This whole discussion reminds me of that one ANN writer who said Nisemonogatari's fanservice was actually anti-fanservice, because the director selected shots as if the female character was in control of the camera, the context being Nadeko trying to seduce Araragi. Aha, so it's technically not the male gaze but a female expression that retains agency.
Post hoc rationalization aside, it raises the question, how would we know the Nadeko wanted the camera to be in a specific location? She's not a real person with any agency. Also, couldn't you use the exact same argument with any overtly sexual character? I don't think a Bayonetta would choose an aerial shot over a 14mm closeup. But then how would we know any character isn't secretly a real freak in the sheets?
It also raises another question, why is fanservice okay just because there is literary merit behind it? The ANN writer said the toothbrush scene was symbolic for something important, but why would that make it okay for one show and not another? The scene obviously represents oral sex between Araragi and his sister. Even if the ANN writer was right, the scene does not justify its existence.
And that's why I don't take anime critics seriously, or any critic as a matter.
That is some mental contortionism right there. A lot of the direction in Monogatari is just outright fetishistic. And I'm not a prude, quite the opposite, I take fanservice over the forced asexuality of a lot of current western media. That's not my problem.
Monogatari also has a habit of extending that sexualised direction to characters that either look like children (One a vampire who actually is established to be mentally older than her outward appearance of an early teen girl, the other one a wandering ghost who looks like a ~10 year old kid and also pretty much acts like one) or ones that just plainly are children or, more accurately, young teens, like the protags two sisters.
Now, framing the distinctly underage female body through the male gaze, say, like one prominent sequence of the vampire girl being naked in a bathtub, is weird and creepy, and it's very jarring to see that kind of clearly pedophilic and hebephilic imagery in a piece of mainstream media. That sort of thing takes me out of the experience, but it didn't make me angry.
What did make me angry were the interactions between the protagonist and some of those child characters. It plays off actions like him groping the ghost kid, looking under the ghost kids skirt, touching his younger sisters breasts and whatever that teeth brushing shit was about with such a nonchalant attitude. Basically just going "Hey, it's all in good fun if an older boy tries to look under your skirt or randomly grabs you to hug and kiss you, your older brother grabbing your naughty bits is perfectly normal, just siblings fooling around, haha, perfectly normal, right? Haha."
I very rarely ever say that about anything, but that sort of thing actually reflects poorly on the creators personality. Sexualizing characters that look like, or are, children? Creepy, but not, in itself, morally dubious. Depicting sexual harassment of children? Sure, if you have a good reason for it. Depicting the sexual harassment of children and playing it off as a bit of innocent raunchy fun where the guy doing it is treated as a harmless goofball and the kids it's done to don't actually mind? What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously. I'm not one to complain about bad taste but I do draw the line at bad morals. No matter how artsy you dress it up, if that's the kind of message you want to send with your art, you have no business getting a platform for it.