To me it seems that the "anti-objectification" campaign only seeks to replace one attractor with another. So maybe less pretty women would prefer to be measured by their IQ? Why is one better than the other? Or is it generally not OK to be attracted to somebody - or only once you are married and officially in love?
I'm not saying that I like everything that is done in porn, just that I don't understand what "objectification" is supposed to mean? And it seems ridiculous to me to presume men should not be attracted to the female body. So we should just as likely want to have sex with a horse or a hedgehog as with a woman? "American Pie" was just fiction - at least I personally was never tempted by an apple pie, because the looks of "the object" matter.
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.
As for kissing - OK, so that is one understandable definition, thank you for that.
I think sex is simply weird - if you think rationally about sex it is not really appealing. It only works in a state of arousal. That plays into the hands of feminists who frame sex as something disgusting being done to women - it works because people are rarely aroused while reading feminist pamphlets...
“There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.” --Pope John Paul II
It is like eating a hamburger vs a fancy French meal. In both cases you satisfy your hunger. But the experience of getting there makes all the difference.
Even if, for some reason, intimacy and passion could not be faked, you could just hire couples.
A lot of couples don't mind publishing their intimate scenes for the world to see. I'd rather young people watch other people in action than professional videos which seem to have gone so plastic/mechanical/unrealistic.
The problem is that even when women play the active part it they're considered victims because a) we see sex as something "done to women" and b) most porn is targeted at men (so porn consumers "use" the women, too).
Of course what this really boils down to is the sexist idea that men can't be raped (without being penetrated) and therefore can't be the "object" of porn to the same extent as women (except in gay porn because we like to pretend gay men are just men acting as if they were women).
In the end, the most common arguments against porn can be summarized as "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't like it either" (or "I feel guilty, therefore you should feel guilty too").