Mhh. Me and thousands of fangirls drawing sexy packs to drool over will disagree. A mans chest/torso/body can be extremely sexy and sexualised, even if the shown bodyparts are “not ment for reproduction”.
For example womens legs or butt - do we make babies with? No. Do we feed babies with our legs? No. Are these parts sexualized and sometimes sexy? Hell yeah.
The acceptance of naked male bodyparts in our western culture has nothing to do with the individual personal perception of a shown sixpack or well-trained chest - Just because its not banned from TV it does not mean its not sexy or sexualized from a viewers standpoint. Its a matter of perspective.
(Parfume advertisement or example - male & female models are always sexualised or romantised)
At the end: Maybe you should ask actual girls & women what they find sexy and what parts of the male body we sexualize, fantasize or drool over, instead of drawing early conclusions.
No. As example lets imagine a naked man and a woman. They are simply both naked. The viewer is the one who objectifies a person (often for various reasons).
In the natural state there are simply two barechested humans. Theres no real no law, no pressure, no reason to objectify any of the two, or one over the other.
If you think every barechested women gets objectified by default - sorry thats just not true.




(Just kidding here, those are great games.)