I think that one might objectify a means of interaction as easily as one might form desires around objectified roles for other individuals to fill. The objectification of means over end appears to me as a recurrent theme in human thinking. For instance, I have observed hetero-normative relationships strongly devalued in many circles, in the sense that many individuals would openly regard them with disdain.
I would argue that pursuing a specific, pre-packaged identity, whether sexual, political, or otherwise, on the grounds that it seems more objectively radical than others will ultimately result in dissatisfaction for those involved. I know that I want to experience challenge, adventure, and pleasure through the interactions that I have with others, and assuming that I could not possibly find it through interactions that others might dub as hetero-normative, co-dependent, mainstream, etc. on the grounds of our skin colors, sexes, and other variables seems inherently fallacious. I see no more reason behind such thinking than I see in someone condemning an "interracial," poly-amorous relationship amongst a group of consenting and loving individuals on, say, religious grounds. People can "do romance," resolve disagreements, raise children together, raise barns together, or raise hell together in whatever manner we feel mutually fulfilled by. I feel that we will have wasted our time to have done things in any other fashion.
I definitely appreciated this bit:
"*we* are the ones who determine our relationships or how we deal with relationships that we might have to be in (for work, perhaps, or school, or bad family scenes). we are not victims. that is the other facet to autonomy. (this isn't to say that we don't get into situations that we don't want to be in, but that we are responsible then for doing something about it--even if all that can mean in the moment is recognizing that we want to get out and trying to make that happen--and examining how we got into it in the first place.)"
