Well, like a lot of feminist thought out there -- particularly in regards to sexual abuse/harassment -- the point I think is largely to challenge the preconceptions about what constitutes mistreatment and what is/isn't appropriate behavior. Everyone agrees about the stuff that is particularly egregious (i.e. violent, back alley rape), but a lot of stuff gets ignored just because it's questionable, or because it works for alpha males. In this situation, if you take the author at face value, there is an angle presented that few of us have probably really considered.
Mind you, many will suggest -- perhaps correctly -- that it isn't worth considering. And that's fine if that's where you stand. Like I said, the selection of that image coupled with the hyperbolic language to make the extreme case about the nefarious subtext of the photo will understandably rub a lot of people the wrong way, and many more will surmise that it's pointless intellectualism just for the sake of it.
