c4bl3fl4m3:

I really don’t like the word “sexualize”. I think it’s sex-negative because it implies to see something as sexual is bad. Which it’s not. I also don’t think it’s necessarily accurate.

I think the term we’re looking for is “sexually objectify”. Technically “non-consensually sexually objectify”, but that’s even longer.

If words matter, than making sure our language isn’t sex-negative (and fetish-negative!) while we fight for our rights to not be non-consensually objectified sexually is important. Which means, yes, those extra syllables are worth it.

If we’re going to say we’re about what’s right, then we have to be about what’s right, and not abandon part of our cause because it’s inconvenient (or because it makes things nuanced, and we have to fight harder to make people understand the nuance.) It’s not ok to throw sex-positivity (that includes fetish-positivity) by the wayside because you think that feminism is more important. They’re both important (frankly, they’re both part of each other) and, yes, it’s going to mean a little extra work, but them’s the breaks for being a good person.