Bigloop, you say,
Poetess - maybe more women aren't as self-aware as I give them credit for.
I don't think it's necessarily lack of self-
awareness as much as it is lack of male awareness. Women don't innately know how men think. And for many, many women, attire has nothing at all to do with men. Women dress, in roughly this order of awareness (varies from person to person): (1) for what they think looks good on them, (2) based on what is in style, (3) based on what their friends wear, and (4) based on other people outside their circles. A married woman or a woman looking to marry needs to factor her husband in there, too. And a woman who isn't married, but is aware of lust, also should factor in how men will see an outfit. But I can tell you for sure that when I was twenty, modesty was the only part of my attire that factored in men; I was not dressing to attract men, and if I hadn't been raised to think about modesty in what I wore, I likely wouldn't have factored in that angle either. That wouldn't have been lack of self-awareness, but lack of male awareness.
Further, I had a good friend who was dating, and I didn't like what I saw of her public displays of affection, and told her as much. She reassured me that she was more discreet in private alone with him than in public . . . but she also told me how empowering it was (I doubt she used that word) to get him aroused. And I simply didn't know what to think about that. I was naive enough that I hadn't even realized that men were arouse-able other than directly before having sex; I guess I'd thought it was deliberate choice on the part of the man, like taking off his pants. And when she told me it was cool when her boyfriend would get aroused by her, I had no context for what to think. But for sure I didn't know enough to know that she was being unkind to find pleasure in that and to see it as some kind of victory even though she had no intent on doing anything about the arousal. I was 20, raised in a Christian home, with several brothers, and that's how limited my own understanding of male sexuality was. Other women aren't, on average, that naive, but some are.
I have a little hesitancy with your choice of word - dehumanize. Lustfully objectify, certainly a possibility. Every man who notices an attractive woman and feels that draw of lust has a choice to propagate it into sin or put in proper perspective. But just noticing a woman for her beauty is not the sin.
Indeed I argued just yesterday on another thread that noticing a woman's beauty is not wrong, and that I do it myself. When I used the word "dehumanize" I meant much, much more than that. Men are perfectly capable of seeing women as no more than a collection of nice body parts. I'm not saying any man on here does that, but virtually every woman has had men reply to her that way (even if she is dressed extremely modestly--I've had rudeness directed my way when I was wearing a winter coat that went down to my knees and boots that went up to my knees).