The incorrectness of the example is that the demonstration of a female figure is not analogous to the demonstration of a male penis. On the contrary, in a woman, the primary signs deep in the body are hidden, and such accelerated models are not what you will not see in the advertisement of dentistry, but not even in porn banners. Even the breast sign is already secondary.
So the question here is entirely relevant. If you advertise a fitness club, then you can also show a half-naked man by depicting his torso, and if you need a roof tiles or ice cream, what a male figure, what a female?
Sexualization has long been concerned not only with female images. In movies for girls in the early puberty, there will definitely be some burning twist running around the screen without a shirt, I’m not talking about beautiful men in Japan, who are often just for decoration and introduced. Another question that men on such a sexualization of the male character begins hysteria "remove this gay" (because in the eye of the feminists we notice the scratch, and ourselves when seeing the ass of the drawn figure - covered, by the way - shout out of indignation, ah)