I don't think it's the side who likes sexy characters who are bringing up representation arguments. More bringing them up in counter to claims by people saying it doesn't count as representation or needs to change because representation grounds
You literally used a representation argument. That long, nonsensical rant you were replying to is also (for the most part) a representation argument. Any variation on "well, some women have big boobs" is a representation argument. If it's not, then why should anyone care?
Fictional characters are not real. If you're going to claim they should be a depicted certain way in order to represent real people, you're arguing about representation.
Let's turn that Liana K quote back on you for a moment. Sure, some women have big boobs, get over it. What part of what you're doing now is getting over it? You're throwing a tantrum because an incredibly stacked fictional woman isn't
always shown wearing an outfit that personally appeals to one particular sexual fantasy you have. Is that what getting over it looks like?
3) The "Lola Bunny angle" or I take it to mean "You're upset because you can't fap to it"
No. I mean in the sense that the entire "controversy" seems to have been largely invented by a small group of people who base their understanding of a character's design not on the actual character's design, but on sexualized fan art of the character that emphasizes the sexual characteristics they fantasize about.
No-one said they couldn't fap to it. But in the immortal words of Sean Lock
Is it?
See, this genuinely gets me curious. Why?
Part of the issue is some branches that aren't even really social science because they don't even use the same standards bringing up often long outdated or debunked ideas from psychology like cultivation theory which even in the 80s was pretty thoroughly debunked.
I don't know who told you that cultivation theory is "debunked", but that's really not true at all. Cultivation theory (or media effects) is an established and well understood phenomenon, and is actually an intentional goal of some media. It's why propaganda works, and make no mistake.. propaganda does work.
Jiggling boobs are not sexy?
Sure they are. Jiggle physics, however, are extremely unsexy, because it seems to be made by or for people who have never interacted with human boobs, and seem to believe they are basically beach balls full of jelly.
None of those degrees are gender studies majors.
There are basically no "gender studies majors".
Again, doing a degree in gender studies is typically masters level. Some undergraduate courses will teach
one specific part of a gender studies curriculum, usually as part of another degree program. These will typically be called something like gender and sociology, gender and psychology, gender and [insert discipline here].
There are a few colleges in the US which offer gender studies as a major at undergraduate level. Again, these are generally former women's studies programs, and what they teach is foundational feminist theory. But gender studies is not something you can really get going on until postgraduate level because, again, it's an interdisciplinary field requiring a lot of theoretical literacy.