Man and woman in swimsuits, ca. 1910; she is exiting a bathing machine

Recreation on a California beach in the first decade of the 20th century

Standards of modesty (also called demureness or reticence) are aspects of the culture of a country or people, at a given point in time, and is a measure against which an individual in society may be judged.^{[citation needed]}

Modesty may be expressed in social interaction by communicating in a way exhibiting humility, shyness, or simplicity. The general elements of modesty include:

• Downplaying one's accomplishments (see humility)
• Behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency
• Avoiding insincere self-abasement through false or sham modesty, which is a form of boasting.^{[citation needed]}

A second expression of modesty, isolated from communication and human interface, focuses more on internal perception of superiority and may be expressed in the following ways:

• through work ethic,
• motivation for self improvement,
• and tolerance of others.^{[citation needed]}

Physical modesty dominates the social stage. Fashions and fads at times test the limits of community standards of modesty. People can be subjected to peer pressure, both to conform to community standards or to flout them. Community standards of modesty however may be driven by a sense of superiority, which contrasts some definitions of modesty.

Necessity[link]

At times of public or private emergency expectations of modesty are suspended, or modified to the extent of the emergency. 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.^[1] On the other hand, even in an emergency situation, some people still insist on maintaining their standards of modesty.^[1]

Also, there are occasions when standards of modesty are waived, as in the case of medical examinations.

Body modesty[link]

1868 diagram from Harper's Bazaar, showing a mid-Victorian idea of how the hemlines of girls' skirts should descend towards the ankle as a girl ages

Standards of modesty usually discourage non-essential exposure of the body. This applies to the bare skin, hair and undergarments, and especially to intimate parts. The standards not only call for the covering of parts of the body, but also obscuring their shape, by wearing non form-fitting clothing. There are also standards covering the changing of clothes (such as on a beach), 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.

Excessive modesty is called prudishness. As a medical condition it is also called gymnophobia. Excessive immodesty is called exhibitionism.

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 people believe modesty may reduce sexual crimes^{[citation needed]}. Some critics assert that modesty reflects a negative body image, and there may be a correlation between repressive body attitudes and undesirable outcomes such as sexual crimes, violence, and stress.^[2]

Modesty in dress[link]

Three Ukrainian men, wearing trunks and briefs, attract attention for immodesty relative to the local norm in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh.

Most discussion of modesty involves clothing. Issues of modesty and decency have arisen especially during the 20th century as a result of the increased popularity in many countries of shorter and form fitting dresses and swimsuits and the consequential exposure of more of the body. This has been more pronounced in the case of female fashions. Most people consider the clothes that they are wearing to be modest. Otherwise, they would not wear the clothes. What is considered "modest" in this context will depend on the context when the clothes will be worn and can vary between religions, cultures, generations, occasions, and the persons who are present. Those who intentionally wear clothes which they consider immodest may be manifesting exhibitionism or seeking to create an erotic impact.

Generally accepted Western norms[link]

As a minimum, Western standards of decency expect both men and women to cover their genitalia, especially in public. In the case of woman, this usually extends to the exposure of breasts.

What is considered appropriate depends on context. For example, in single-sex public changing rooms some level of disrobing is expected.

In Western and some other societies, there are differences of opinion as to how much body exposure is acceptable in public.^[3] In contemporary Western society, the extent to which a woman may expose cleavage depends on social and cultural context. Women's swimsuits and bikinis commonly reveal the tops and sides of the breasts. 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.

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 the wearing undergarments in the home is common. Elsewhere in the home, particularly when visitors are present, some simple casual clothing is expected like a bathrobe, which can be quickly donned when full clothing is not required, or if it is unavailable nearby, depending on convenience.

Gender differences[link]

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. However, images of naked soldiers became somewhat acceptable for mainstream consumption during WWII, with publications such as Life magazine showing photographs of them bathing and advertisements depicting this in cartoon form^{[citation needed]}. High-school age boys began to swim in the nude in many schools during this time as well, a practice that was abandoned in the 1970s^{[citation needed]}. Additionally, the dictates of fashion and societal norms, some body parts are expected to be more covered by men than women, e.g. the midriff and the upper part of the back. Also, swimming pants are often larger for men than for women. Prior to the 1930s, men were generally prohibited from baring their chests in public, even at beaches^{[citation needed]}. Organizations such as the Topfree Equal Rights Association advocate for gender equality in this regard. 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.^[4]

In many cultures men's and women's bare buttocks are not acceptable in public areas.

Naturism[link]

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.^[5][6]

Traditional indigenous modesty[link]

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[link]

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.

