|This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2012)|
Modesty is a mode of dress and deportment intended to avoid encouraging sexual attraction in others; actual standards vary widely. In this use, it can be considered inappropriate or immodest to reveal certain parts of the body. A modest person would behave so as to avoid encouraging the sexual attention of others. In some societies, modesty may involve women covering their bodies completely and not talking to men who are not immediate family members; in others a fairly revealing but one-piece bathing costume is considered modest when other women wear bikinis. In some countries, exposure of the body in breach of community standards of modesty is also considered to be public indecency, and public nudity is generally illegal in most of the world and regarded as indecent exposure. However, nudity is at times tolerated in some societies; for example, during a world naked bike ride, while a lone man attempting to walk naked from south to north Britain was repeatedly imprisoned.
Small children are widely not expected to be fully clothed in public until they are grown up. In semi-public contexts standards of modesty vary. Nudity may be acceptable in public single-sex changing rooms at swimming baths, for example, or for mass medical examination of men for military service. In private, standards again depend upon the circumstances. A person who would never disrobe in the presence of a physician of the opposite sex in a social context might unquestioningly do so for a medical examination; others might allow examination, but only by a person of the same sex.
- 1 Necessity
- 2 Body modesty
- 3 In dress
- 4 Traditional indigenous modesty
- 5 Religious traditions of modesty
- 5.1 Buddhist modesty
- 5.2 Christian modesty
- 5.3 Hindu modesty
- 5.4 Islamic modesty
- 5.5 Jewish modesty
- 5.6 Cross-cultural and non-religious modesty
- 6 In the arts
- 7 See also
- 8 Footnotes
At times of public or private emergency, expectations of modest dress may be suspended if necessary. For example, during suspected anthrax attacks in 1998 and 2001 in the United States, groups of people had to strip to their underwear in tents set up in parking lots and other public places for hosing down by fire departments. On the other hand, even in an emergency situation, some people are unable to abandon their need to hide their bodies, even at the risk of their life. This may apply to decontamination after a chemical or biological attack, where removal of contaminated clothing is important, or escaping from a night-time fire without time to dress.
Standards of modesty discourage or forbid exposure of parts of the body, varying between societies, which may include areas of skin, the hair, undergarments, and intimate parts. The standards may also require obscuring the shape of the body or parts of it by wearing non-form-fitting clothing. There are also customs regarding the changing of clothes (such as on a beach with no enclosed facilities), and the closing or locking of the door when changing or taking a shower.
Standards of modesty vary by culture or generation and vary depending on who is exposed, which parts of the body are exposed, the duration of the exposure, the context, and other variables. The categories of persons who could see another's body could include:
- a spouse or partner,
- a friend or family member of the same sex,
- strangers of the same sex,
- people of the same social class.
The context would include matters such as whether it is in one's own home, at another family member's home, at a friend's home, at a semi-public place, at a beach, swimming pool (including whether such venues are considered clothes-optional), changing rooms or other public places. For instance, wearing a bathing suit at the beach would not be considered immodest, while it likely would be in a street or an office.
Proponents of modesty often see it as a demonstration of respect for their bodies, for social norms, and for the feelings of themselves and others. Some critics assert that modesty reflects a negative body image and that there may be a correlation between repressive body attitudes and undesirable outcomes such as sexual crimes, violence, and stress.
Most discussion of modesty involves clothing. The criteria for acceptable modesty and decency have relaxed continuously in much of the world since the nineteenth century, with shorter, form-fitting, and more revealing clothing and swimsuits, more for women than men. Most people wear clothes that they consider not to be unacceptably immodest for their religion, culture, generation, occasion, and the people present. Some wear clothes which they consider immodest, due to exhibitionism, the desire to create an erotic impact, or for publicity.
Generally accepted Western norms
In Western and some other societies, there are differences of opinion as to how much body exposure is acceptable in public. In contemporary Western society, the extent to which a woman may expose cleavage depends on social, cultural and regional context. Women's swimsuits and bikinis commonly may reveal the tops and sides of the breasts, or they may be topless as is common on the beaches of French Riviera. Displaying cleavage is considered permissible in many settings, and is even a sign of elegance and sophistication on many formal social occasions, but it may be considered inappropriate in settings such as workplaces, churches and schools. Showing the nipples or areolae is almost always considered toplessness or partial nudity. However in some circumstances partial breast exposure may be officially sanctioned in church as in 2014, newly elected Pope Francis drew world-wide commentary when he encouraged mothers to breastfeed in church if their babies were hungry.
