Not much time to blog today, so I just wanted to share Deacon Greg Kandra's post about the horrific use of child models by Vogue in Paris. You really have to click the link; if you have a strong stomach you can go here to see the pictures which Deacon Kandra doesn't share, and which are worse than the ones he does share.
Others have commented, of course, but I wanted to pose the question seriously: isn't the time spent on worrying about women wearing slacks or other completely modest articles of clothing wasted, when it is clear that immodest clothing can indeed include dresses, and that it's not just the horrible fact that these tarty slut-sheaths are being placed on children that makes them immoral to wear?
I was sort of appalled not long ago when a Catholic blogger I won't name defended one-shoulder dresses as being perfectly fine and modest and feminine for Catholic women to wear, for instance. Now, I don't want to get into the whole "sleeveless dresses" debate here, but from a design perspective the point of a one-shoulder dress is to create the illusion that a woman is in the act of undressing, or is only partially dressed. I suppose there might be modest one-shoulder dresses in theory. In practice...I don't know; either, like the poor little girl in the red dress at that second link, the woman will not be endowed enough to hold up the sleeveless side without showing off her underwear, or else she will be endowed enough to hold up the sleeveless side, in which case it's probably going to reveal that endowment too much to be modest.
The point is that the wearing or non-wearing of slacks is not a guaranteed key to modesty; nor is copying all the feminine fashions of the recent past a sure guide to modesty. The key to modesty is to consider whether or not the clothing reveals what ought to be concealed. And if it makes a young girl look like a lady of the evening, that's probably a good indicator that it's not modest, either.