I have a hard time believing the author of this article is a professor of philosophy as this was a very poorly constructed argument. For one, how exactly is sexual desire the same thing as sexual objectification? The author fails to establish this point. They assume that sexual desire stems solely from attraction to the body and excludes things like trust between two individuals. If they are referring to the pure carnal lust one feels then okay sure you could called sexual objectification, fair enough.

Assuming that this is what the author meant, how exactly is that inherently wrong? They make some reference to the evils it can lead to, but that doesn’t establish at all how sexual objectification itself is inherently morally wrong. Anything taken to a pathological extent, to the exclusion of other things, often entails bad consequences: this is just a truism and isn’t meaningful.

Their final attempt at an argument was that somehow anything that causes a lapse in one’s reasoning is bad and entails bad things. So am I to assume that I should constantly be reasoning away? Would it not be sometimes desirable to turn of my reasoning and simply exist? Sure, there is a time and place for everything and pursuing sexual desire at the expense of cultivating virtue and character I would say is a moral wrong, but indulgence particularly in what some would consider a biological need is hardly a moral wrong unless some other moral wrong is comitted in such an indulgence.

ob·jec·ti·fi·ca·tion noun

1. the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object. "the objectification of women as sexual possessions"

2. the expression of something abstract in a concrete form. "the objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams"

But humans objectify everything, and most people, since everything we don't yet understand becomes abstract. The first definition is clearly dysfunctional, but the second is natural.

So objectifying is not necessarily negative. It's how we're programmed to make sense of life from the time we're born. What has negative consequences is objectifying people to satisfy our own compulsions and obsessions.

I disagree too, I only like sexual activity with people I am in a relationship with; or myself. I understand being lost in our own gratification whilst having sexual relations with another but without the other person there would be none - There is a mutuality a giving on both sides or I wouldn't engage

Another problem with philosophy - it tends to be so pedantic. Pfffbbbtttt

It's stuff like this that fuels my disdain for philosophy. Especially as it pertains to "morality".
Kant always struck me as an imperious twat.

Shame on me for not reading the linked article, but I am stopping at your premise: objectification and desire are not equal. Objectification is dehumanizing, it's narcissistic; desire is a shared human response of attraction and impulse (in this context) - narcissists can have desires, as can empaths, but empaths enjoy sharing desires as equals; narcissists treat others as objects (not equals).

No, this is a line of bull.

For one thing, your speculation that prostitutes have sex without objectification is off base. Objectification is all it is; they don't care who the person is that's involved, as long as the price was right.

Sexual desire can be objectifying, when it's about someone you have little or no emotional connection with. But the more emotion is involved, the more sex is about that particular person, her or his body, not just this body here which happens to be in front of you. Unless you (or Kant) are a very detached person, never getting emotionally involved in what you're doing, and have to objectify the person in front of you. Or are afraid to get emotionally involved.

I suggest that Kant had some real problems in this area.

why is objectification assumed to be immoral? thats absurd.

Are any variety of animal that engage in sex objectifying their partners and immoral? Of course not. All animals, as humans, engage in sex for the perpetuation of their species (I realize there are exceptions) and for the survival of their DNA. Sex is again, a natural part of the evolutionary process. The emotional endorphins associated with love or lust, are also part of that reproductive process. I do not agree with Kant.

Sounds like he`s over intellectualizing but it is a great way to get out of "Does my bum look big in this?"

I only read the title and first paragraph and to me, it's nonsense. Our base desires are what drive our species, the same as any other animal. If animals didn't have a strong desire to copulate, the species would not survive. It's not wrong in any way to want to have sex.

On what you wrote, making love, really making love and having sex with a stranger are not even the same thing. Making love to our "beloved" is a deep emotional experience. Having sex with a stranger (or a quicky with our beloved) on the other hand, is all about the flesh as you say. You want that hot, sexy body. Both are natural, good and morally fine. In my opinion anyway.

Honestly, I think Kant was way off base with his analysis.

The drive to want sex is natural and healthy even. Everyone has different criteria.

Objectification is more about lack of empathy for others than anything sexual.

I think you need to look at what kind of people use others, I bet you will find they do it for ALL reasons, not just sex. There are a good percentage of people who lack any empathy for others and are willing to do just about anything to achieve their goals. A lot of others simply go along with whatever others are doing.

Recognizing people who are exploiters is important for individual success, I think, in all areas of life.

