One good comment I received--OK, THE comment I received--about redefining teaching about modesty is the notion that we ought to dress for what we do. It's a good point, as it gets rid of blaming a woman for a man's sexual sin, and it also points to the fact that we ought to dress for the relationships--employment and personal--that we desire.
It is much the same as when I tell my kids to put on a coat, hat, gloves, socks, and shoes before we go somewhere in winter. Might as well be able to tolerate cold and snow for a few minutes if the car breaks down. Now how does this relate to plunging necklines, extremely tight clothing, and the like?
Well, come to the office and see how many people you see wearing black stretch pants sans something to cover the derriere, or check out the pool--the 50 meter one for exercise--and see how many people you see wearing a bikini. Reality is that achievement at work, or in athletics, does not correlate well with being a distraction, or tugging at your clothes all the time to make sure "everything important" is covered. It correlates well with, well, being able to work.
In other words, certain attire--excessively tight, revealing, etc..--is the attire of leisure, the attire of....
....people who aren't going anywhere in their career or relationally, really, unless they make it in show business. And for that matter, how likely is it for people in show business to have success in their personal lives? Maybe there's a connection there.
I saw a young lady recently who demonstrated she understood half of this principle as she left the "medical careers vo-tech" school that uses the building where I work. In the hallway, she took off her scrubs to expose her "high school fashion." She understands that clinics expect her to dress for success. Hopefully she learns in time that she needs to do so for her personal relationships, too.