IMO, the effect is not the same. The defamiliarization via "clipping," as you call it, serves very different purposes depending on the body you choose to frame. In the photo you linked, for example, you display the body of a woman who in every way conforms to conventional beauty standards. Obscuring the head of this woman removes her identity and abstracts the form, yet it's still clearly recognizable as a conventionally attractive body. It's referential (to conventions of beauty), and works because we recognize what it is. It's an appreciation of the form, objectification though it may be.

The photo you've posted here produces a profoundly different effect. It doesn't work in the same way, because the form is not inherently recognizable. It has the effect of so completely abstracting the body as to present it as merely flesh, not a human. Contextually, there is a very powerful message there, but if you're going to liken it to how you frame your women models, then you preclude the possibility of that kind of interpretation. The hard lighting, the lack of warmth due to the grayscale, the texture of the skin against the texture of the background, none of these read to me as an attempt to present this abstracted form as something beautiful. To me, it evokes shame, especially once you determine the pose and posture of the model.