In private homes, the standards of modesty apply selectively. For instance, nudity among close family members in the home can take place, especially in the bedroom and bathroom, and wearing of undergarments only in the home is common.
In many cultures it is not acceptable to bare the buttocks in public; deliberately doing so is sometimes intended as an insult. In public, Western standards of decency expect people to cover their genitalia, and women to cover their breasts. In the early twenty-first century, public breastfeeding has become increasingly acceptable, sometimes protected by law.
Since the 1980s it has become more common for young and/or fashionable women in Western societies to wear clothing that bared the midriff, "short shorts," backless tops, sheer and other styles considered to be immodest.
Men and women are subject to different standards of modesty in dress. While both men and women, in Western culture, are generally expected to keep their genitals covered at all times, women are also expected to keep their breasts covered. Some body parts are normally more covered by men than women—e.g., the midriff and the upper part of the back. Organizations such as the Topfree Equal Rights Association advocate for gender equality regarding display of the body. In 1992 New York State's highest court accepted 14th Amendment arguments and struck down the provision in New York's Exposure of the Person statute that made it illegal for women to bare their chests where men were permitted to do so.
Naturists or nudists reject contemporary Western standards of modesty which discourage personal, family, and social nudity, and seek to create a social environment where people feel comfortable in the company of nude people, and being seen in the nude, either just by other nudists, or also by the general public.
Traditional indigenous modesty
Traditional indigenous cultures, such as some African and traditional Australian aboriginal cultures, are more relaxed on issues of clothing, though how much clothing is expected varies greatly, from nothing for some women, to everything except the glans penis for men of some tribes. In some African cultures, body painting is considered to be body coverage, and is considered by many an attire.
Religious traditions of modesty
Most world religions have sought to address the moral issues that arise from people's sexuality in society and in human interactions. Each major religion has developed moral codes covering issues of sexuality, morality, ethics etc. Besides other aspects of sexuality, these moral codes seek to regulate the situations which can give rise to sexual interest and to influence people's behaviour and practices which could arouse such interest, or which overstate a person's sexuality. These religious codes have always had a strong influence on peoples' attitudes to issues of modesty in dress, behavior, speech etc.
|This section requires expansion. (October 2013)|
Modesty in dress is important in Buddhism, for women, men and monks. The Sekhiya rules of Buddhist Monastic code, for example, provide guidelines on proper clothing as well as recommended ways of dressing for monks.
I will wear the lower robe [upper robe] wrapped around (me): a training to be observed.—Code 1.2, Sekhiya Rule, 
I will not go [sit] with robes hitched up in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.—Code 9.10, Sekhiya Rule, 
The 'robes hitched up' phrase above refers to lifting one's 1 or 2 piece cloth robe, thereby exposing either side or both sides of one's body to other human beings in an inhabited area. Such exhibitionism is not recommended to monks. Beyond monks, the Buddhist belief is that modesty has a purifying quality to everyone.
According to the New Testament, Peter 3:3-4 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
Proverbs 11:22 As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.
Proverbs 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
Catholics are expected to dress modestly; it is recognised that the forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. The wearing of a headcovering at Mass was for the first time mandated as a universal rule for the Latin Rite by the Code of Canon Law of 1917, abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Apart from that, there have never been any "official" guidelines issued by the Catholic Church. But from time to time the Church hierarchy, and some popes, have given opinions on various matters; although these guidelines are not binding, they are often followed. Pope Pius XII stated that women should cover their upper arms and shoulders, that their skirts should cover at least as far as the knee, and the neckline should not reveal anything. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri of Genoa stated that trousers were unacceptable dress for women. Many traditional Catholics have attempted to further expand on this latter standard.
Some Catholics have attempted to form cohesive theories of modesty. Sometimes this is from a sociological perspective, while at other times it takes a more systematic, Thomistic approach, combined with the writings of the Church Fathers. Approaches arguing primarily from traditional practices and traditional authorities, such as the Saints, can also be found.
Around 1913, it became fashionable for dresses to be worn with a modest round or V-shaped neckline. In the German Empire, for example, all Roman Catholic bishops joined in issuing a pastoral letter attacking the new fashions.
