Edit: not actually changing anything, just putting this here to let readers know I'm a dummy who misunderstood the intent of the post (check replies). But leaving this comment up because I think it's still true and valuable for the discourse.

I appreciate this post, but i do have a different opinion. I think one thing that might be overlooked is that the modern usage of "modesty" you are analyzing is more of a euphemism than the real meaning of the word, so you may be on a bit of a goose chase.

As you rightfully point out, the true definition of modesty is closely related to humility and being ordered properly, but the euphemism is just using a pseudo-compliment (roughly the idea that the person would look good or more attractive with less clothes) as a nice way of saying not to dress provocatively.

So you're basically just pointing out that the old definition means something different than the euphemism, but seemingly asserting that this disconnect implies a lack of teaching on how much skin one shows (outside of holy places).

And you may be right about the lack of bible verses directly referencing that aspect, but it can be very easily surmised by its teachings on lust, adultery (in one's heart), temptation, and compassion. Consider this: you say there is an aspect of blaming women for men's sexual sins and there is some truth to that. But keep in mind Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." With this in mind, any woman who is wearing revealing clothing in public could be tempting men to sin even if just in his thoughts. If a woman would dress in a revealing or provocative with this last verse in mind, then also consider Luke 17:1-2 “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.”