Islamic modesty[link]

A headscarf

Modesty has been and continues to be considered important in Islamic society, but the interpretation of what dress constitutes modesty varies. One traditional opinion is that Muslim women are required to observe the hijab, covering everything but the hands and face, as a sign of modesty. Some Muslims are of the opinion that modesty is not restricted to dress but also depends on the intentions of the individual and that the Quran does not command the hijab or the like. 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 countries with a majority Muslim population.

A taqiyah cap

Though in Islam these expressions of modesty are interpreted as mandatory, most countries do not enforce it by law. However, they are enforced in a handful of countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran.

Likewise, men are required to cover everything from 'navel to knee'; with some men choosing to extend this to the traditional Islamic head covering taqiyah (cap), the male counterpart to hijab which closely resembles the Jewish yarmulke or kippah but is slightly larger in size. The taqiyah cap may vary in shape, size or color just as the hijab does, with many regional differences according to tradition and personal taste.

Jewish modesty[link]

Three styles of hair covering common among married Orthodox women. From right to left: snood, fall, and hat.

Modesty in Judaism, called Tzniut, is important beyond aspects of clothing. It extends to behaviour in public and in private, and depends on the context.

In Judaism, women wear skirts to their knees and to cover their elbows, with blouses covering the collarbone and sleeves coming to or covering elbows.^[7] See-through materials may not be used and clothes are expected not to be tight-fitting, provocative, loud in color, or display texts.^[8] These rules are relaxed to allow for color and text in less strict communities. In addition, some modern orthodox communities allow for the collarbone to be shown (as long as cleavage is amply covered) and for sleeves to reach above the elbow. There are many different opinions on these issues. Some communities apply these standards to girls as young as three. Non-orthodox Jewish women tend to adopt the fashions of the non-Jewish society in which they live.

It is the custom for an observant married 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

Standards of modesty also apply to men. While some men will wear shorts and short-sleeve shirts, many right wing Orthodox men will not. Additionally, men are required to cover the crown of their head (although not out of modesty, but as respect for God) and they traditionally do so with kippot and, in some cases, a hat.^[7]

Christian modesty[link]

Catholic Church[link]

A placard informs tourists about the minimum dress standards required to enter St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican

Catholics are expected to dress modestly.^[9] The wearing of a headcovering was for the first time mandated as a universal rule for the Latin Rite by the Code of Canon Law of 1917.^[10] which code was abrogated by the advent of the present (1983) Code of Canon Law,.^[11] Apart from that, there have never been any "official" guidelines issued by the Catholic Church. But, from time to time the Church hierarchy, and even some popes, have given opinions on various matters; although these "guidelines" are not binding on Catholics, many tradition-minded Catholics find them persuasive.^[12] 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.^[13] Another example is Giuseppe Cardinal Siri of Genoa, who stated that trousers were unacceptable dress for women.^[14] Many tradition-minded Catholics have attempted to further expand on this latter standard.^[15]

Some Catholics have attempted to form cohesive theories of modesty. Sometimes this is from a sociological perspective,^[13] while at other times it takes a more systematic, Thomistic approach, combined with the writings of the Church Fathers.^[16] Approaches arguing primarily from traditional practices and traditional authorities, such as the saints, can also be found.^[17]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[link]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has issued official statements on modest dress for its members. Clothing which can stimulate sexual desires, such as "short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach"^[18] 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.^[18] In church buildings, it is generally expected for women to wear skirts or dresses for services. Most LDS do not wear sleeveless shirts or shorts above the knee.

The Church also requires students of Brigham Young University (BYU), its private university, to sign an agreement to live according to these standards of modesty before being considered for admission. Such standards must also be accepted by tenants of BYU housing regardless of the tenants' enrollment status with BYU.^[19]

Other Churches[link]

Many other Trinitarian Christians also consider modesty extremely important,^[20] though considerable differences of opinion exist about its requirements and purposes.^[21] Amish groups and some Mennonite groups are known for their adherence to modest fashion styles. Evangelical Christians and Holiness Christians also have strict guidelines on modesty.

Cross Cultural and Non-Religious Modesty[link]

Some individuals adopt modesty standards of other groups or standards of previous generations.^[22] An example includes the Noahides who follow Jewish laws but are not themselves Jewish.

Modesty in the arts[link]

Cupidon (French for Cupid), by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1875; the tip of the right wing covers the boy's genitals.

In works of art, the supposed modesty of the depicted character is often compatible with the intended modesty of the artwork. For example, the character wears clothes or a fig leaf, or the character is at a distance from other people and/or there are only people at his backside (with the artwork showing the scene from their point of view), and/or, in the case of a movie, he or she is nude only briefly.

