I'll start by acknowledging that "objectification of women" has become a buzzphrase, and it means whatever the speaker/writer wants it to mean, and the following discursion is (mostly) not intended as a prescriptivist scold. As such, the following is (mostly) a tangent from your comment, and entirely a tangent from GP's comment, since clearly GP was not using "objectifies" in this way. But anyway, here goes.
My understanding is that originally, in feminist studies of pornography, "objectification" meant to be made into an object, in the syntactic sense, as contrasted with the syntactic subject. In this sense, to objectify something is to have it be the recipient of verbs. In the context of feminist critique, the verb in particular is "desire", and the complaint is that pornography is (allegedly) interested in women as objects of desire, not as subjects. That is, the wishes and desires of the women are, allegedly, less valued than the wishes and desires of the men.
I personally suspect that this critique is overwrought and largely missing the point, although not without any truth at all. Perhaps irrelevant to the feminist point, speaking as a male, I'm pretty fond of being an object, although I wouldn't like to be only an object.