My objections to “objectification”

Argues the concept of 'objectification' (which Ozy uses ~ 'fetishization') is empty and harmful. The real wrong is violating consent / pushiness -- which we already know is bad -- and 'objectification' just adds license to resent people in the vague periphery of that wrong. Examples: Bob and Alice (matched fetishes) should 'derive gains from trade' rather than each sit alone feeling vaguely sinful; the man who bankrupted himself on fetish-prostitutes rather than ask his (possibly same-fetish) wife; the double standard by which liking a harp-player is fine but liking a transgender person is a 'disgusting fetish' (the real distinction being casual-sex vs long-term, i.e. covert slut-shaming from people who claim to be sex-positive). Conclusion: informed consent is sufficient; objectification-worry only blocks mutually beneficial deals.

Quality 66 · Strong. Strong (66). A sharp, characteristic concept-critique with a genuinely clarifying core (consent does all the moral work; 'objectification' adds only periphery-resentment) and good illustrations (gains-from-trade; the harp/transgender double standard). Held mid-Strong: glib and provocative on a sensitive topic, and pegged to a specific interlocutor. Scored on merit (2013).

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate (48). The 'objectification is empty; consent is the whole story' reframe is a fresh contrarian angle.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 -- minor/within-blog. A gender/concept-critique within the rationalist-vs-feminist discourse; no material footprint.