"Can't voyeur what doesn't exist." The character does exist---as an observable, digital likeness of a human female.  The definition you provided does not support your claim here, but it is clear that you're more interested in the discussion devolving into pissy semantic tirade.

Needless to say, that definition is not the only one out there and I stand by my original statement.  Feel free to swap out 'voyeurism' for whatever term you think should apply---doesn't make it any less creepy.

It's not a digital likeness of a human female, not only does she not have the likeness of any real woman she also doesn't look like any human woman. 

The only thing creepy here is thinking that a fictional construct with a visual representation has rights, feelings etc and confusing it with real women. That's textbook creeper syndrome.

Good thing I never said it has rights, feelings, etc or confused it with real women.  Could say I dodged that strawman bullet but I didn't even have to move.

Good day to you, Ser or Madame.

Why is this comment ignored, among all of you arguing about nothing between yourselves?

Because it's not true.