According to the article by V. Vasudevan and Minderjeet Kaur which appeared in the NST website on 18 May 2006, a Malaysian Senator in the Dewan Negara had some interesting viewpoints about lewd dressing.
Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi stated that ballet dancers in cultural shows were lewd and indecent, "They look out of place and do not contribute aesthetically to the performance either. Also, their attire could be considered lewd," he said, in reference to the figure-hugging attire ballet dancers wear.
Puad defined lewd attire as that which could cause a man "to turn his head for more than a glance".
This brings up contentious points which perhaps the obviously learned Mr Puad could elaborate on:
1. what constitutes "turn" for "more" than a "glance"? What if my neck hurts and I have to move my head slowly? What if I was not wearing my spectacles and could not see clearly?
2. is it then also lewd if a woman, rather than a man, turns her head for more than a glance?
3. and what if the man concerned (the one with the slow turning head) had low personal morals and high imagination? He would be looking for "more than a glance" at a woman... any woman... wearing anything - lewd or otherwise.
So, here's the issue: Should the standard or definition of lewd dressing be defined by the person who is reacting the most to that type of dressing? Is it not logical that the lower the morals and self control of that person, the more he will react & the longer he will look?!
Then by Puad's definition - won't our moral standards being dictated by those of us who have the lowest morals?
For people who find themselves getting uncomfortable looking at ballet dancers, may I suggest increasing your diet of moral fibre so that one day, you will be able to look at decently dressed women without getting unwanted physical reactions.