I think there should be a big distinction made based on whether someones rights are violated. Rape and Slavery are clearly crimes against humanity (I think the word "objectification" is far to weak in these cases).
I am very supportive of laws prohibiting sexual harassment, especially in the workplace. Women (and men for that matter) should be able to reject and stop unwanted advances-- whether that be leering, or undue use of authority. I think the term harassment is a very good descriptive term for these cases.
I agree with you about strippers. In this case it is a consensual agreement (unless it falls into the first category) that both the stripper and the customer realize a benefit and it is nobody's else's business. I have also heard the "objectification" used for sexual stereotyping in advertisements, or for the way that some people (almost always men) express their sexuality (that doesn't fall into any of the first three categories).
This is the issue-- the term "objectification" is used intentionally to lump consensual sexual behavior and non-abusive sexual identity in with non-consensual harassment and worse. It is the muddying of these very different ideas; the abusive with the consensual and the criminal with the individual expression that is the problem.
We should make a clear distinction between abusive behaviors (which society should absolutely not tolerate) with the different ways we express ourselves that don't hurt anyone.