[Hytosys]

>Would you prefer he used "objectified male bodies"? "objectified trans bodies"?

I'm sure the OP is level headed enough to not prefer the author have used any image that objectified a human being, regardless of their sex or gender.

> Also, how does being in a position of responsibility somehow magically disallow you from expressing yourself honestly?

I agree that the level of imposed responsibility is meaningless, but the problem still remains that women are being objectified and it's a normal and casual part of our culture.

>Close-minded lot.

Unnecessary. This exact jab can just as easily be used to get a rise out of your ilk.

[coldtea]

>I'm sure the OP is level headed enough to not prefer the author have used any image that objectified a human being, regardless of their sex or gender.

What makes that "level-headed" instead of "wrong in multiple directions"?

Define "objectification". Those are professional models, that specifically picked that line of work, and want to have a succesful career in it. And wanting to appreciate something not for its whole qualities but for some aspect of them is completely normal. When I watch basketball I only care for that guys athletic qualities, not his personality. When I go to a fast food joint, I only care for the persons ability to serve my order, not his/hers other qualities in general.

Heck, I'd consider a photo of McDonald workers flipping burgers far more objectificated, but since it's not "fashionable" enough topic, nobody bats an eye.

[Hytosys]

I posit the effects run deeper. The idea when discussing these photos is not so much the effect on the subjects (who did indeed choose the field) but the effect on the onlookers and the resulting effect on the general population of women. I hypothesize that viewers of such content are more expectant that all women are to be viewed as sexual objects.

Admittedly, I do not know the extent of which this idea is true; I'm researching now.

[angersock]

That it is a normal and casual part of our culture suggests that it may not be inherently wrong. There are some other (better!) arguments to be made here, but the but but but objectification one is overplayed and usually rings hollow.

If you'd like to make an argument about objectification, we really ought to broaden it to include things like objectification of programmers (rockstar ninja 90+ hr workerbees), of entrepreneurs (I can get 10x my money back if I invest in this person), or of anything else, really.

How would you go about showing that objectification is inherently a bad thing?

EDIT:

Sexual objectification as a particular subset of objectification would be a good starting point. Do be careful in your word choice, because words and phrases have specific connotations.

EDIT2:

Look, look, downvote away, but the deal is that objectification as an argument is so often used and abused in discussions that, unless you are careful, you end up casting a sort of vague "sexy pictures of people are wrong or undesirable" message out.

A lot of people (unfortunately, not always only the ones that are idiots) will tune out your point if you say "objectification" without supporting rhetoric and reasoning. If you want to claim the high-ground (which is not unreasonable), you have to form your arguments better.

So, instead of downvoting because you disagree, downvote and try to explain why sexual objectification is wrong (if it is indeed wrong), why it isn't (or shouldn't be, or should be) held to the same standard as normal objectification (a useful form of abstraction for doing business with people we all use every day), and/or how using any image of a human being without a lot of humanizing detail isn't also objectification.

Taken to its extreme, you end up with something similar to Islamic aniconism. I'm not sure this is a bad thing mind you, but depending on your arguments you may well arrive at a similar proscription.

[Hytosys]

>How would you go about showing that objectification is inherently a bad thing?

A good question for students of psychology and sociology. I'm certainly not claiming authority, but here are a couple of relevant studies:

[1] http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/21/036168431038...

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777639/