The Catholic Legion of Decency has been active from 1933 in monitoring morally objectionable content in films. It has condemned a number of films including several on account of the clothing worn. For example, the Legion has condemned the display of cleavage in The Outlaw (1941) and in The French Line (1954).
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has issued official statements on modest dress for its members. Clothing such as "short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back" are discouraged. Men and women are also encouraged to avoid extremes in clothing or hairstyles. Rules on modesty also include women being asked to wear no more than one pair of earrings. Women are generally expected to wear skirts or dresses for church services. Most LDS members do not wear sleeveless shirts or shorts that do not reach the knee.
Many other Trinitarian Christians also consider modesty extremely important, though considerable differences of opinion exist about its requirements and purposes. Amish groups and some Mennonite groups like Conservative Mennonites are known for their adherence to modest fashion styles. Evangelical Christians and Holiness Christians also have strict guidelines on modesty.
The premise and concepts of modesty have evolved under Hinduism. During Vedic times, both women and men wore at least two pieces of draped dress that was largely undifferentiated, voluntary and flexible. Stitched clothes such as skirts and bodices were also common in Vedic period. However, modesty was not determined by the precepts of religion, but by local traditions, social codes, profession, circumstances and occasion. The multiple pieces of draped dress for women evolved into a single length of draped cloth among Indian Hindus, now called sari; but remained two or more pieces in Southeast Asian Hindus. For men, the draped dress reduced to one piece now called by various names such as dhoti, lungi, pancha, laacha and other names among Indian Hindus, and kamben among Balinese Hindu.
The Hindu belief, suggests Bayly, is that modesty through appropriate dress has the energy to transmit spirit and substance in a social discourse, the dress serves as a means of expression or celebration, with some dressing elements such as saffron threads or white dress worn by men as moral, transformative and a means to identify and communicate one’s social role in a gathering, or one's state of life such as mourning in days or weeks after the passing away of a loved one.
The canons of modesty for Hindus in South Asia underwent significant changes with the arrival of Islam in the 12th century. The Islamic rulers imposed a dress code in public places for Hindu dhimmis, per their Islamic mores of modesty. The sari worn by Hindu women extended to provide a veil, as well as a complete cover of her navel and legs. In the early 18th century, Tryambakayajvan—a court official in south central India—issued an edict called Stridharmapaddhati. The ruling outlined required dress code for orthodox Hindus in that region. Stridharmapaddhati laced social trends with Hindu religion to place new rules on modesty for women, but gave much freedom to men.
The concept of modesty evolved again during colonial times when the British administration required Indians to wear dresses to help identify and segregate the local native populations. Bernard Cohn, and others remark that dress during colonial era became part of a wider issue in India about respect, honor and modesty, with the dress code intentionally aimed by the administration to reflect the nature of relationship between the British ruler and the Indian ruled. The British colonial empire, encouraged and sometimes required Indians to dress in an 'oriental manner', to help define and enforce a sense of modesty, identify roles and a person's relative social status. Among Indonesian Hindus, the accepted practice of toplessness among teenage Hindu girls changed during the Dutch colonial rule, with women now wearing a blouse or colorful cloth.
Inside most Hindu temples, there is an expectation of modesty rather than sexual allurement. Men and women typically wear traditional dress during religious ceremonies and rituals in a temple, with women wearing sari or regional Indian dress. In Indonesia and Cambodia, Hindu temple visitors are often requested to wrap their waist with traditional single piece cloth called kamben, wastra or sarung, with or without saput.
Hindus have diverse views on modesty, with significant regional and local variations. Among orthodox Hindu populations, sexually revealing dress or any sexual behavior in public or before strangers is considered immodest, particularly in rural areas. In contrast, the dress of deities and other symbolism in Hindu temples, the discussion of dress and eroticism in ancient Hindu literature, and art works of Hinduism can be explicit, celebrating eroticism and human sexuality.
In general, a disregard of modesty can be confusing or distressing, in particular to traditional Hindu women. Even in health care context, some Hindu women may express reluctance to undress for examination. If undressing is necessary, the patient may prefer to be treated by a doctor or nurse of the same sex.
Islam has strongly emphasized the concept of decency and modesty in the interaction between members of the opposite sex. Dress code is part of that overall teaching.
"And tell the believing women to cast down their glances and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women." -Quran 24:31.
“O Prophet! Say to your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers that: they should let down upon themselves their jalabib.” -Quran 33:59. Jalabib is an Arabic word meaning "loose outer garment".
