Overall, I thought this was very good. The one clarification I would seek is on the idea that modesty is somewhat culturally relative (Tennessee, the Amazon, etc.). In “Love and Responsibility,” John Paul II (who was no prude, by the way. He argued in the same piece for the necessity of the wife to experience climax in the sexual act, MANY years before this blog picked up on the idea) argued that the important point is the function of clothing. He gives the example of the swimsuit. It is designed to aid in swimming and (usually) is perfectly modest as used for it’s designed function, even if it shows a lot of skin. On the other hand, the same piece may fail the test of modesty if worn for a different function, like walking down a crowded street for attention.
The Yanomami running around in Brazil in nothing but a string and pouch hiding the genitals is not perfectly modest merely because that’s how they see modesty. It is modest because that attire complements the function of their forest existence.
I understood the point about men wanting something they can’t see or have (the ankle, the woman’s face behind the veil, etc.). But reasonable people can judge when laws or norms of modesty clearly violate reason. There’s a case in Saudi Arabia as we speak of a young woman arrested for being filmed wearing a perfectly reasonable skirt and top in public. She was not dressed immodestly because a religious structure in place says she was. She was dressed perfectly modestly because her attire matched function (walking in a hot climate), and her arrest and persecution should rightly be condemned by Christians.