I won't make this too long, but I do want to add this to the big male objectification argument from yesterday. While having Captain America emerge from a Stark Industries muscle-grow tank with rippling muscles may seem gratuitous, it is literally the point of the character: he's been bio-engineered to be the perfect physical specimen. His abs, pecs and tight butt are all, silly as that may sound, relevant to the story.
Women may enjoy the view, but it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a point to this, and that, on principle, means it's not objectification.
What's not relevant is something like this:
Okay, everybody — let's get into our protective jump suits! Oh, hey, Mystique — make sure to air your boobs for no reason! We, the men of the team, won't be doing that, of course, because it makes no sense.
But really surprising thing (jk — it's not surprising at all) is that when men are objectified on screen for no reason, it's usually because the writer/director/show runner is someone who has a sexual preference for men. Take the many, many wonderful gif moments given to us by Bryan Fuller on Hannibal:
Sure, Will Graham lives in Nowhere, Virginia, but I still think he could've thrown on a pair of pants to go tramping around his backyard.
Or when walking down a highway in fall.
And I think he could've buttoned up his shirt in his mind palace while re-creating a crime.
In short: More of Will Graham's shorts.
Sorry, I mean — in short, until we get a wider range of people writing, producing and directing television and film, we will be kind of "stuck" with the objectified beautiful women and the plot-relevant beautiful men.
I'm kind of okay with a certain level of objectification. The problem is how overwhelmingly female it is at the moment. If men feel uncomfortable with the occasional gentle sway of Captain America's pert behind* in The Avengers, surely they can understand why we're more than a little annoyed that 95% of the media we've consumed since birth has made us feel the same way.