Can't agree. Men have a natural tendency to look at women sexually, its biological (women (and business) certainly take advantage of this). Granted, different aspects of a woman appeal to different men - eyes, hair, hips, attitude, etc but the reality if biology triggers the attraction (likely for reproductive reasons). Proof: Pheramones.

Perhaps I should be been more specific than "people" and made it clear that when I said "it attracts you sexually" I was referring to the subset of humanity that the viewer is attracted to. I rather thought that went without saying, but apparently not.

Men looking at women, women looking at men and all the myriad combinations that people are attracted to each other in.

As to what you say to someone, you have now met them and, as I said, if you don't move beyond that at that point it becomes a problem.

I can't disagree with your concluding statement at all. Although, I do not accept the argument that arousal is learned, at least fully, based on the scant (no pun intended) evidence regarding equatorial cultures. There are studies showing, symmetry for example, span all cultures in "attractiveness". I'm sure I can identify more elements of innate attractiveness, and evidence this exists in infants, but I can't get after this until later. I don't think it takes away from your argument about the inappropriateness of objectifying humans in normal practice.
I would take an Ian Anderson position on hot waitresses, perfume models, Daisy Duke or Daniel Craig wrt humor and social media. This is not the same.

I would suggest that you cite the psychological studies you think back your case for learned attraction, however, as all the ones I have seen lean heavily towards it being an innate trait. What you are citing in Tibetans is not a denial of sexual attraction to breasts by men, but rather desensitization. What should be noted, however, is that the attraction doesn't go away simply because of the desensitization - it shifted to another area of the body.

"I have heard that the French think that Americans suffer from breast fixations."

That's probably because Europeans face the same desensitization you cite in the Tibetans. Their television advertising for soap almost exclusively features naked women showering - and they show everything. There are lingerie ads at bus stops and perfume ads in public places showing people in blatantly suggestive poses. And the postcards can be very X-rated. If one were to look at the difference in the two cultures, again, it comes down to desensitization: for men in France, a boob is ho-hum. American men aren't constantly bombarded by the same stimuli as the French men - there is still some mystery and excitement.

It's very much like the high created by drugs. At first, it only takes a little bit. Then desensitization starts to take hold and the addict starts requiring more and more of the drug to get the same effect. The brain is a vast and complicated chemical machine, but the studies about addiction and pleasure-center stimulation are pretty thorough.

"it is not acceptable here and now to treat other people as objects."

Again, people are a sub-set of the larger inclusive group known as objects. Should people be recognized and treated as people - a smaller set of the larger general classification known as objects? Absolutely. But you are falling prey to the very feminism Prager is pointing out by denying that men and women often look at each other based on the prospects of amorous activity. The very hook-up culture that has stormed America in the past 20 years is evidence that many people are objectifying the opposite sex. What makes these hook-ups of lesser quality than those of marriage falls exactly to the point you do have correct: that people shouldn't stop at the objectification and should explore the other attributes of their partner.

Capitalism rests on individualism which depends on reason and the identification of reality. In this discussion, "what already existed" was anti-life, anti-human, anti-reason. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said in The Communist Manifesto that among the crimes of capitalism was that it took women out of the home, denying them their natural roles as wives and mothers. As a result of capitalism women became engineers, astronomers, telegraph operators and telephone operators, stenographers, secretaries, and administrative assistants.

Recognize that in the century before capitalism, those jobs were held by men. Then ask yourself how you would react to hiring a man based on his looks, or his physical endowments.

"What already existed" was in fact what needed to be changed as people were liberated by capitalism.

Thanks Blarman and back at you. As you know it is not always smooth sailing. I say if you build a strong foundation you can handle the quakes whatever the magnitude. Metaphorically speaking.
For both of us our only marriage , we started at 22
for me and 21for her.

I have been around for seventy years. I agree with you but being socially acceptable or not is irrelevant. Always has been that way and always will be. I could give lots of examples of this but do not feel like doing that much typing.

I come from the "Pedestal" aspect and I think most men do...some may not admit it though. I also think that the "Physical" objectification is a result of that appreciation; whereas the gutter aspect is a false sense of superiority and it's perverse.