CathInfo.com

I think that here's one example that's contrary to what they described, but perhaps visually replace the pants with some thicker stockings, or sock-like looking things.  I blotted out a bit of immodesty (bare upper arms and a bit of exposed chest on the left one).


So, these are interesting cases.  So, the dress is certainly above the knees in each case, but ... the legs beneath the bottom of the dress are covered with material that does NOT resemble skin so that it might appear to someone on first inspection that the legs are bare above the knee.

Pants are generally immodest simply due to being masculine and contrary to nature, but these types of outfits, I don't consider them masculine, due to the dress, but then the dress is above the knee, which BY ITSELF would be considered immodest IF what appeared below the above-the-knee-bottom of the dress were bare leg or what would appear to be bare leg due to skin-colored stockings.  But in this case, due to the color it's quite obvious that there's no exposed bare leg.

I have never heard of any standard of modesty which held that the lower leg beneath the knee couldn't be even exposed skin, much less skin-colored stocking.  You'd essentially be claiming that all women had to wear either ankle- / street- length dresses and/or would be required to wear non-skin-covered stocks below the knee even.  I've just never seen that kind of radical interpretation of the norms for Christian modesty.

That's also why they put in the transparent dress, right, where "OK, my dress is beneath the knees, so modest, right?" ... well, not if you can largely see through it, eh?  Similarly, this is the converse where, the skirt is above the knees, but then the part of the leg that's expose at the knee and above is also covered, even if the dress itself doesn't extend down that far.

I would find both of the above entirely acceptable (from a modesty perspective, even if not from a fashion perspective) despite the bottom of the dress being above the knees.

I think that here's one example that's contrary to what they described, but perhaps visually replace the pants with some thicker stockings, or sock-like looking things.  I blotted out a bit of immodesty (bare upper arms and a bit of exposed chest on the left one).



I would find both of the above entirely acceptable (from a modesty perspective, even if not from a fashion perspective) despite the bottom of the dress being above the knees.