So called immodesty

[nmoerbeek]

If modesty in dress wasn't a problem, then why did Pope Pius XI offer a decree on the matter in 1930? Check it out: http://www.olvrc.com/reference/documents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf

You also need to look at the era. The 1920s were a decade of decadence, a sort of precursor to our own degenerate era. It was by no means some time of Victorian puritanical modesty. But, I mean, Pius XI didn't infallibly decree anything regarding modesty, so we don't have to obey it right?

THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY
IN DRESS
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers
breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to
the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses
of transparent materials are improper." (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, "like Mary," Christ's mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts
reaching below the knees.
[N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily
tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to
Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and
back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the
neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the
shoulders.
4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics —
laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added.
However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do
not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or
the stole are removed.
8. Slacks or 'jeans' are not to be worn to church.
Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible
rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as
tight fitting slacks or 'jeans', sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down
at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike
standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who
follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will
have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will
not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.

The Mary like modesty standards for dress are not from Pius XI, those where the addition of the author of the piece. 

[DigitalLogos]

If modesty in dress wasn't a problem, then why did Pope Pius XI offer a decree on the matter in 1930? Check it out: http://www.olvrc.com/reference/documents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf

You also need to look at the era. The 1920s were a decade of decadence, a sort of precursor to our own degenerate era. It was by no means some time of Victorian puritanical modesty. But, I mean, Pius XI didn't infallibly decree anything regarding modesty, so we don't have to obey it right?

THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY
IN DRESS
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers
breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to
the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses
of transparent materials are improper." (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, "like Mary," Christ's mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts
reaching below the knees.
[N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily
tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to
Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and
back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the
neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the
shoulders.
4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics —
laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added.
However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do
not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or
the stole are removed.
8. Slacks or 'jeans' are not to be worn to church.
Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible
rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as
tight fitting slacks or 'jeans', sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down
at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike
standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who
follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will
have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will
not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.

The Mary like modesty standards for dress are not from Pius XI, those where the addition of the author of the piece.

Thank you, I was not aware of that. Yet what is said certainly isn't untrue and is in line with what Pius XI did say on the matter.

[TandJ]

Even your source admits someone can wear shorts "that reach down to the knees" and not below

[lauermar]

The Amish, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims require a dress code. However, it doesn't help their moral state because they belong to heretical religions. In Islam, rape and disrespect of women is systemic and considered justifiable.  Their barbaric acts (gential mutilation, honor killings) and outright denial of Jesus Christ offends God more than clothing. Omar the politician is an unrepentant public adulterer who wears a hijab on her head for modesty! Incredible. These people are not a proper example for Catholics.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954

That doesn't mean revealing clothing is acceptable, but how far do you want to go with it? In Padre Pio's time, immodesty was showing your ankles!  Before that, immodesty was not wearing a veil in public. Years ago, I saw a picture of the 6 y.o. daughter of a Sedevacantist writer, Thomas A. Droleskey, on his blog. He was a traveling writer at the time, living out of a trailer. I didn't see any mention of his wife. He was staying at a Sedevacantist cloistered nunnery. He had his little daughter Lucy sweeping the convent sidewalks outside, alone, dressed head-to-toe in a long nun's habit and veil. Well hey, I miss nun's habits and I wish they'd come back. But putting it on a little kid doing chores looks like cultish behavior.

Joan of Arc wore men's clothing even as the bible forbids women to wear it. For most working men and women today, employers have a dress code which defines modesty and we follow it. It is unreasonable to expect workers to dress like the people of the Old Testament.

Discussions about modesty shouldn't focus on women alone. It should  also include immodesty of men, Drag Queen culture, gay pride marches, tattooing, body piercing, fantasy rainbow haircolors, endless selfie posting on social media, etc. These things aren't modest. But on SD, I see way too much debate over knee length hemlines and pants.

[Vetus Ordo]

The Amish, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims require a dress code. However, it doesn't help their moral state because they belong to heretical religions. In Islam, rape and disrespect of women is systemic and considered justifiable.  Their barbaric acts (gential mutilation, honor killings) and outright denial of Jesus Christ offends God more than clothing.

Rape is a grievous crime in Islamic law and constitutes a capital offence in Islamic countries. Therefore, can you provide any well-established ruling that justifies raping women? Genital mutilation, properly defined, and honor killings are also contrary to Islamic law. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should provide it.

Omar the politician is an unrepentant public adulterer who wears a hijab on her head for modesty! Incredible. These people are not a proper example for Catholics.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954

Omar is not a proper example for Muslims either, since adultery is punishable by death in Islam. Furthermore, the political consultant she married, Tim Mynett, does not seem to be a Muslim. Muslim women are prohibited by the Shariah from marrying non-Muslim men.

[dymphnaw]

The 1920s was a time of incredible sin. It was the period of the first sexual revolution. Hollywood produced pornography. Abortion was used by the wealthy and middle class ladies. The Great Depression and WWII were the punishments. You can't use Muslims as an example because what they are turned on by isn't the same as as what distracts Western men.

[GiftOfGod]

What's the big deal, they are kids. Logically, it's why most Muslims (except for Somalis) don't bother to cover up girls...because they aren't women yet.

[TandJ]

What's the big deal, they are kids. Logically, it's why most Muslims (except for Somalis) don't bother to cover up girls...because they aren't women yet.

That's what I said! I find it hard to believe alllll these trad priests in the 20's on had not issue with it. In fact googling children's dresses from that time brings up nothing but above knee dresses.

[andy]

The absolute minimum is to cover your private parts (gen3,7). Now it all depends on the situation. One extreme is sanctifying the holy day in the church requiring best possible attire. The other is a swimming pool, where a decent bathing suit is to be worn. All in the between is a matter of prudence.