>>7782151
Of course there is. Sometimes an artist wants to tackle sexual themes, and ends up creating sexually charged works. That's when it doesn't objectify, it's when it comes from (you) and attempts to express something deeper than arousal. You can see such things in many paintings, comics, movies, everything, sometimes without even noticing. See H.R.Giger's work for a mainstream example. His pieces are oozing with sexual themes, penetration, nudity... But it conveys something else than objectification.
In contrast, this >>7782222 is pornography. You can call it respectful all you like, cry incel, sweat over whether or not a woman will get offended over it, it will not change the fact that its entire purpose is to sell. A commodity; a crude, meaningless object made to help a consumer masturbate, and hopefully make him subscribe to your patreon. That, is objectification.