Should women wear make-up?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

229. I'm thinking that the term "passive-agressive" is fast becoming as meaningless as

"objectification" and "flamebait." They are terms meant to mean everything and anything but devolve into meaning nothing. Every single instance of that term has been employed to dismiss someone with whom the user disagrees without ever coming close to addressing the principle point of disagreement. It's just another -- but more haughty -- way of saying, "You're wrong and you're so wrong you aren't worth my time to explain how wrong you are so I'm just going to tell you you're wrong and leave you here in your wrongness." And off they sniff with their noses in the air, confident in their own pseudo-psychological superiority.

I asked a very straightforward question: how do we draw the lines on what defines objectification?

That the mere posing of the question has been met with such hostility seems to suggest that those taking offense don't want to define the term. I cannot conceive of any reason why this would be the case except to suggest they want the term to mean whatever they desire at any given moment so that it may be employed as a cudgel against those with whom they disagree. Anyone asking them to define the conditions under which the cudgel is employed would de facto also be defining when the cudgel cannot be employed; and I think that is the part that makes them most hostile.

If I am wrong I invite them to state their case as to why (and along the way actually address the question I the OP).

It is analogous to the way the term "racism" was employed against people opposing the Syria kerfuffle. People who had long opposed wars in Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and elsewhere also opposed the prospect of war in Syria and yet the suggestion they were racist was employed with a startling degree of frequency. No, that's not a dismissal that racism exists or that the President might be opposed for reasons of racism over policy but by employing such tactics those doing so diminished the ability to guard against genuine instances of racism. In other words, a crass political tactic cheapened the overall ability to confront both another ill-advised war and real racism.

That's a losing strategy on all fronts.

So, what does -- or does not -- constitute objectification with regards to women expressing their physical attractiveness or allowing others to capitalize on their attractiveness?

That's as plainly and up-front as I can state the issue. Hopefully it will help others not mistake it for passive-aggressiveness.