My short answer on debates about gender and sexualization in media is this: it all depends on audience, context, and purpose. (although the matter of male power fantasies is a different matter for another time.)
When everyone in the room knows that the debate is being held by people who have donned their Critical Media Theory hats, it is enlightening and important to discuss the historic differences of how female vs male characters have been sexualized and objectified in media. And, yes, there is a different history and different set of messages regarding how characters (and actors and celebs) have or haven't been sexualized for the male vs female gaze, but both have been sexualized a good deal.
But, when people are primarily talking from the POV of their own positive personal feelings/desires/enjoyment regarding *specific* characters (which is what most casual fandom discussions are), I consistently find it counter-productive to have discussions that rank the value of whether that character, regardless of gender, should be designed as sexually attractive for either the male or female gaze and/or to be costumed or framed by the camera in ways that prioritize sexual gaze. The root of all of this is some level of objectification-fantasy and gendered beauty/attractiveness fantasy. As long as fantasies are fun and satisfy a non-harmful/minimal-harm need, I give it a thumbs up. (although this *is* where we could segue into a discussion about the potential for harmful messaging when sexual fantasies are combined with power-over fantasies all in one package, but we can save that avenue of fervent agreement that for later. ^_^)
My issue stems from the *assumption* that all fans of popular media consistently prioritize sexual attraction, sexuality, sexual relationships, and common notions of beauty and attraction above everything else, which is different from whether or not someone actually does or doesn't. If a character (or actor for that matter) fits certain stereotypes, non-fans of those characters automatically assume that fans are really only interested in the character because of sexual attraction. Meanwhile, many fans of those characters (but not all!) are noticeably put off when someone when another fan mentions that they are not sexually attracted and/or desexualizes (or de-romanticizes) that character in meta, fanfic, or fanart because that act takes the air out of their sexual/romantic fantasy. I find the entire matter of catering to a narrow set of sex-object/romantic-fantasy tropes tiring and demotivating when making art or writing fiction. Thus, when female fans say "hey, we deserve our fantasy too" with regard to male characters, despite me agreeing with them in principle, most of the time I'm probably *not* going to write fic or make art that gives them what they want, much in the same way that a pizza shop isn't going to make teriyaki (and, yes, both pizza and teriyaki are good and tasty). Or, to be dangerously more exact yet potentially very wrong, in the ways that popular romantic comedies and romance-dramas are different from horror movies and "art house" films (for the record, I despise the term/genre "art house" but I'm using it out of convenience).
To be blunt, nothing chills the room of Ser Cullen fans like mentioning I'm working canon-compatible story in which Cullen is somewhat aware of Alrik's abuses and chooses to believe/accept that he is powerless to do anything about it, (and that he is rather barrel chested and flabby around the midsection, and was transferred to Kirkwall because he killed a young apprentice during a moment of rage-fueled overreaction to a situation). To me, this is a far more interesting character to write and to draw. Likewise, Alistair fans have expressed discomfort to me whenever I say that the most interesting Alistair for me to explore in fiction is depressed, alcoholic Alistair, and someone will eventually state that I'm doing fandom wrong. In the end, these kinds of responses only end up reinforcing that fandom (and popular media???) should prioritize sexualization/romanticization.
Re: tl;dr: complex stuff is complex. :|
My short answer on debates about gender and sexualization in media is this: it all depends on audience, context, and purpose. (although the matter of male power fantasies is a different matter for another time.)
When everyone in the room knows that the debate is being held by people who have donned their Critical Media Theory hats, it is enlightening and important to discuss the historic differences of how female vs male characters have been sexualized and objectified in media. And, yes, there is a different history and different set of messages regarding how characters (and actors and celebs) have or haven't been sexualized for the male vs female gaze, but both have been sexualized a good deal.
But, when people are primarily talking from the POV of their own positive personal feelings/desires/enjoyment regarding *specific* characters (which is what most casual fandom discussions are), I consistently find it counter-productive to have discussions that rank the value of whether that character, regardless of gender, should be designed as sexually attractive for either the male or female gaze and/or to be costumed or framed by the camera in ways that prioritize sexual gaze. The root of all of this is some level of objectification-fantasy and gendered beauty/attractiveness fantasy. As long as fantasies are fun and satisfy a non-harmful/minimal-harm need, I give it a thumbs up. (although this *is* where we could segue into a discussion about the potential for harmful messaging when sexual fantasies are combined with power-over fantasies all in one package, but we can save that avenue of fervent agreement that for later. ^_^)
My issue stems from the *assumption* that all fans of popular media consistently prioritize sexual attraction, sexuality, sexual relationships, and common notions of beauty and attraction above everything else, which is different from whether or not someone actually does or doesn't. If a character (or actor for that matter) fits certain stereotypes, non-fans of those characters automatically assume that fans are really only interested in the character because of sexual attraction. Meanwhile, many fans of those characters (but not all!) are noticeably put off when someone when another fan mentions that they are not sexually attracted and/or desexualizes (or de-romanticizes) that character in meta, fanfic, or fanart because that act takes the air out of their sexual/romantic fantasy. I find the entire matter of catering to a narrow set of sex-object/romantic-fantasy tropes tiring and demotivating when making art or writing fiction. Thus, when female fans say "hey, we deserve our fantasy too" with regard to male characters, despite me agreeing with them in principle, most of the time I'm probably *not* going to write fic or make art that gives them what they want, much in the same way that a pizza shop isn't going to make teriyaki (and, yes, both pizza and teriyaki are good and tasty). Or, to be dangerously more exact yet potentially very wrong, in the ways that popular romantic comedies and romance-dramas are different from horror movies and "art house" films (for the record, I despise the term/genre "art house" but I'm using it out of convenience).
To be blunt, nothing chills the room of Ser Cullen fans like mentioning I'm working canon-compatible story in which Cullen is somewhat aware of Alrik's abuses and chooses to believe/accept that he is powerless to do anything about it, (and that he is rather barrel chested and flabby around the midsection, and was transferred to Kirkwall because he killed a young apprentice during a moment of rage-fueled overreaction to a situation). To me, this is a far more interesting character to write and to draw. Likewise, Alistair fans have expressed discomfort to me whenever I say that the most interesting Alistair for me to explore in fiction is depressed, alcoholic Alistair, and someone will eventually state that I'm doing fandom wrong. In the end, these kinds of responses only end up reinforcing that fandom (and popular media???) should prioritize sexualization/romanticization.