>>11474465
(I'll lead off with clarification that I fully support sexy minifigs)

you're probably trolling for the "agenda" reasons, which would be a confirmation on the targeting against straight white males. anything they would "like" is done opposite. on purpose, to make them seeth (is that the word the kids use these days?)

the truth is probably, simply, Lego is afraid of backlash against social media rage storms. they dare not risk making a sexy minifig, or else [person on the internet] throws a tantrum and Lego erm.. looks bad. no thank you, problem avoided.

Lego can do the cowardly explanation where they try to say gender-neutral torsos make them more usable since you can now make girls or thin boys, where if they put those boob lines, those pieces are only usable for girl characters. it sounds logical, so people accept it

if you are looking for sexual deviancy, that is ALL OVER Lego. it's hard to find a set these days that does not include one character wearing a pink/white/light blue color pattern, or a brown poop-swirl piece. (it would not surprise me to find out there's some fetish I've never heard about that has been in Lego sets for years... maybe the animal costume heads?)

hope you enjoyed the blog post. the trend might be reversing, they did include a sexy-ish minifig in the pink F&F Walmart exclusive car