...
You know what? I find this discussion completely ridiculous - because there are people who have their children change their bodies sexually because it's the "right" thing to do.

Think about it.

Sexualizing a minor? Bad.
Changing a minor's sex, possibly with adverse effects and possibly based on just your whims? Good.

I mean, and this will just result in people finding other ways to get satisfaction. "So what if she looks twelve, it's clearly stated that she's actually ten thousand years old!" "What are you talking about? This middle school girl is clearly 18! (points to character bio)"
And even then, there will be people who judge actions and deeds - yet don't understand them. For instance, chibi (super-deformed) art. I remember that the precedent for this kind of art being banned in Canada is the Kama Sutra but drawn with super-deformed characters. I kid you not.
Then, there is the chance that these people - no longer having an outlet - will turn to real children. I'll let you figure out how they'll get access to real children, but either way, if you sexualize a child - real or otherwise - you're going to jail, anyway, in the eyes of the law.

Oddly enough, the pedophilia acceptance movement is already starting to take off - just look at Salon or Jezebel or some other progressive tabloid website.

Fake people do not need protection or rights, so no censorship in fiction, even if I think some stuff are sick

If you think about sex if you see a 13 year old girl in a bikini, something is wrong with you.

there are no boundaries in fiction, censorship in fiction is a form of fascism. you may regulate the market to make sure underage people don't get access to certain contents without permission of their parents, but among adults there is nothing that should ever be censored in fiction. again,to me, trying to ban any form of fiction is fascism

Personally, I would censor it. For reasons that go towards the general public.
I, myself, don't really care, since it's a fictional character, it's a video game, it's unrealistic, and it's main audience is expected to be mature enough and smart enough to understand this, and not make a big deal about it.

But for someone who has never played video games before, or has a negative view of video games, they here about something like this where a 13 year old girl is being sexually depicted in some way, shape, or form, in a Nintendo published exclusive, nonetheless.
The amount of backlash, bad press, and viral negativity they'd get from various journalists, News Stations, people like Anita Sarkesian or Zoe Quinn would get involved, and all this other headache inducing stuff.
It's just not worth it.
So I don't blame them, this time.
In fact, if my memory serves me right, they, along with Square Enix, ran into a similar situation with Bravely Default.

2015. May 68 was 47 years ago. Skimpy clothes are still considered "sexual".

It's just a design choice.

The difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia is not any arbitrary point in age. It's not "from 15". It's about the look of the body. If the body is still the body of the child and that's what's turning somebody on - it's pedophilia. If the body is already developed and is the body of a young woman or man, it's ephebophilia. In fact, you can see this reflected in the laws of different countries, which allow people to have sex from a different age. In Europe it's usually 15 (Poland for example), but in Italy it's 14, while in Spain 13. So in Spain you could bang the chick from XCX and everything would be fine  That's also why in any case we can't talk pedophilia in XCX case. That girl is already very well developed (looks certainly more than 13) - she's got boobs and the body shape of a grown up woman. They could easily put a higher age and be over with it. It is a sci-fi game after all, they could just as well say she's 3000 years old.

This is what it all comes down to, really. Games like Xenoblade and similar anime-related works aren't aimed at mature gamers, which is why it makes sense to have 13-year olds running around half-naked in combat situations.

The people who are willing to buy these games are expecting treats of this nature, while the people who are complaining would never consider buying such games in the first place.

Sometimes I don't want to live in a world where people equate pedophilia with ephebophilia, only one of which is a mental disorder or paraphilia.

"Purpose" what does that even mean? The point I was making was young girls already dress pratically as adult women do now. Even boys. Since pants don't change. Everything is virtually the same. Except their outfits are cloth based VS. something more smooth/stretchy. It's still the same thing. And if you are someone that censors games like this. You have to also go after these companies too.

If those outfits, in that photo, are fine. Then I assume no one here will say XCX's character is dressing badly than? And also lobby America's Top Model to be rated TVMA. Because children shouldn't be seeing those outfits. Because they are being influenced. This is were the stupid in the rating system starts to show up. The point of ratings is to protect kids from seeing things that scare or infulence them in a bad way. At the wrong age. This is considerd bad, so....

"But those photos are from a catalogue that have a purporse, show the stuff for the parents to buy cloths to children, its not made with the purporse of some sick fuck to fap to it" You think that matters? I already said someone out their will fap to anything. Regardless on your view towards it. Same can be said here. In Japan, it's legal. So where do you draw the line. It's "fine" in some place, in the world. It's the same confusing issue when people ask why do you have a foot fetish. You do realize the "normal" attractive breasts, legs, and butts, are body parts too. And are no different than a foot, or something else. So why are people confused? This is a oxymoron.

Here's a bigger question. Would this all be fine. If all the young boys had a swiming pants option too. Like Shulk does in SSB4.