Hmm, interesting. (That's a bad sign. It means a long post is coming.

Note folks (eg Kiania) that this is NOT - or at least, it certainly doesn't seem to me - an authoritative report. It is a *survey*. It reflects what a certain number of men have stated - the majority's opinion is recorded, that is all.

One of the questions refers to whether or not certain types of clothing are valid in theatre/dance that wouldn't be accepted elsewhere. One of the text responses said:
Let me explain, I strongly believe that modestly does not change with activity. It does not matter if you are exercising, swimming, or dancing God (the one who will ultimately hold you accountable for what you wear) still requires modesty. If you would not wear the dance outfit to church, don't wear it in a performance where you will be up in front of an audience. Our culture has put it in our minds that "I am going to be dancing (or swimming or whatever)" is an excuse to be immodest. It is not. ......
As someone who's heavily involved in theatre, I know something of what goes into costuming. There are many considerations - practicalities ("will it be possible to dance in this"), period look, characterization, etc, etc, etc. In the Gilbert and Sullivan Society, all costumes have a certain baseline modesty, because we pitch our shows at families, not at lustful men who want to see bare skin. But even so, there are some points where I am slightly embarassed to be involved - though that's only happened twice so far, and the characters being portrayed were shamelessly flaunting their bodies. The costumes worn were such that modesty was technically maintained, but the choreography left me unwilling to invite my family along.

But that is only a small number of cases. And the clothes were still definitely modest. It's quite quite possible to declare that "no piece is tolerated if it's costumed indiscreetly" (which is a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan, incidentally).

As to his definition, though - I would not use "would I wear it to church" as my rule of thumb. There are many types of clothing that I would see no problem in someone wearing at home, but they'd not really be appropriate in church - I think it would be disrespectful if I turned up in something that's dirty, torn, or just plain casual. Also, there are a number of things that I will do for stage that just "aren't ME", so I wouldn't do them for church - wearing a suit being one of them. There's nothing wrong with a dinner suit. I just wouldn't wear one to church. Same goes for a number of styles of ladies' dresses. Would you bid someone come to church in an Iolanthe costume, complete with veil and waterweeds? But it's hardly indiscreet or immodest.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say... I guess my beauty's all in my brain and ears, because for me to find a girl attractive, she has to be intelligent and/or have a sweet voice. It's normal and understandable for a guy to be all over the lead soprano in a show - she's probably expecting to have a lot of tenors after her. I find her attractive too. "What colour is her hair? Hmm.... I don't remember. What colour are her eyes? Never looked. Well, how would you describe her? How will I know her when I see her? Errr..... umm...." And yet she's beautiful to me, probably mainly because I saw he speak politely to the pianist. Believe you me, that counts a lot more for attractiveness than showing off her body would have.