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

[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.