On uality in Kpop, and ual objectification

"uality veiled into cute and childlike aegyo in a lot of kpop videos so that it wouldn't be percieved as actually being expressed, so not to appear ty towards older male viewers who can then comfortably watch it without being judged, is a form of ual objectification. In this situation women use their uality packed in unnatural cute, childish image to sell themselves, which can be uncomfortable,because they woman has a feeling of not being able to act as free adult aware of their own uality and personal freedom to do what they want with it.

Also, another problem in kpop world or everywhere else, would be when they use uality to sell the product on minors. Most of the young people don't have a developed ual awareness and identity, and sometimes dressing provocatively is forced on them by their companies. Society should at least set the bar when young people can express their uality. In most countries it's when you're 18. Anything younger than that, a big no. And isn't having with minors punishable by law in some countries or at least results in a harsh social judgement? 
For example, when Hyuna danced provocatively in Change, wasn't she like 17? Somewhere there has to be a limit.

Now, when adult chooses to use their uality to sell something, is a totally different story. A lot of women think of uality as an important part of their identity, and to deny them freedom to do with it what they want is a violation of human rights, even to sell a product. A person may be against it and think of it as morally wrong, but freedom is freedom. You can hate it, but it has to exist. There shouldn't be any obstacle if a woman freely decides to objectify herself as ual being for male gaze, and it'd be nice for her not to face derogatory labels like '' from other men and women who are uncomfortable with it. uality in-your-face like in BEG's Sixth Sense is always better than repressed expression of it.
However, when women are forced to sell because society denies them any other way of economic independance, then it's simpy wrong. ion because of poverty is simply disgusting.

Sometimes an open display of uality in the weirdest forms possible, when it confuses and shocks common people becuse of breaching all traditional gender norms, is a step forward for society. Like queer movements had men dressed up in ugly, overtly-ual women's clothes. That kind of provocation and gender bending might have pushed the boundaries of what is socially acceptable for women and men. They objectifed themselves to the core, and I don't know how much they actually risked, but I'm sure that without them objectifying themselves, women's rights wouldn't advance as much in the Western world.
Something like Lady Gaga, she dresses ualy provocative and always adds something weird and socially unacceptable to her outfits, constantly shocking us and making us re-think what is good and bad. This might be a marketing ploy to attract attention, but considering her enormous influence on pop culture, she might have 'liberated' a few people to free their identity from harmful social constraints. Or at least made them to be tolerant to something different. In this cases, ual objectification can sometimes be positive.

One day it'd be nice to live in a world where woman can display cleavege on her own free will without being labeled as '', or that justification for like "she wore a mini skirt" would be considered as idiotic, both by women and men."