There is a huge gulf between what is modest and modern immodest attire. You have to realize that.

I also like the post that mentioned how GOD is also offended by immodesty -- regardless of how many men are around, how virtuous they are, how many sins they commit as a result of your clothing choices, etc. That totally smashes the default, "Well, that's your problem. Grow some virtue, bro! Not my problem!" argument.

The worst women dress absolutely, literally the same as 304s (What is a 304? Type in "304" into your calculator and flip it upside down. It spells out "h o e"). Literal women-of-the-night. The World's Oldest Profession.

But there is a much larger group of women who dress *almost* as bad. And an even larger group who dress only TWO STEPS below full-on-304.

Let's do a quick exercise in objectivity. What would a woman look like in her underwear. Now show me a picture of the typical female in shorts. Note how there is no difference in how much flesh is covered below the waist. It is LITERALLY the same as women walking around in their underwear. Now let's be real. When you are sitting in front of a steaming plate of food (say, a thanksgiving feast), it is NORMAL to salivate and anticipate enjoying that food. You don't normally sit in front of a plate of food like that, without being ABOUT TO EAT IT. Let's be realistic here. You don't blame a guy for being hungry (and having his hunger stoked), salivating, increasing his desire to eat, etc. when EVERY SIGNAL is telling his body he's about to enjoy a thanksgiving feast. It's BIOLOGY for crying out loud. It's how God created the human body, its digestive system, etc. Now apply this to another natural appetite, and you should see the issue.

We have to go back to the principles of modesty, and throw off the "conservative vs liberal" paradigm, the "overton window" of what is acceptable. Because that window is always moving -- and always in the wrong direction (towards Hell, to be honest).

One of the most shocking things a woman can learn is that womens' dress, in terms of modesty, has been bad for over a hundred years. As in, even a woman born in 1910 or 1915 would have dressed quite poorly, in many ways, and you couldn't go to her for "how to dress" advice. You have to go BEFORE THAT generation.
But even those born in 1910 aren't around anymore. So you see the problem?

Women have to dress counter-culture to be modest -- that is, women of ALL generations you can name: Gen Alpha, Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, Greatest Generation, and Silent Generation. ALL of them would have had to go against the current, to dress modestly. Just goes to show what a grip satan has on this world.

Yes, let’s not appeal to the 1950s as the benchmark for modesty.  It wasn’t.  St Padre Pio was throwing women out of the confessional for 1950s immodesty.  

Men are often told to practice “custody of the eyes”.  Yet I don’t hear women being told to practice “custody of the skin”.   It’s the same principle.  The 50s showed a lot of skin.  It was 1,000x more modest than today, but still not the catholic ideal.