I think the question about whether women are responsible for men's sin needs a very important distinction. Women are never responsible for the sin in someone else's mind. They can be potentially responsible for putting a stumbling block in front of someone else. A clear distinction between "stumbling block" and "being the cause of someone else's sin" needs to be made here. After all, a stumbling block could theoretically be laid down and no one stumbles over it, because no one happened to be present. The intention of the person laying down the stumbling block would still be sinful even if no one "fell for it." On the other hand, if a person does not intentionally or unintentionally lay down a stumbling block at all, and someone else falls into sin, there is no blame whatsoever attaching to the first person. So, to use the question at issue, if a woman were to dress with the intention of luring men to lust after her, and a man wound up falling into the sin of lust, the woman would not be guilty for his sin of lust, but would be guilty of her own sin of putting down the stumbling block. She would still be guilty of that sin even if no men happened across her path, because of her intent (a vitally important component of the discussion). On the other hand, if a woman is dressing entirely modestly with no thought whatsoever given to the question (or especially if she is dressing trying to discourage lust in men), and a man still lusts after her, she is no way guilty of sin at all. It is all on him.
I think this distinction is incredibly important. On the one hand, I hear women, even on this thread, who, while rightly concerned about women being blamed for men's sin, but because maybe this distinction is not being observed, are therefore tempted to think that the blame is all on the man for lust, and that there is no such sin as stumbling block creation. There most definitely is such a sin!
On the question of the Bible and modesty, the Bible mentions it and advocates it, but does not define what precisely constitutes it. We can say certain things. 1. Revealing the body parts of procreation is immodest. 2. Revealing enough for the sake of luring a person into lust (whether man to woman or woman to man) is immodest. 3. Context and intention are important. 4. Exact quantity of skin revealed is less important than other considerations. If you were a Jewish male in a concentration camp watching the Germans command all your Jewish sisters to undress, would you find their state tempting to lust? I think not. Outrage would be the most likely result. Life is more important than clothes. So there is a possible example of where even the state of nakedness is not necessarily "immodest" in the sense of intent. There, shame and victimhood come more to the fore. Similarly, a person who might be said to be fully dressed acting like a prostitute would still fall foul of immodesty, which is not just a question of how much a person is wearing, but also must include the intentions of the heart, and the attitude that the person is adopting with regard to the people around them.
smiley or even a typed out [tongue-in-cheek] label would have clued some of us in.
, have already misunderstood your earlier humor above, so I am hesitant to respond directly until I am certain I am understanding you. 
