Your right i don't get to define anything for you nor does anybody else, you should have the critical thinking to do so yourself. by extension you don't get to tell me either, I'll conclude what makes sense as anyone does.
If a woman's goal was to be "virtuous" to eventually achieve a man. she doesn't want to be a "whore" because men don't give "whores" attention. She is calculating her value based on this system (and so are you)
The woman's coverage and stripping are two sides of the same coin. because in either way women are a sex object, in storage for selective customers or on display for all to see. the rules provide the illusion of escape to not be seen as a sex object by covering up, but it's merely an illusion. men are humans women are objects and a humans decide the value of things. The body is kept "in storage" rather than on display, but it remains an object defined by how it is consumed or possessed.
This "sexual" act has been done in a none sexual context. and thats the point, that's the change. things are neutral it's about the sexual context we give to them. depriving women's bodies from the sexual context is liberating because women's bodies are often seen in sexual context and they need to shape their life around that. "it worked better without tits" yes!thank you. that's the point, to not appeal.