Let me simplify this post.

When there is immodesty, men have to avert their eyes.  What can women do to help the men?  They can cover up.  What is the harder thing to do?  In reality averting the eyes is much harder than covering up.  Women do we really want to make it more difficult for the men?

Whenever society needs to correct itself usually there is an influential person who inspires people with more strict rules.

St. John Vianney went hard against dancing.  Is dancing in itself evil, no, but he had to clean up a society that used dances to fall into debauchery.

There were Saints who made the rules for their orders more strict because the orders had gotten so lax.

My point is that maybe it is time for us to establish more strict Catholic rules for ourselves, so that we can reverse the trajectory of society.

i honestly understand where you’re coming from, seeing the way some people both men and women dress and behave. I know men are more susceptible to visual temptation. I don’t think the answer is for Catholics to go to the other extreme though. We have to be careful not to become puritanical and judgemental. The post was begun because a man was asking if he should speak directly to a woman or women at church who he felt were dressing immodestly. Absolutely not. It’s up to the priest. Also was he just distracted by a pretty young girl wearing a beautiful 1950s style outfit or was the girl wearing hot pants and a bra top? This makes a difference. In the former category he needs to take a cold shower and keep his opinions to himself. In the latter category he needs to talk to the priest who may have a gentle word with the girl (and also tell him to take a cold shower and keep his eyes averted. 

Let me simplify this post.

When there is immodesty, men have to avert their eyes.  What can women do to help the men?  They can cover up.  What is the harder thing to do?  In reality averting the eyes is much harder than covering up.  Women do we really want to make it more difficult for the men?

Yeah, that's really the gist of it. Some users disregard the fact that a woman dressing immodestly, especially during Mass, is sinning and creating an occasion of sin..regardless of whether or not any man actually commits a sin by giving into the temptation that she caused. 

Actually, when you think of it, asking a woman to cover herself decently is kind of a compliment to her, suggesting that she is attractive enough to get a man's attention by revealing her God-given physical assets.

Think of it this way, would it be a compliment to suggest that she is not attractive enough to gain this kind of attention?

On the flip side, you run the very dangerous possibility of it being taken to mean, "You are so ugly that no one wants to see what you are revealing" 

I suppose it depends on what she thinks of herself

On the flip side, you run the very dangerous possibility of it being taken to mean, "You are so ugly that no one wants to see what you are revealing"

I suppose it depends on what she thinks of herself

Good point, but modern women tend very much to over-estimate their own attractiveness.

And this modern trend of women wearing massive amounts of makeup, and seeking enhancements such as lip fillers, kind of reminds me of women of the 1940s and 1950s, who wore that awful fire-engine-red lipstick, and posed for pictures with this hideous rictus that made them look as though someone had come up from behind and tickled them.  I saw a picture of Lucille Ball in her younger days, without all that makeup, and she looked exquisite without it.  Later on, she had herself made up like a circus clown.  It didn't enhance her.

This is partially right and partially wrong.

When you say that women are -helping men- that implies that the immodest woman isn't wrong.  But she is.  When she dressed immodestly, she already sinned.  If she had wanted to help men, she wouldn't have dressed immodestly to begin with.

So the idea of covering up is two-fold -- first, to stop the woman from continuing to sin by immodesty.  two, to stop her from sinning MORE by stopping the occasion of sin.  thirdly, to stop her being guilty of any sins that any man commits because of her.

This is why a woman who normally dresses immodestly lashes out when confronted because of her conscience, and she is forced to face her guilty actions.

A woman who dresses immodestly sins (potentially) 3 ways:
a.  Personally, against God.
b.  secondly, through being a temptation/occasion of sin.
c.  thirdly, if any man lusts after her, she is responsible for those sins as well.

You are correct logically in what you say.

I as a women was appealing to the women's sense of nurture to get her to see why she should change her ideas.

But because this is a forum and anyone can say what they want, you jumped in with all the legal, logical stuff.  I am not sure men understand that women want to be logical but you have to slowly help them, not throw it all at them at once.

I am not sure any women took what I said to mean that dressing immodestly is acceptable or ok.

I am not sure any women took what I said to mean that dressing immodestly is acceptable or ok.

Correct, I don't think anyone took it that way either.  But what was incorrect in your comment, was implied feminism.  When you said modesty --helps men-- that implies that men are the problem.  No, women are the problem too.  Modesty is an issue for both sexes.

Immodest women are guilty of lust, as they wish to be desired by many men.
Lustful men wish to have many women.

Two sides of the same coin.  But the spiritual issue of women's immodesty is often ignored and the problem is framed as a male issue.  Because of feminism propaganda.

Until women realize that immodesty is just as bad as being a male pervert, society won't change.  Feminism tells women it's natural to dress to show off, while at the same time telling men they are perverts for staring at lurid things.  Both are wrong.