There's a reason why trads can't agree on this, and it's not because of the extremists.

There have always been negligent and even bad priests who have authorized sinful behavior.

What is different is that there has not always been the overwhelming social force of feminist liberalism with its particular emphasis on justifying immodesty in dress.

Now in the past that would usually have been more of a private matter.  But in modern times it becomes public, in particular, with regards to dress.  And in the past it would not have been to the advantage of clerics to indulge liberalism in dress.

For those who feel "trapped" in traditionalism, with an attachment to Tradition but a desire for popularity and esteem in the world, there will always be a conflict, no matter how well the matter is explained, they're always going to be pushing the envelope.

Some will develop legalistic ideas about what constitutes modesty.  

Others will use relativistic arguments.

Unfortunately, the liberals among trad clerics have found they can enhance their popularity by indulging laxity.  Especially since the rich tend to have the strongest incentive to justify their laxity, and give the most money.

We should not be afraid to be outspoken about minimum standards of dress.  And by minimum it should be something that the priests and moral theologians of the first half the 20th Century could agree on.

Well said.

Don't you think modesty can be found somewhere in the middle of the extremes.  Lets say that birka's represent the "animal type" ownership of the islamist, and modern western culture represents the "animal type" passions of the devil.  In most cases if about 2 inches of material were added to clothing, both length and girth, alot of clothing could be acceptable.  As far as fashion or style is concerned now thats another can of worms.