Sen. Mitch Holmes, a committee chairman who came under withering criticism over the weekend for a dress code targeted at women, apologized Tuesday after defending it days earlier.

"My failure to clearly specify that all conferees, regardless of gender, should strive to present themselves professionally is unacceptable," Holmes said in a short statement.

"I apologize and meant no offense. I have decided to retract the conferee guidelines."

Holmes, R-St. John, chairs the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee and his guidelines -- which he also called rules -- for witnesses appearing before the group included a direction to women.

"For ladies," the guideline said, "low-cut necklines and mini-skirts are inappropriate."

Holmes' rule drew condemnation on social media, but attracted national attention Friday after a Topeka Capital-Journal story. In reaction, Holmes initially defended himself, and made insinuations about the patriotism of the reporter who wrote the story.

Holmes said the list - including the point about attire - were not enforceable rules, but guidelines intended to help witnesses be effective.

"The guideline is just that: a guideline," Holmes wrote on Facebook on Saturday.

"It is intended to help those who testify to be effective in their presentation. This guideline has been in place for several years with no controversy. No one has ever been blocked or ever will be (except for something outlandish)."

Holmes, during an earlier interview, did not dispute the guideline's characterization as a rule. In the Facebook post, he suggested he had not handled the numerous resulting media inquiries well.

Holmes wrote he is not a "shrewd lawyer" type who can formulate thoughts rapidly, and that he had made the mistake of repeating the terms used by reporters instead of clarifying.

But in a Facebook post from the day before, Holmes wrote a reporter had decided to make an issue of the "committee rules" he used. In that first post, Holmes offered a defense and explanation of the rule.

He said several years ago, a lobbyist appeared before the committee with a neckline that extended almost to her naval.

"I added this rule out of respect for the other women in the room, and out of respect for the wives of the men in the room, including my own wife," Holmes wrote.

In the post, Holmes also indicated a email he received suggested a rule banning men from exposing any underwear.

"Perhaps I do need a rule saying that men must have their pants up around their waists. After all, I really don't want to see a lobbyist waddling into the committee room," Holmes wrote.

Holmes drew criticism from several female colleagues. Four senators - two Republicans, two Democrats - made statements critical of the code.

They asked who would define low-cut, and whether it applied to senators.

"I am more interested in what they have to say about the direction our state should go than what they're wearing that day," Sen. Carolyn McGinn, a Sedgwick Republican, said.

Holmes and his dress code were featured in media outlets around the nation and world. Articles appeared on CBS News, TIME magazine, Vox and Buzzfeed.

Additionally, editorials in Kansas newspapers -- including the Capital-Journal -- criticized the code.

The Senate President, Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, had earlier appeared to indicate Holmes would have to back down. She predicted last week to the Associated Press that the committee would reconsider the dress code Wednesday at its next meeting.

Wagle, who is a member of the committee but wasn't present when the rules were given to members, indicated she wasn't inclined to intervene personally. It's unclear if the committee will still take action Wednesday or if Holmes' unilateral action suffices.