No, I don't think it's a big deal. But the point is, she wouldn't have done it if she didn't want to get a reaction. I'm pretty confident it came off exactly as intended. It's possible that they just wanted to tear off part of the leather, leaving the red bras as she claims. But even in that case, she was explicitly trying to provoke a reation. In other words, her intent was titillation. That being the case, I don't think she can now claim it's not really a big deal.

It's like the photographer a couple of years ago who showed a picture of a crucifix that looked like it was surrounded in smoke. Turns out it was immersed in a jar of the photographer's urine. He titled the photo "Piss Christ". Then he said that he didn't do it to be offensive: the urine just had interesting refractive qualities. Yeah. You don't get to intentionally provoke a reaction, then complain that people are reacting.