This is interesting. I'm a cis male, but also a feminist. Many of us are well read regarding the male gaze theories where a woman is constructed as an object for male desire, often with the help of specific mediation, styles of make up (or make up itself), and symbolic clothing attires that may refer to women with affection for hire from a male perspective.
"women with affection for hire" is this the new accepted term for sex-workers now?
On one side I can see how dressing like said women with affection for hire is a symbolic action for reappropriation of clothing, makeup and other symbols kidnapped by the patriarchy for the purpose of objectification of women.
Really love to know what you consider dressing as a "woman with affection for hire" looks like. I mean above you implied that make up itself is symbolic of it. You don't sound much like a feminist to me, if you think a woman wearing make-up implies she is for hire.
On the other side, such clothing, makeup and other symbols are still powerful in attracting the negative male gaze, so from a feministic perspective using said attributes in my humble and probably uneducated view is very contra-productive - in practice it uphold the objectification of women. I would be very happy to be schooled and corrected on the subject.
It's kind of like if I as a socialist would run a stock broker company as a way of reappropriating ownership of production from capitalists.
Perhaps "real" feminist should restrict themselves to hems below the knee? Or something that doesn't attract the "male gaze" like a burka or something out of Handmaid's Tale?
Or here's and idea perhaps a cis male feminist should not put restrictions on how women want to present themselves, or assume anything about a woman by how she presents herself.