Marvel features spider woman's ass on cover of issue #1

[Warren DeMontague]

371. No, usually it's completely undefined.

If I have a goal here, it's to make people think about these concepts they just sort of accept as commonsense but for which there is very little "there" there, at least IMHO. (Which does not mean the concept doesn't exist, BTW)

This is by no means the only one.

Generally, beyond the piece you linked, objectification is "defined" (such as it ever is) as any sort of sexually attractive image that the definer doesn't like. That's sort of what I've been saying.

It's fine to say "eye candy is bad" or people finding scantily clad or nude members of the opposite (or same) sex is "bad" - I, personally, disagree - however, dressing it up in academic-sounding terms with broad and spurious assertions about spooky cognitive processes which take place when someone finds someone else physically, visually, sexually attractive- that to me deserves rebuttal or at least closer scrutiny or analysis.