Oc, I agree. Across Europe, the lands of my ancestors, "expressive" beauty is prized alongside classical beauty. But in North America, where I've roamed in all directions, a more direct form of beauty is the majority view. This can only be achieved with any regularity by separating body parts. One beautiful feature is enough to qualify (eyes, face, hair, tits, legs, ass) as long as everything else isn't repugnant.
Interestingly, MrDots when he was promoting DMD prelaunch had D as a short-haired, small-breasted, brunette. How many people can honestly say such a model would have attracted--"gripped"--them the way that "morphed" D (my wife called her "Barbie Doll") does/has? Certainly not I.
Devs are either being censored by P., or are self-censoring their public pages from fear of being reviewed and banned. The result is to limit erotic beauty. If this was somehow a collective "artistic vision", I'm fine with that. If this was somehow a preponderant patron preference, I'm less agreeable but I'll abide by their decisions. But no, this is a repressive censorship that's imposing standards. What you advocate amounts to APPEASEMENT--good luck with that!