Edit: I don't support banning such complaints, I'm just describing how I think they are.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x/abstract

There is the seminal Feminazi article about this weird religious concept of "sexual objectification", just in case people are going to pretend that I haven't done the required reading.

I will clarify that the word "totalitarian" is more precise than "fascist" but the latter word is so much better, I'm going to use it. Like fascism, feminism is an incoherent, illogical, self-contradictory totalitarian ideology.

To begin, I will allude to a song which was frequently sung by anti-Nazis under the third Reich, as a protest against the totalitarian evil that oppressed them. It's called "Thoughts are free/ Die Gedanken sind frei"

Thoughts are free, who can guess them? / They fly by like nocturnal shadows. / No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them / with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

A great song when you consider the context: an evil regime forcing people to think (or pretend they think) that murdering Jews is good, that crushing weaker nations is positive, that sacrificing your sons and brothers in Hitler's jihad against the world is noble and decent.

Hitler can force you to obey. He can force you to march in his rallies. But he can't touch your thoughts. They are free.

Now let's look at what feminazis whine about when they use the word "objectify", divided into Nussbaum's original 7 types.

For each, I will ask what seems to me some very important yes/no questions, and give what I think is the answer. They are:

Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime?

1 Instrumentality. The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

2 Denial of autonomy. The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

3 Inertness. The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

4 Fungibility. The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type and/or (b) with objects of other types. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

5 Violability. The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

6 Ownership. The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

7 Denial of subjectivity. The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. Is this simply a thought in the head of a person? Yes Can any other being be harmed by the mere existence of this thoughtcrime? No

For some of the items on this list, it is easy to see how real harm could occur if the thought were to be translated into real-life behaviors. Nobody disputes that. A person actually buying or selling another person, such as in 6 above, is obviously a serious crime in most instances (although sports teams often talk of "selling" players, and most people seem OK with it). But a person acting out a kink scene where he sells and buys women at an auction is a pretty harmless sex game which most sex-positive feminists are OK with, provided of course everything is safe sane and consensual (which I'm cool with too, although the actual slave fantasy is pretty boring to me). Yet if we take Nussbaum at face value, it's an unacceptable thoughtcrime.

That's true for all of the 7. As long as it stays within the person's head, or on the page or screen as a work of the imagination, all complaints based on feminazi dogma (as exemplified by Nussbaum) are inherently invalid.