In some Muslim societies, women wear the niqab, a veil that covers the whole face except the eyes, or the full burqa, a full-body covering garment that occasionally does cover the eyes. Wearing these garments is common in some, but not all, countries with a predominantly Muslim population.
Though by some scholars these expressions of modesty are interpreted as mandatory, most countries do not enforce modesty by law. However, a few countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran, enforce specified standards of dress for women.
"Tell the believing men to cast down their glances and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do." -Quran 24:30
Most scholars agree that men are required to cover everything from 'navel to knee'; some men choose also to wear the traditional Islamic cap (taqiyah), similar to but larger than the Jewish yarmulke or kippah. The taqiyah may vary in shape, size and color, with differences according to tradition, region, and personal taste.
Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish women usually wear skirts to their knees, with blouses covering the collarbone and sleeves coming to or covering elbows. See-through materials may not be used and clothes are expected not to be tight-fitting, provocative, loud in color, or display texts. These rules are relaxed to allow for color and text in less strict communities. Some modern Orthodox communities allow the collarbone to be shown (so long as cleavage is amply covered), and sleeves not to reach the elbow. There are many different opinions on these issues. Some communities apply these standards to girls as young as three. Less strict Conservative Judaism recommends modest dress, but this is not broadly observed. Less restrictive branches of Judaism tend to adopt the fashions of the society in which they live.
It is the custom for an observant married Orthodox Jewish woman to cover her hair in public, and sometimes at home. The hair covering may be a scarf, hat, snood called a Tichel, or a wig called a Sheitel.
Women who do not follow all the regulations in everyday life, often do so during religious observances in a synagogue or elsewhere.
Standards of modesty also apply to men. While some men will wear shorts and short-sleeve shirts, many strictly observant Orthodox men will not.
Cross-cultural and non-religious modesty
In the arts
Standards of modesty in art have varied at different times and in different places. Nudity and various types of behaviour were sometimes depicted, sometime not. In many cases where society did not allow nudity or immodest dress, nudity was accepted in art. Where nudity in art was not acceptable, full nudity was not displayed; otherwise nude subjects had their private parts hidden by apparently accidental draped fabric, flowers, other people, a fig leaf, etc. In films, very brief nudity was accepted. Some nude artworks had fig leaves added when standards became less permissive.
In a given society, the criteria varied according to the circumstances; for example artworks on public display were more restrained than those for private display to adults.
Nudity in art was sometimes suggested without actual depiction by:
- something seemingly by chance covering the private parts
- in film:
- showing a supposedly nude person from the waist or shoulders up
- maneuvering (turning, having objects in front) and editing in such a way that no genitals are seen
- showing nudity from a distance, or from the back only, although other characters are nearby and/or would also see frontal nudity
- showing nudity very briefly
In cartoons, even in cases where the genital area is not covered with clothing, genitals are often simply not drawn, as is the case in Family Guy and other animated sitcoms. In the film Barnyard, showing anthropomorphized cattle of both sexes walking on two legs, instead of either showing genitals of male cattle or not showing them, the concept of a "male cow" was used, with an udder. In Underdog a partly animated anthropomorphized dog is shown with penis when a real dog is filmed, and without penis in the animated parts.
Paintings are sometimes changed because of changed modesty standards, and later sometimes changed back. During the Counter-Reformation there was a "fig-leaf campaign" aiming to cover all representations of human genitals in paintings and sculptures, started with Michelangelo's works. Works covered in this way include the marble statue of Cristo della Minerva (church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome) which was covered by added drapery, as it remains today, and the statue of the naked child Jesus in Madonna of Bruges (The Church of Our Lady in Bruges, Belgium) remained covered for several decades. Also, the plaster copy of the David in the Cast Courts (Victoria and Albert Museum) in London, has a fig leaf in a box at the back of the statue. It was there to be placed over the statue's genitals so that they would not upset visiting female royalty.
- Evolution of morality
- Indecent exposure
- Sex segregation
- Topfree equality
- Guardian newspaper: World Naked Bike Ride – in pictures, 10 June 2012 While most of the riders are naked, all the photographs in this series obscure details by strategically places handlebars.