In other cases the depicted character is less modest, or the situation he or she is in requires less modesty, than intended for the artwork. For example, the character is in a private situation, while the artwork is for public display, or the character (for example in a movie) is in a sex-segregated changing room, while the audience is mixed (or in a room where minors are not allowed, while they are in the audience), or the film plot involves inappropriate behavior of a character, while the film avoids being inappropriate itself. Although modesty rules for art tend to be less strict than for real life, depiction of nudity is sometimes reduced in these cases, in the interest of modesty, by the use of:

• a piece of cloth (or something else) seemingly by chance covering the genitals
• with regard to nudity in film, filming a supposedly nude person from the waist up (or from the shoulders up, for women)
• in a movie, maneuvering (turning, having objects in front) and film editing in such a way that no genitals are seen
• showing nudity from a distance, and/or from the backside only, although other characters are nearby and/or would also see frontal nudity
• in a movie, showing nudity for a shorter time than the character is supposed to be nude (this effect can be reduced by a viewer having control over the playback, such as at home, as opposed to in a movie theater, by pausing it)

In cartoons, even in cases where the genital area is not covered with clothing, genitals are often simply not drawn. 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, see Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Fig leaf.

See also[link]

• Evolution of morality
• Exhibitionism
• Indecent exposure
• Sex segregation
• SlutWalk
• Topfree equality
• Tzniut

Footnotes[link]

Joseph Walton Losey (January 14, 1909, La Crosse, Wisconsin – June 22, 1984, London) was an American theater and film director. After studying in Germany with Bertolt Brecht, Losey returned to the United States, eventually making his way to Hollywood. In the 1950s Losey was blacklisted in the United States and moved to Europe where he made the remainder of his films, mostly in the United Kingdom.

Biography[link]

This section requires expansion.

Early life and career[link]

During the McCarthy Era, Losey was named during hearings of the HUAC for his supposed ties with the Communist Party. Although he was never officially blacklisted, his career in the US declined, and he moved to England to continue working as a director.^[1]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Even in the UK, he experienced problems: his first British film, The Sleeping Tiger, a 1954 film noir crime thriller, bore the pseudonym Victor Hanbury, rather than his own name, in the credits as director, as the stars of the film, Alexis Smith and Alexander Knox, feared being blacklisted in Hollywood due to working on a film he directed. He was also originally slated to direct the 1956 Hammer Films production X the Unknown; however, after a few days work on the project, star Dean Jagger refused to work with a supposed Communist sympathiser and Losey was moved off the project.

Collaboration with Harold Pinter[link]

In the 1960s, Losey began working with playwright Harold Pinter, the collaboration beginning what would be a long friendship and a successful career for Pinter as a screenwriter. Losey realized three films from Pinter's screenplays, The Servant (1963), Accident (1967) and The Go-Between (1971), all of which have made a mark in the traditions of British, European, and American art house cinema. The Servant won three British Academy Film Awards.^[2] Accident won the Grand Prix Spécial du Jury award at the 1967 Cannes Film Festival.^[3] And The Go-Between won, among others, the Golden Palm Award at the 1971 Cannes Film Festival, four prizes at the 1972 BAFTA awards, and 'Best British Screenplay' at the 1972 Writers' Guild of Great Britain awards.^[4] Each of the Pinter-Losey films examines the politics of sexuality, gender, and class in 1960s and 1970s Britain. In The Servant, a manservant named Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde) facilitates the moral and psychological degradation of a member of the nouveau riche named Tony (James Fox); Accident explores male lust, hypocrisy, and ennui amongst the educated middle class as two Oxford tutors named Stephen (Bogarde) and Charley (Stanley Baker) competitively objectify a pupil named Anna (Jacqueline Sassard) against the backdrop of their seemingly idyllic lives. In The Go-Between, a young working class boy named Leo Colston (Dominic Guard) is involved in both facilitating and undermining a socially transgressive affair between an upper class woman named Marian Maudsley (Julie Christie) and a working class farmer named Ted Burgess (Alan Bates).

Losey's move from The Servant to the subsequent two films saw him experimenting increasingly with the mechanisms of cinema, in particular a rendering of time that was not linear but layered and thus exemplary of the subjective experience of memory. Although Losey's films can in the main be described as naturalistic, The Servant's hybridization of Losey's signature Baroque style, film noir, naturalism, and expressionism and both Accident's and The Go-Between's radical cinematography, use of montage, voice over, and musical score amount to a sophisticated construction of cinematic time and narrative perspective which edges this work in the direction of neorealist cinema. All three films are marked by Pinter's sparse, elliptical, and enigmatically subtextual dialogue, something Losey often develops a visual correlate for and occasionally even works against by means of dense and cluttered mise en scene and peripatetic camera work.

Pinter later worked with Losey on The Proust Screenplay (1972), an adaptation of A la recherche du temps perdu by Marcel Proust; however, the finances were never found to realize a film before Losey died.

