Ah you're right. I saw the video yesterday but couldn't comment cause I was out so I saw your examples as examples of characters not poses. I'd still argue that those poses don't counter critique of the situations when they are poised sexually. I think his point was more that males are rarely posed in sexual ways while females often are.

I do take exception with your last comment, however.

You don't have to be sex-negative to see a problem with the rampant sexualization of female characters in video games. It's not a problem because "hey there exist one or two sexualized characters in video games." It's a problem because "hey a majority of female characters seem to be very sexualized."

I like to compare video games with film because (while many really want to skirt away from comparisons between the mediums) they are two mediums most related to each other in my eyes. Also because film as a medium for storytelling has matured where gaming is still mired in pulp.

Take Cuaron's Y Tu Mama Tambien. Luisa is a very sexual character (it's practically the point of the movie), but her sexuality is never paraded for the viewer's titillation. She is a character first, her sexuality second. No one throws fits over Luisa's sexuality or the sexuality of other characters in literature or film because of the way its handled. Gaming typically does not handle sexuality in this way. Instead, female sexuality is a design choice made to arouse the player. Pandering, to me, inherently dilutes the quality of a piece of art while and it likely also turns away those who would not be aroused by female sexuality because it sends a message that "this was not made for you."