However i argue that if you sexualize a man like you sexualize a woman, he wont be sexy but emasculated.
You are implying that there is something wrong with males having feminine featuires or having feminine armor available to males.
Because there is, generally speaking. Well, "something wrong" is not how I'd put it. It's not that it can't be done. It's just that it simply doesn't work aside from a narrow fringe group with a specific weird fetish. And typically men are praised (or mocked) the most they get close to (or stray afar from) an ideal of masculinity, while the same happens for women and femininity. Which doesn't mean that there isn't room for some overlap or mix-up, but still.
The reason cries about "double standards" are idiotic in general is that "double standards" tend to exist for a legitimate reason. It's disingenuous bullshit to hang to the notion "When it's the same for both is fine" because this alleged peak egalitarian goal of having "The same from both no matter what" doesn't achieve the same effect symmetrically.
Imagine arguing that since one of the top displays of elegance for a fancy evening date for women is a cocktail dress
...then the same should apply to the men accompanying them, rather than a tuxedo.