Sexual objectification as it is most commonly used means treating someone as if they are a thing, the subject-object dichotomy where a subject acts, and an object is acted upon. (It doesn’t necessarily mean seeing or portraying someone as if they are aesthetically like an object, although as I shall go onto later, it is sometimes used in this way.) Thus, goes the theory, by objectifying women men remove their ability to act and hence their power.

The feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum states that a person might be objectified if their treatment corresponds to one or a selection of the following properties:

Instrumentality – as if a tool for another’s purposes

Denial of Autonomy – as if lacking in agency or self-determination

Inertness – as if without action

Fungibility – as if interchangeable

Violability – as if permissible to damage or destroy

Ownership – as if owned by another

Denial of Subjectivity – as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences

Now, it hardly seems credible that the treatment of a nude model falls under any different a selection of those conditions with any more severity than any waiter, pizza delivery person, or supermarket cashier.

Surely a photoshoot in Playboy treats its subject with no less concern for her feelings, as if she is no more or less interchangeable, as no more a tool, as no more inert or owned, and certainly no more permissible to harm, than a hotel treats its staff.

In fact, it seems likely that a model is seen as being considerably less interchangeable, owned, inert, and lacking agency. If dining in a restaurant, do we pay much attention to the waitresses’ thoughts, experiences, concerns, or emotions any more or less than those of a pole dancer’s in a strip club?

A cashier in a supermarket has no more agency, no more autonomy, no more ability to express their personality than a model in a soft-porn magazine. A teenager masturbating over a “lads mag” will be sparing no less emotions and sentiment for the girls he’s lusting over, than he would for a server in McDonalds. We “objectify” others all the time, because it is simply not possible to deeply care and thoughtfully consider each and every person who provides a service for us or works for us.

This is certainly not problematic, but simply natural. If this is what can be considered objectification, then it is not a problem. It is a healthy way which we deal with everyday life.

So what’s the difference here? Why is the objectification of models or strippers so often highlighted, but not the objectification of pizza delivery boys or waitresses? Why does it seem to be the “sexual” aspect that is so problematic?

An argument which regularly makes an appearance relates to the idea that sexual objectification portrays women as aesthetically akin to objects, implying that when you look at someone and only focus on their sexuality you are actually seeing them as an object or thing. That is to say that someone being sexually objectified isn’t only given as little thought as a thing, but is literally seen as being a thing. It implies that a sexualised image of a woman, in say, Playboy, shows the woman as as if she is actually an object.

However when you look at a person sexually and only sexually, you may have a very impersonal relationship with them, but if you are sexually aroused by them you are not seeing them as an object, as “objects” are intrinsically not sexual (an argument that individualist feminist Wendy McElroy makes). People are not typically sexually aroused by cabbages or chairs.

Even if an actual object is to be made to appear sexual (such as sex dolls), it has to be given the resemblance of a human in order for it to be sexually attractive. Or, in other words, for an “object” to be viewed as sexually attractive, it has to be designed so that it no longer appears to be an object.

Therefore, the property of something being or appearing to be an object makes it intrinsically not sexually appealing, so to say that when someone is being displayed solely for their sexual appeal this portrayal makes them look like an “object” is simply fallacious, as “objectuality” is the antithesis of sexuality.

Sexual objectification may be very impersonal, it may be very passive, but it does not make sense for it to literally mean the portrayal of women as objects.

This may seem as though it’s simply a question of linguistic semantics, but that’s not the case. When discussing subjective opinions it’s absolutely necessary that the words or terms you use have a definite, clear, concrete meaning, especially a term such as “sex object” which has such currency in society today.

If a term is both nebulous and emphatic, then it is hyperbole. If it is used as axiomatically and prolifically as “sex object”, then it enters the realm of being propaganda.

Then there’s the oft repeated notion that porn, erotic images, glamour photos, or stripping are correlated with rape.

Where is the empirical evidence for this? Where is the data, the statistics, that prove this to be the case? And if people believe “sexual objectification” causes rape, does that mean they believe that sex workers and lap dancers cause rape because their work involves being “sexually objectified”? Do girls who post nude pictures of themselves online cause rape? Can erotic fiction cause rape? Do models cause rape? Perhaps girls in short skirts and crop tops cause rape?

This all sounds rather akin to victim blaming and slut-shaming. Should we police and regulate women to ensure they do not cause themselves to be raped? Aren’t rapists the only ones at fault? Shouldn’t women be able to live in a world where they can choose to do what they want with their bodies without fear of being blamed for causing sexual abuse?

People should not incur blame for actions that others independently commit unless they intentionally tried to incite them. Such an idea undermines the very foundations of justice and liberty.

Salman Rushdie should not have received blame for the violence in Pakistan that ensued after the release of The Satanic Verses. Christopher Nolan shouldn’t be blamed because some maniac watched The Dark Knight and shot up a cinema. And a stripper should not bear the blame for sexual assault.