>
or simply because it leads to easy objectification of othersThe tired puritan idea of "objectification" must be given the Old Yeller treatment.
What people call "objectification" is basically focusing on a specific quality (an isolated aspect) of another person -- only 99% of the time, they mean specifically focusing on their sexual qualities.
You're then supposing to be treating them as "means to an end" (objects to satisfy your desire" e.g.), as opposed to full people, with other interests, traits, etc.
This is pure old puritan mindset re-invented for the 21st century.
There's nothing wrong about focusing on the sexual appeal of someone, as long as it's OK for the given context. If you want to hire someone, you don't check their physical beauty. If you're looking for a sex partner, or fapping, it's bloody OK to consider their looks.
The message of the whole bloody "sex revolution" was that it's ok to have sex, including casual sex. It might not be how one wants to spend their life, or the most fulfilling thing to always have (same as eating stakes or ice cream all the time), but it's nothing to be ashamed of either.
Not all sexual relationships should turn into marriages or long term "meaningful" relationships. And it's OK.
Looking at a man/woman/gay/lesbian whatever purely on a sexual basis it's perfectly fine -- at least as long as you don't do that on every context and under every situation and social encounter.
Besides it's never 100% "just body" (tits and ass etc), as the naive thing, since myriads of conscious and subconscious hits from the person's personality inform how sexual/sensual they look to us too (even when picking someone up in the bar).
IQ, good manners, clothes, career, etc are all isolated aspects of a person too, but people wouldn't blink on judging people on those alone neither would they consider it "objectification" (which is as much as , since those don't trigger the puritan "sex is somehow evil" sentiment as easily.