[WillowTheWhisp]

There's a slight danger here of going from one extreme to another.

I see no reason why a girl or woman shouldn't be allowed to cover the parts of her body which modesty and her religion dictate should be covered. In our church we have a particular dress standard which means that our girls don't wear short skirts, backless dresses or off the shoulder numbers. What they do wear however doesn't make them stand out glaringly obviously in a crowd, it just has a little more material in it than what some other people have. That doesn't mean we have any objection to other people dressing as they wish either.

I can't see why a muslim girl shouldn't be able to cover the parts of her body she wishes to cover (which is a bit more than our girls as it's all the legs and arms) without it having to be flowing material which may endanger them in certain situations. (Isadora Duncan suddenly came to mind then.)

If I went to a country where the usual form of dress included a bare midriff for instance I wouldn't want to adopt that dress style because it wouldn't comply with my own standards so I can quite understand the wish not to adopt the usual style of western dress with short sleeves and short skirts, but I think I would try to find some kind of happy medium which didn't compromise my dress standards. Does that make sense?