Slave Leia

Return of the Jedi is another one of my ‘off the wall’ posters.
I was thirteen (not going on thirty) when it came out, and naturally I felt inexplicably drawn to Slave Leia. So the poster did make it on the ceiling directly above my bed. *smirk*

Now, as a teen you take the things as they come and don’t think too much about it, having grown older I do start to wonder: Isn’t it strange that the same moral apostle that felt the need to go back and change the encounter between Han Solo and Greedo to make Solo, well, less roguish, has no qualms to show his only female lead in the trilogy as a Sex-Slave?

Sure, one could bring up that she freed herself, yadda, yadda, female empowerment, yadda… but the fact would still remain that when we think of Slave Leia, female empowerment is the least thing on our mind. So showing rogues as rogues is morally unacceptable, but to show women as sex objects is?

Don’t get me wrong, I do not say that he should go back once again and mess up the movies even more, but I think he should check his moral compass.
In the end I'd say Carrie Fisher is a beautiful woman, and the scenery is innocent enough.

Still, the question remains:
What could have made him change one scene but not the other?

If the idea was that Han Solo shooting Greedo first in precipitated self-defence could lead impressionable kids to shoot others unprovoked, then it would be just as fair to say that the image of Leia as Sex-Slave can encourage the same impressionable kids to far more despicable crimes…