside of what we consider ok today).–Though I’d really rather not dissect my own jokes–. Dionysus was the god of Wine, and there was a lot of (drunken) sex, who knows how much of it was consensual, not to mention legal even if it was, by todays laws. Pointing out that something exists and lampooning it doesn’t equate to condoning it.

Other raised concerns… The bilateral symmetry panel– has a butterfly because I think it’s a great illustration of symmetry, the leaf and woman because they become important after that panel. I don’t like drawing jeans. I draw muscular (and much more sexualized and unrealistic) men all the time. There are a lot of random things in my repertoire that I throw out as needed, the superhero costume (probably an overlap exists with dominatrixes although I don’t think they have a common ancestor) the rubics cube and the wrench are examples of that.

-Women with curves– Women have always been depicted with curves, whether it’s the proportions of a Venus of Willendorf or Venus de Milo or a photoshopped supermodel, you can’t have a body without curves, and it is those curves that have been emphasized accordingly, and they have changed proportion and traded relevance over time. Since that’s not a personal statement about women I don’t think your “If you can’t write thoughtfully and respectfully about women” comment applies. –Women’s struggle to look beautiful etc. is not part of this post.