Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has an excellent post on the backlash against Hooters for having a Little Miss Hooters contest. Joe agrees that this needed a response, but he finds the response to be for entirely the wrong reasons. Those responding to the problem share the same bad assumptions of the people who created the contest to begin with.
How old should a person be before it becomes acceptable to treat them as an object? Where do we draw the line of demarcation between the age when you are treated as a human and the age it becomes acceptable to treat you as an object? Most people set the standard at eighteen, the magical age when a person can register to vote and buy lottery tickets. Other people, though, would choose to set the age lower. Much, much lower. Naturally, some of these people can be found at Hooters.
Joe goes on to explain why the assumption behind this criticism is just as bad as the people it's supposed to criticize. Why assume that there's an age of objectification at all? Surely it's worse to objectify someone who's only 5 than it is to objectify an adult, but does that mean it's ok or even not very bad to objectify an adult? The more serious moral wrong here is the objectifying of a person. It's just worse when the person objectified happens to be a child.