Later career[link]

In 1975, Losey realized a long-planned adaptation of Brecht's Galileo (aka Life of Galileo). Losey had co-directed the original U.S. production of Galileo with the author himself as the other co-director (and Charles Laughton, who had worked on the translation/adaptation, had had the lead role, taken in the film by Topol). Galileo was produced as part of the subscription film series of the American Film Theatre, though it was shot in England. In the context of that production, Losey also made a half hour film based on Galileo's life.

In 1979 Losey filmed Mozart's opera Don Giovanni, shot in Villa La Rotonda and the Veneto region of Italy: this film was nominated for several César Awards in 1980 including Best Director. He demonstrated a facility for working in the French language and Monsieur Klein (1976) gave Alain Delon as star and producer one of French cinema's earliest chances to highlight the background to the infamous Vel' d'Hiv Roundup of French Jews in July 1942.

Private life[link]

Losey married three times. From 1956 to 1963 he was married to British actress Dorothy Bromiley; they had a son, Joshua Losey, an actor. He had a son, Gavrik Losey, with the fashion designer/author Elizabeth Hawes. Gavrik helped out with the production on some of his father's films. Losey then married the former Patricia Mohan, who adapted Lorenzo Da Ponte's libretto for Don Giovanni, and Nell Dunn's play Steaming. Losey's third marriage lasted for the rest of his life. Joseph Losey is also the grandfather of film directors Marek Losey and Luke Losey.

Filmography as director[link]

Bibliography[link]

• David Caute, Joseph Losey: A Revenge on Life, Faber, 1994, ISBN 978-0-571-16449-3
• Michel Ciment, Le Livre de Losey. Entretiens avec le cinéaste, Paris, Stock/Cinéma, 1979, 465 p.
• Michel Ciment, Conversations with Losey, London & New York: Metheun, 1985, 436 p.
• Michel Ciment, Joseph Losey: l'oeil du Maître, Institut Lumière/Actes Sud, 1994, 360 p.
• Joaquín Vallet, Joseph Losey, Cátedra, 2010, 330 p.
• Edith DeRahm, Joseph Losey: An American Director in Exile, Pharos, 1995.
• Colin Gardner Joseph Losey, Manchester University Press, 2004.
• Foster Hirsch, Joseph Losey, Twayne, 1980.
• Penelope Houston, "Losey's Paper Handkerchief", Sight and Sound, Summer 1966, pp. 142–143.
• Gilles Jacob "Joseph Losey, or The Camera Calls", Sight and Sound, Spring 1966, pp. 62–67.
• James Leahy, The Cinema of Joseph Losey, A.S Barnes, 1967, 175 p.
• Christian Ledieu Joseph Losey, Seghers, 1963, 188 p.
• Joseph Losey, Losey on Losey, edited and introduced by Tom Milne, Secker & Warburg, 1967, 192 p.
• James Palmer and Michael Riley, The Films of Joseph Losey, Cambridge University Press, 1993,

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Complete Joseph Losey (Links to notes for the retrospective series screened by Harvard Film Archive in July and August, 2008)
• Filmography at BFI Film & TV Database (contains entries not found at IMDb)
• Joseph Losey at filmreference.com includes extensive bibliography
• Joseph Losey at the British Film Institute's Screenonline
• Joseph Losey at the Internet Movie Database
• Joseph Losey: Pictures of Provocation (Notes by Steven Seid for the retrospective series screened by Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley, March 5-April 16, 2010)
• Joseph Losey's Boom! (1968) by Kimberly Lindbergs; liner notes for the CD release of the film score by John Barry
• Senses of Cinema: Great Directors Critical Database
• A Child Went Forth at Archive.org
• Dissecting class relations: The film collaborations of Joseph Losey and Harold Pinter at the World Socialist Web Site

v t e César Award for Best Director 1976 Bertrand Tavernier 1977 Joseph Losey 1978 Alain Resnais 1979 Christian de Chalonge 1980 Roman Polanski 1981 François Truffaut 1982 Jean-Jacques Annaud 1983 Andrzej Wajda 1984 Ettore Scola 1985 Claude Zidi 1986 Michel Deville 1987 Alain Cavalier 1988 Louis Malle 1989 Jean-Jacques Annaud 1990 Bertrand Blier 1991 Jean-Paul Rappeneau 1992 Alain Corneau 1993 Claude Sautet 1994 Alain Resnais 1995 André Téchiné 1996 Claude Sautet 1997 Patrice Leconte / Bertrand Tavernier 1998 Luc Besson 1999 Patrice Chéreau 2000 Tonie Marshall 2001 Dominik Moll 2002 Jean-Pierre Jeunet 2003 Roman Polanski 2004 Denys Arcand 2005 Abdellatif Kechiche 2006 Jacques Audiard 2007 Guillaume Canet 2008 Abdellatif Kechiche 2009 Jean-François Richet 2010 Jacques Audiard 2011 Roman Polanski 2012 Michel Hazanavicius