The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

[Eldevern]

...

So basically, you say that to represent a woman sexy is to objectify her but to make a man sexy is not to objectify him. To represent a woman as "feminine" is to objectify her or to belittle her but to represent a man muscular or manly (with a uniform for example since it is often appealing to women) is to gratify them.

Double standard and contradictory.

This totally ignore those women who would love to feel free to be sexy or girly but cannot because even in the eyes of some feminist, to be feminine or sexy is to belittle women as gender or to be a lose woman. In other word, women feminists can be even more mysogynist than those men who consider sexy women as lose (when not worst).

It is sad to see that feminist can walk the path of some misogynist men and enforce this patriarchal vision.

Funny thing, as child, I remember some joke about men who do bodybuilding, the line was more or less : the bigger are muscles, smaler is the brain. And men cannot be objectified?

[VirusOnline]

So basically, you say that to represent a woman sexy is to objectify her but to make a man sexy is not to objectify him. To represent a woman as "feminine" is to objectify her or to belittle her but to represent a man muscular or manly (with a uniform for example since it is often appealing to women) is to gratify them.

Double standard and contradictory.

This totally ignore those women who would love to feel free to be sexy or girly but cannot because even in the eyes of some feminist, to be feminine or sexy is to belittle women as gender or to be a lose woman. In other word, women feminists can be even more mysogynist than those men who consider sexy women as lose (when not worst).

It is sad to see that feminist can walk the path of some misogynist men and enforce this patriarchal vision.

Funny thing, as child, I remember some joke about men who do bodybuilding, the line was more or less : the bigger are muscles, smaler is the brain. And men cannot be objectified?

I feel you're twisting my words a bit here.
There is a clear line between sexualization and objectification, there is certainly a progression, but they are not equivalent nor does it always lead to such.
It's certainly possible to objectify both gender, and I said that in my original post make no mistake.

I have no qualms about femininity and never spoke about such. I also never said muscles are gratifying. I never said anything is better.

I never said women aren't allowed to feel sexy or girly. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth here.

EDIT: I am also a male, I'm not sure if you were implying something else. This is purely analytical and I'm sorry if you've misconstrued anything here.

The sentiment is that both genders can be objectified, but it is unfair as another person said, when only one gender is objectified and the other ignored. This act of ignoring can lead to feelings of sexism.

[Eldevern]

...

The line? How do you know?

We hardly can compare the representation of sexualization and objectification since women and men don't exactly consider the same criterias to define what is sexy.

Maybe it is my generation but women I know are less thrilled by a bare man body than by some kind of charisma/classy vibe.

If we consider iconic sexy men, a lot of them are less noticable for their muscular apparence than their charisma.

If we come to talk about objectification, the way men are represented as muscular beast (they look human or not) is clearly some kind of objectification.

[VirusOnline]

The line? How do you know?

We hardly can compare the representation of sexualization and objectification since women and men don't exactly consider the same criterias to define what is sexy.

Maybe it is my generation but women I know are less thrilled by a bare man body than by some kind of charisma/classy vibe.

If we consider iconic sexy men, a lot of them are less noticable for their muscular apparence than their charisma.

If we come to talk about objectification, the way men are represented as muscular beast (they look human or not) is clearly some kind of objectification.

We're no longer in the territory of the original argument. You're dragging me into an argument of subjectivity.
If you have an opinion on the original quote that I was responding to, feel free to address it.

[Eldevern]

We're no longer in the territory of the original argument. You're dragging me into an argument of subjectivity.
If you have an opinion on the original quote that I was responding to, feel free to address it.

Maybe because you are nowhere objective as you believe to be?

When we start to write " I want to be as unbiased as I possibly can, and perhaps it's easier for me to do so as I can platonically appreciate both male and female gender as a male myself." there already is a problem since we believe we are more objective than anyone else can be.

We never can be objective since it is not only representation but also tastes and cultural (if not religious) beliefs.