[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.