It seems to me that prostitution is nothing but objectification. The prostitute sees the john as nothing but a source of money, and the john sees the prostitute as nothing but a source of gratification, to be bought.

Sexual desire is only objectification if there's no emotional connection. Neither is morally wrong though. Kant had some serious issues.

Objectify me, objectify me, all night long.

As a Demi-sexual, I disagree. I am not sexually attracted to a person until I've gotten to know them intellectually, and even then, maybe. Although, I am all too familiar with being objectified, and I'm f'ing tired of it.

For me Kant, and the person writing this article are taking a lot for granted. Men I've spent time with may or may not have objectified me, it's not something I dwell on too much, but I do know that lust can only last until someone has opened their mouth.
If I actually engage in a conversation with someone and that doesn't work for me there's no way I'd be interested in more. Sex is a way of exploring someone and enjoying them, but for me it only works if I enjoy other aspects of life with them, if that's not there the sex lacks meaning and, for me, value.
"Fellas were like easy crosswords; you usually knew the answers before you'd finished the questions and they (were rarely) worth doing." Roddy Doyle, The Woman who Walked into Doors!

Keep on looking it may be a long time.

/recall hating Kant with a bloody passion. Do I have to go back and read that tool to remind myself how much he sucked?

Psssh maybe for men it's objectification. otoh we're all just a bunch of cells & electrical impulses on a fast moving spinning ball

Idk if its objectifying as much as as it is utilizing ?
We're all objects already whether we like it or not .
We all see each other as objects , though not exclusively that way .
Sexual desire is just the want to utilize someone else as a tool for the satisfaction of our own sexual / psychological needs or wants .
There's certainly nothing wrong with that as long as its mutually agreed upon , imo .
Nature in action .
Unnatural sexual deprivation , now that's immoral !
Religion and chastity belts and all that psycho-prudery .
The prostitute also just utilizes their client as a tool for satisfying their wants and needs , though , not sexual/ psychological in nature .generally for money , for the purpose of satisfying their non-sexual wants and needs .
Supply , demand and fair trade .

The issue with Kant is that “no one can do wrong willing”. There is a moral law...there is no immoral law that obligates u to do “wrong” things. Objectification is just a hypotechical imperative and not really objectively right or wrong. I objectify a lamb...bc it’s a lamp...am I doing wrong here? No. When u sexualize a person ur not necessarily doing wrong...it’s actually indeterminate. But if u have autonomy (ask consent and what’s most important is to find meaning/value in shared experience) then u r acting morally. But most sex is just fucking so not really moral but not really bad. (Yes rape is morally indeterminate...but obviously don’t do it...don’t be an asshole). For Kant sex (the sharing or each other’s genitals) has only one moral situation and that is under a contact (called marriage). If u believe marriage captures human dignity in sex relations, congratulations ur a pieist prude. But there are situations were u maintain automony (consent or voluntary agreement does not equal autonomy) such as if I will “I will to explore with this person new levels of pleasure as to deepen our connection between us in mental exploration”. No contradiction of will or thought and it treats the other as a person (end-in-itself). While sexual exploration that’s mutual works...”I want to only have sex with this one person bc marriage is between a man and wife” actually commits a contradiction of will and thought as u make an exception between u and ur partner and the rest of humanity. Marriage sex requirement violates categorical imperative, so Kant can fuck off. That’s why I’m a neo-Kantian bc of all that chisrtian influence on Kant.

See why is objectifying a person morally wrong? I have a problem with Kant's take on this. I don't know that it is inherently immoral to objectify people. I mean it seems sleazy sometimes but the problem with the world today is it is absolute extremes only...everything needs to be taken in context. Some contexts it is very flattering and others very sleazy...so context matters

A lot of religious people seem to think that science's analyzing of everything makes it all boring. They're barking up the wrong tree. To listen to much of moral philosophy, it wouldn't be hard to reach the conclusion that everything is tainted and we should not do anything... sex, food, accumulating possessions... all philosophically worth questioning, I guess, but can get heavy-handed really quick, as this piece illustrates. (I know this isn't an argument... more of a lament.)

I have trouble falling asleep at night listening to all those immoral crickets chirping 'sex sex... sex sex... sex sex'. Didn't someone tell them that what they're doing is wrong?

I don’t get it. Sounds like Halwani and Kant had some issues.