Random Fanboy was probably playing devil's advocate, and he brings up a salient point which was dismissed outright. If any image which abstracts a particular body part out of the the context of the greater whole reduces a human to the quality with which that body part is associated, then that is what happens when you show Superman's chest in an isolated view. I'm not arguing intention or affect, because yeah, that Wonder Woman cover is blatant cheesecake, and there's no sexual subtext to the Superman instance. I'm just wondering if you could say that an image showing only Superman's chest reduces him from a complex human being into a typification of brutish male force. (OK, I know technically he's not human.)

Not trying to refute the overall point being made, just quibbling over how this particular methodology is used sometimes. Abstracted female body parts or unrealistic, idealized representations = trivialization or dehumanization, whereas abstracted male body parts or unrealistic, idealized representations = not relevant to the topic at hand.