Cat's not making inane chatter, she's making some good points - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.
I think some people are getting too bogged down in the actions of individuals as opposed to the bigger picture of how these individual choices impact on society as a whole.
Individual women should always have the ability to choose how to live their lives - that is not up for debate. It's just interesting to contrast it with the sorts of choices men are able to freely make and this is where SiamoFottuti's point about self-regulation is relevant.
Society's default self-regulation means that men are rarely put in a position where they put their bodies up for objectification - glamour modelling, magazines such as FHM, Nuts, Loaded, Zoo et al, the existance of bars such as Hooters (what's the male equivalent of a footballer's wife, for example?) are all the preserve of scantily-clad women dressed thus for the appreciation of men. This is one end of a continuum - at the other end are lap-dancing clubs, strip joints, etc. I am not saying that one end is equal to or the equivalent of the other - but I would say that one is the 'lite', 'acceptable' face of the other. The thin end of the wedge.
From my perspective it boils down to asking if men are affected in the same way as women, and the existence of - what was it? Butlers in the Buff? - does not show in any way, shape or form that men are experiencing the same sort of thing. They're the exception that proves the rule even, when you consider that semi-clothed women are utterly mainstream in a way that semi-clothed men are not.
I think it is naive in the extreme to think that the 'lite', 'accetable' version of objectifying women doesn't have a knock-on affect in a more insidious way.
Again - it is not about knocking individual women's choices, but just kind of wishing that society did indeed self-regulate for women in the same sort of default way it does for men...