For the record:
1) I don't think any work should be censored, altered, or mothballed because all or some portion of the audience finds its images, themes, materials, or content "not pleasant." I hope no one thought I was suggesting that.
2) I certainly don't think works of art should be altered years after their creation in order to make them more palatable. (They might be revised for practical reasons, of course. That's a different argument.)
3) That being said, I'm perfectly fine with discarding works of art that in some way, shape, or form debase or countenance the debasement of "the other," the powerless, or despised minorities.
4) There's a difference between artists using provocative or unpleasant images in order to challenge their audience's comfortable prejudices and artists trading on (or being blind to) baseless stereotypes.
5) Women have been putting up with a lot of fundamental disrespect that's been mislabelled as flirting, or as some kind of validation of their attractiveness, or as a solicitous regard for their presumed frailties for millennia. The fact that some of them might have accepted it doesn't make it less problematic.
Looking at the 1986 City Ballet clip, the terrible moment comes at the end, in the pause just before the purse is given back, when one of the sailors holds the woman by the wrist. She wins and they pull back, but you feel that that's the moment everything could turn really violent - right then she could so easily be beaten up.
To quote Margaret Atwood: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."