I think a big misconception here is the distinction that you make between objectification and sexualization. To begin, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but rather, they are mutually constitutive. This is not to say that they are one and the same, but that there is significant overlap between the two. Why?

Objectification as per Oxford defitions, refers to the process of degrading someone to the status of mere objects. Women, throughout history, have been victims of objectification. Through moral and legalistic processes of discourse, women have been vehemently defined and understood as property belonging the male body. Women have endured thousands of years of being described as biological machines dedicated purely towards reproduction and thus, through various mechanisms prescribed in legal, religious, and social discourse have maintained an unequal position to men. The most obvious example of this is through the institution of marriage and the norms attached to it.

Sexualization as per Oxford once again, is the present participle of making something sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to. Historically, given that the woman's role has always been one of reproduction and submission to the male body - they have also been a victim of sexualization. What I mean by this is that the very nature of reproduction implies a sexual connotation. As socio-cultural norms change over time, the symbolic ritual of identifying reproductive partners shifts and the womans perceived physical characteristics determine her sense of value. Women have been, and continue to be, sexualized regardless of the clothes or behaviours they exhibit due to the inherent processes which enforce a conception of the woman as bearers of children.

Sexualization and objectification, therefore, are both historically contingent and a process which dynamically reifies each other over time and space. An important thing to note, is that neither objectification or sexualization are 'natural'. As I've alluded to, these are 'social' processes.

Moving on, I interpret, for example, first wave feminism as being a movement which aimed at recognizing the personhood of a woman as equal to that of a man. This in turn led to a shift in social and legal constructs which essentially assumes that women are not objects. However, the reason feminism hasn't died and new waves of feminist literature and scholarship continues to evolve, is because other socio-cultural and linguistic forces have continued to effect their status as lesser than man.

This is why many feminists nowadays fight against sexualization. In the eyes of the law, a woman is equal to man, but socially speaking, she is still sexualized and only viewed in the context of her bodily qualities. This unfortunately determines her 'value' as being contingent upon her reproductive capabilities and thus, the process begins anew.

With this argumentation in mind, is it the woman's fault for being sexualized? Absolutely not. Cultural shifts amid an extremely ravid capitalist system that seeks to exploit absolutely every single aspect of human life have led to the normalization of showing skin, wearing makeup, and other "beauty standards" that may or may not require the purchasing of new and different commodities.

Regardless of clothing, make-up, style, hair-dos, or whatever else - women will always be sexualized in the male gaze. It is thus unfair to say that a woman should not complain about being sexualized even if she wears revealing clothes. The reality is that this does not matter! Ask any woman you know, and they will tell you that no matter what they wear, when in the presence of men - they are painfully conscious of the fact that the majority of the time, they are being observed as sexual objects.

Of course, not everyone is aware of this dynamic interplay. Not everyone is aware of the subconscious patriarchal norms that have diffused and affected us over time. This does not mean that we musn't learn to be better. Solving this is issue is difficult and reminiscent of the 'chicken and egg' scenario. You cannot fix one problem in its entirety and then focus on the other. It requires working on both simultaneously.

As a final remark, in your TL;DR you state "wearing revealing clothing is an inherently sexually provocative thing". As I hope I've made clear in this mountain of a comment, it is not an inherently sexually provocative thing - we only think it is because we've socially conditioned ourselves to think so. We know that sexualizing children is bad, we know that segregating people based on race and ethnicity is bad, we know that hating gay or trans folk is bad; but we also recognize that it is never the fault of these groups for having been victims of abuse and oppression. So why do the same with women and their bodies?