[DaBackpack]

I think funnygurl hit the nail on the head there

Women are constantly fucking objectified in the music industry, and in the "entertainment" business, period. So you might say, "what's so special about this song, it's still objectifying women"

I'd reply--- "for who?"

Historically the objectification of women has always been in the service of the male audience, a phenomenon called the "male gaze." Sex sells, you mighta heard about that. Sells to who? To men, duh.

Objectification in and of itself isn't strictly a bad thing. It's not bad to want to feel sexy, attractive, or desirable, even if those desires are a result of sexist societal conditioning. It's also not "regressive" for women to be open about sexual experiences and preferences, even though Western society has this inherently contradictory desire for women to be sex objects but also to... not have sex.

If a song utilizes objectification but also comes directly from the female experience, who the fuck am I to criticize that as a form of expression, of reclamation, of self-love? The remedy to "men objectify women" doesn't have to be to literally police ALL raunchy objectification and self-expression; if anything, that reinforces the male domination of the sexual woman.

To reiterate, the problem with sexual objectification is that men use it to belittle the personhood of women. "Women are a prize", "women will want you if you buy XYZ", "you are entitled to one (1) woman to have sex with." That is clearly wrong. But to deny women the ability to talk candidly about sex is only doing the sexist power structures a favor.