I got asked on a different thread what was the difference between a Hooters waitress and a pop star like Taylor Swift who also wears skimpy clothing when touring.

Fundamentally, the intention behind these two situations is completely different. Hooters waitresses are set up to be titillating to men. That’s their primary function. They are also treated as interchangeable. Any one girl can be fired and replaced with another, because it’s about her boobs not who she is as a person.

On the other side, a pop star like Taylor Swift is using her voice to speak to women and girls, and wearing skimpy clothes primarily because they are easier to dance in. She has a voice and is personified in this role, you can’t exchange her for someone else and hope no-one will notice. Therefore, she could literally be wearing a Hooters outfit, but if she was singing about what it feels like to be objectified for what she’s wearing, it would be a feminist act.

I think a lot of men struggle to understand this distinction, and think objectification is a result of the clothing itself, rather than how they are viewing a woman. Because they see the outcome as the same, they’re ignoring the intention.

It ultimately doesn’t matter what a woman is wearing. She could be wearing a full hijab or a bikini. What it comes down to, is whether the viewer is diminishing her to a sexual object or not. This is why feminists talk about the difficulties of existing under the male gaze. Because no matter what you do, some men will always see you as just an object.