Nature responded handsomely to a beautiful morning in my local Mancunian park. A blazing spring sun was raising the temperature to a the giddy heights of about 18C, encouraging daisies and dandelions to burst proudly into bloom, hungry bumblebees to lurch clumsily in search of pollen and male homo sapiens to throw off their shirts for a traditional communion of sunshine and skin. Such bare-chested displays will be absent from at least one corner of Essex this summer after the Adventure Island theme park introduced an edict forbidding the flaunting of pecs in the name of decorum. Manager Marc Miller was quoted as saying: "In recent years we've seen increasing numbers of lads and men whipping their tops off, eager to make the most of the sun. That's absolutely fine in the right environment, but we try hard to be a family-focused business and not everybody is a fan of bare chests."

In contrasting naked male torsos to a family-friendly environment, the park manager is explicitly acknowledging the sexuality of a topless man. Should anyone doubt this, I would suggest you look at footage from the MTV Awards on Sunday, where Zac Efron was handed an award (and I'm not making this up) for "best shirtless performance". He began a thank-you speech against a chorus of lusting adolescent screams demanding he strip off. He had barely said two words before Rita Ora obliged the mob, sneaking up behind him and ripping open his shirt. With a resigned shake of the head, Efron finished the job, stripping topless to trigger 10,000 adoring screams and a million shares on Tumblr.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the incident sparked a minor debate about the acceptable limits of objectification. It should be noted that Efron had teased his fans beforehand about collecting the award topless and appeared to have turned up in a denim stripper shirt with spring-loaded pop-fasteners instead of buttons. It is by no means far-fetched to imagine that Ora's role may have been planned. Nonetheless, I would argue that the performance was unhealthy.

Ora's actions bypassed Efron's consent and he was no longer in control of his body, and how it was used for the entertainment or titillation of others. If the actor wishes to strip to the waist and bare his (admittedly rather glorious) physique to the world, then I offer him my blessing and my gratitude. The problem here was not with the overt display of flesh, but the overt display of exploitation. I have no problem with any man off for the entertainment of others but that must be his choice and, more importantly, seen to be his choice.

In many ways the incident was reminiscent of the deeply discomfiting and cringeworthy scene at the recent American Music Awards where Justin Bieber was publicly pawed and practically eaten alive by a woman. In both cases, a young man's sexuality was considered fair game, his consent thought irrelevant. It is my view that the word "objectification" is thrown around too easily, and with too little thought to its meaning. Not this time. The feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum once set out seven features of sexual objectification, including denying the subject autonomy, agency and boundary integrity. I'm pretty sure both Bieber and Efron were violated on every score.

Back in Essex, I willingly accept that facilities like theme parks are entitled to enforce an appropriate dress code and a line has to be drawn somewhere. I have never been personally affronted by an excess of flesh, nor do I find any degree of nudity inherently obscene or degrading. Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept that others are made uncomfortable by such exposure. If that precludes the unveiling of chiselled, sculpted, bronzed musculature alongside wobbly bellies and man-boobs, I guess that's how it must be. If anyone is feeling deprived of some uncovered male torso, feel free to visit St James' Park, Newcastle, the next time Toon score a goal, or my local park in Manchester the next time the sun shines. Feel free to place bets on which will happen first.

Twitter: @AllyFogg