[gambler]

> Objectification is a complex subject with lots of potential targets: you can treat a person as a sexual object, you can portray/view a character as a sexual object, etc.

To me this sounds less like a product of a complex underlying notion and more like simple inconsistency created by equating fundamentally different things.

Characters are not people. They are fictional entities. Arguing that it is immoral to design them in a way that sets "unrealistic" examples of behavior attacks the foundational premise of fiction itself. There is no rational criteria that would make this a valid argument in regards to sexuality while sparing any other aspect of human behavior.

So yes, there are plenty of one-dimensional characters who are products of someone's fantasies, designed to appeal to a select audience. That's a design/writing issue, not moral/social issue. If you're arguing to the contrary, you're effectively demanding to edit all fiction to become a form of propaganda.

[ectoplasm]

I got a little lost reading your comment. Are you saying that it's fine having unrealistic fictional characters because it has no bearing on the real world? If so, then first, humans use stories as a primary means of teaching moral behavior. Second, when it comes to movies the actors playing the characters are real people. I mean, just look at all the damage done by the fictional stories in holy books.

[gambler]

Are you saying that it's fine having unrealistic fictional characters because it has no bearing on the real world?

No, I think we should put anyone who creates unrealistic fictional characters in prison. Maximum security. Single confinement on weekends. Or maybe just shoot the bastards.

[ectoplasm]

Now that would make for an interesting story! Just be careful not to stereotype the inmates...