I've heard of a lot of artists who will have corporate people come back and tell them "nope, gotta make the outfits skimpier and the tits bigger ! ! !" and basically if they say no they're now unemployed so yeah this happens plenty and it's incredibly depressing.
It is such a shame that exactly this is not equated with sexual harassment. Is it with the way the courts define it, literally impossible to bring such a termination up as any form of sexual harassment? Does it have to effect an employee directly to qualify, or even so, could it ever apply to being forcefully coerced into committing acts that demean and objectify an entire gender under threat of job termination? What in the eyes of the law makes such an act any more legal than from the case of company policy forcing employees to demean and objectify female members of their workforce directly, while under threat of termination from not doing so?
What if the artist claims that they are truly mentally and/or physically uncomfortable with the thought of being forced into the position of rendering huge heaving breasts barely contained by a single strap of leather that corporate deems "quality armor"? Does the artist have zero rights in that position?
Or would they simply never have been put into that position, because of her or his disposition completely removing them from the running of ever getting that artist job in the first place? (Do employers have to screen their artists, to make sure they have the right tastes and aptitudes geared specifically for boob rendering aesthetics? Do their programmers have to be interviewed in order to deem their passionate personal drive towards crafting the most ideal boobie physics engine conceivable?)