What about the rest of the meaning of what Paul was talking about?
Meanwhile those who are poor are drummed out of church by the rich women who can afford $600 dresses and outfits.
It's true that modesty in part has to do with not flaunting wealth, and it's negligent for a church not to address that- as some do; but if people are getting "drummed out" by wealthy people, they're probably better off in a different church anyway.
I'm not saying that poor and unkempt people that have difficulty with clothing issues should be harassed: quite the opposite. If anything, someone should buy them clothes!
Which is covered in his "lost letters" that aren't really lost....they just aren't scripture so nobody really knows and just assumes a misogynistic viewpoint.
What specific non-scriptural writing are you referring to? And how do people "assume a mysogynistic viewpoint"? It's not even a gender-specific issue. Observing that it is more typical of women isn't misogyny any more than observing anger and violence being more typical of men is androgyny.
You say you're not promoting nudity; but suggest early Christians met at gymnasiums, where people were nude. Are you suggesting they assembled for church meetings there? What is your source material for that? Because it sounds pretty absurd.
Christians are naturally going to stand out from worldly people. I don't mean they should "try to" stand out. People that cover their nakedness and are practical with wealth will naturally stand out from worldly people, because that's not the way of the world. Modesty is definitely not about "blending in" or going with the crowd, or following cultural trends. It pays no respect to those things; you can even culturally assimilate without compromising modesty if you need to assimilate somewhere for some reason.
And the bit where you try to shame Oyster for "lust" doesn't really work, because it doesn't matter if someone is a Christian or not; even if there is some pagan heathen woman provoked to lust by a 'christian' man's overt immodesty, it's just as much on the man (or vice versa). And lack of intent isn't really an excuse either; just as if I ate food offered to an idol in public- the intent is to eat, and not worship a false god, but it comes off as worship, and could cause someone else to think it's okay to worship a false god. We have a responsibility toward the conscience of others in public. It doesn't sound very "American" but it's biblical. In the privacy of your own home you can get in the nude and bathe in a tub of Jell-o that was offered to Buddah and it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect anyone else.
I just heard a preacher on the radio boast about how he was preaching in a tank-top, and how his church had no dress code; and he went further on to say that some people didn't like it, because "they were full of lust, and couldn't handle it". I have no idea what this guy looks like- but let's assume he is this muscular attractive dude. Is some young girl that is distracted by his pecs bursting forth from his tank top and unable to focus on the message being preached:
1) is this girl "full of LUST" or
2) is this preacher full of HIMSELF?
So, it's not a sexism, or misogyny thing. This can effect everyone- and the people that it will effect the
most are the people in
denial. The people that, for the sake of false-liberty, will pretend that public sexual attraction doesn't have negative effects, or effect them, because they are just that mature and holy. Even a legitimately asexual person that doesn't observe any sexual attraction in themselves can still see it's effects in the people around them; it's simple biology and not rocket science or anything that is difficult to understand.
... Wrong again. 
