The crux point for me where understanding failed - and I do TRY to understand - was in the comparison of these two images:
If you object to the one on the left I can't see why you wouldn't also object to the one on the right. Aesthetically perhaps, yes, you might like one or the other more on grounds of proportionality, pose, execution etc (Zel's good, but still) but on content? Both depict female characters of unconventional build (Amazonian/broad). Both are similarly covered up. The Trollette is dressed perhaps more pragmatically for her little hunting trip. The amazon on the right is wearing useless armour this is bulky, revealing and not much use as armour. She's also striking the impractical sexy pose and is passive.
The trollette is exposing a little more flesh (not much, that midrift is leather armour, not skin, and those are shorts, not a miniskirt). If it weren't for the right hand amazon's boots there wouldn't be much in it.
I regard these two images as being essentially the same. Indeed I'd favour the trollette as a more positive image of an unconventional female fantasy figure. More realistic figure/shape, active stance, accomplished etc.
Apparently not though, though that's the opinion of someone I respect.
I recall a trip to London once, going around an art gallery following an elderly American couple. The woman was at least consistent in what works of the great masters of art down the ages she didn't like, which amounted to anything with bare breasts, which she thought was disgusting.
Even the process of TRYING to understand and work out what's objectionable seems to cause more trouble than it's worth. I'm about ready to give up.