- Guardian newspaper: Naked rambler vows to walk on, 26 August 2003
- We'd rather die than take our clothes off, disaster planners say, By Dru Sefton, Newhouse News Service, Nation & World: Saturday, May 25, 2002
- Why are Britons so bad at being naked? Sarah Ditum, The Guardian, United Kingdom (16 January 2013)
- Salmansohn, Karen. "The Power of Cleavage". The Huffington Post, October 29, 2007.
- Pope Francis encourages mothers to breastfeed - even in the Sistine Chapel | World news | The Guardian
- "Breastfeeding Laws". Breastfeeding State Laws. National Conference of State Legislatures, United States.
- Santorelli & Schloss v. State of New York
- See 2002–2003 World Naturist Handbook, pub International Naturist Federation INF-FNI, Sint Hubertusstraat, B-2600 Berchem(Antwerpen) ISBN 90-5583-833-0 The Agde definition. The INF is made up of representative of the Naturist Organizations in 32 countries, with 7 more having correspondent status. The current edition is * Naturisme, The INF World Handbook (2006)  ISBN 90-5062-080-9
- http://www.inf-fni.org/index_e.htm%7C INF web page
- The 75 sekhiyas Buddhism Dhamma Dana (2009)
- Buddhist Monastic Code I Chapter 10, Sekhiya Rules, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2007)
- Edward Thomas (2002), The History of Buddhist Thought, Dover Publications, ISBN 978-0486421049, pp 163, 207-208
- See, e.g.,  Para. 2521-2524.
- "1917 Codex Iuris Canonici". Canon 1262, Section 2. (Latin)
- "Canon 6 §1 of the Code of Canon Law".
- See all the following citations, which all expound at least partly upon such guidelines.
- Modesty and beauty - the lost connection by Regina Schmiedicke
- Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri (1960)
- See G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World, Part III, Chap. V, for an early attempt (1910); see also In Praise of the Skirt, for a more contemporary one (2006)
- The Modesty Handbook (describing the nature of modesty from a Catholic perspective, based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church Fathers).
- See, e.g., Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow the Fashions by Robert T. Hart (2004).
- Gernsheim, Alison. Victorian and Edwardian Fashion. A Photographic Survey. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 1981. Reprint of 1963 edition. ISBN 0-486-24205-6, p. 94
- "Dress and Appearance", For the Strength of Youth.
- The Brigham Young University Honor Code, which includes "Dress and Grooming Standards," agreement to which is required for application.
- See, e.g., Modesty: The Undressing of Our Youth, by Lenora Hammond.
- The Modesty Survey: An anonymous discussion among Christians concerning various aspects of modesty.
- Emma Tarlo (1996), Clothing Matters: Dress and Identity in India, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0226789767; page 28-30
- C.A. Bayly, D.H.A. Kolff, Two Colonial Empires: Comparative Essays on the History of India and Indonesia in the Nineteenth Century, Springer, ISBN 978-9024732746
- Lesile, J. (Editor) (1992), Roles and Rituals for Hindu Women, Motilal Banarsidass Publications
- Bernard Cohn (1987), An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195618754
- Robert Ross, Clothing: A Global History, Cambridge, ISBN 978-0-7456-3186-8
- see Bernard Cohn, "Cloth, Clothes and Colonialism: India in the 19th Century", and Susan Bean, "Gandhi and Khadi: The Fabric of Independence"; both in Weiner and Schneider (editors), Cloth and Human Experience, Smithsonian Institution Press (1989)
- Nye, M. (1995). A Place for Our Gods: The Construction of an Edinburgh Hindu Temple Community (Vol. 8). Psychology Press
- Rubinstein and Connor (1999), Staying Local in the Global Village: Bali in the Twentieth Century, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0824821173
- Gupta, M. (1994). "Sexuality in the Indian subcontinent". Sexual and Marital Therapy, 9(1), pp 57–69
- McConnachie, J. (2008), The Book of Love: The Story of the Kamasutra, Macmillan
- Dwyer, R. (2000). "The erotics of the wet sari in Hindi films". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 23(2), pp 143–160
- Ichaporia, N. (1983). "Tourism at Khajuraho an Indian enigma?" Annals of Tourism Research, 10(1), 75–92
- Culture and Religion Information Sheet: Hinduism Government of Western Australia (July 2012), page 7
- "Modesty: Not Only A Woman's Burden", Patheos
- The Laws of Jewish Modesty[dead link]
- http://canadianundercover.wordpress.com/about/ Canadian Undercover