"It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman (to do things to her body, to use her body as a mean for his own climax, to satisfy some urge that is inherently questionable)."

Hmmm, I agree with quite a bit of what you say, but you also jump to conclusions and miss a lot of nuance. The issue of consent is actually quite simple. We ask for consent because it takes two to tango. The rules of sex are that it is intercourse with consent of both parties. If it is without consent it would be rape. Rape is a kind of sex frowned upon because sex against the will of one party is a very painful humiliating and unpleasant affair for one of the parties. So basically we require consent. I do not think it has anything to do with teh capitalust system. Sex is not 'inherently wrong', sex without consent is inherently wrong, much the same as violence is inerently wrong.

During the sex act you indeed use the other person for your pleasure, I agree with that. However the beauty of it is that the other uses you for that very same purpose. It is the mutual objectification that makes it moral. If objectification is merely one sided, yes than you have a point, but it is not. The point of it is, at least for me, that the other consents to the defilement, the base urges and what have you, but also has the right to use you in likewise manner.... and you even like it when he/she does... So yes, sex is most intimately bound up with consent, because otherwise the objectfication is just base and nother else than structural dominance in the worst form.

Is there anything wrong with rewarding people for what they accomplished purely or almost purely by luck? — czahar

An award is given for something, an achievement. In achieving something, always somewhere down the line there is a luck factor involved, if only the abscence of bad luck. A nobel price winning scientists probably would never have won a nobel prize if his train was late during his very first job application for instance. If luck cannot be a factor in giving awards than we probably should abolish the institution of awards, something we can choose to do. On the other hand not accepting an award because it is based on luck is incoherent. Since luck plays a part in any general award it is no reason for rejecting that specific award, unless the disclaimer is made that all awards are rejected.

In fact contrary to pseudonym's line, I would take Cuthbert's line, but even radicalise it. We have a duty to accept the award, because universilising the maxim "awards should not be accepted when there is an element of luck involved" leads to a contraditction: there is always an element of luck involved so the whole institution of awards is eradicated. Now we could argue whether that is a good idea. A second Kantian question would be: can we will to live in a world without the institution of awards? We can but it would make the world a more barren place. Do we want that? Since the insitution of awards exists from time immemorial and seemingly in every society I argue we have an imperfect duty to accept awards at least some of the time. The mother did not live up to duty, despite her intentions.

Thanks Tiff, really great to see you too! Nice to be here!