The term unacceptable in the definition of pervert or perversion is a very vague term. For example looking at naked women is acceptable and unacceptable depending on context.
Looking at naked women in paintings in an art gallery is fully acceptable but drilling holes into women's changing rooms to see them naked isn't. You can not say any looking any nakedness is completely acceptable without context. And by context I include location and media. If it objectivises women then in these times it's unacceptable. Page 3 is out I'm afraid.
agreed with a fair bit of that, apart from the drift into condeming "objectivation" full stop - you appear to have posted in a full circle.
Art galleries? Not entirely sure what you point was. They are full of paintings of old of what might be termed objectification for the delectation of contemporary viewers who in truth knew sod all and cared less about mythology, which supposedly gave them a free pass. I have long thought of posting a thread for a gallery of favourite art gallery ludicrous gratuitous tits and ass male and female nudity pics. A fair old few in the National Gallery. Manchester Art gallery has a spectacular one.
As for "objectivation", which you seem to condemn outright, it's everywhere and entirely natural. All ways.
Don't suppose you saw the autobiog doc on Joan Collins? She has some interesting views.
Anyways - if folk cycle down a public street in full view of folk of all genders ages and beliefs, I think I'm entitled to look, not touch, in anyway I want. And of course they may be photographed. And those pics might end up anywhere.
For the record, very few of the ride partipants would I be interested in "objectifying" - someone from another cycling place, known to some in this thread I think, has been on this at least once. Have no wish to see them.