Talk:Modesty

There is no difference, apart from the fact that one is Modern Hebrew and the other is Yiddish. The word Yarmulke has been linked etymologically to the Hebrew phrase Yarei mei-Elokah (in awe of the Lord)Jfdwolff 23:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this, as it seems to represent views that are idiosyncratic nonsense:

Some believe that female body modesty is the work of feminism to some extent, and some believe that it causes some of the same things that masculists believe feminism causes.

Eh? -- Anon.

The first External Link needs to balanced with a link to a site for the opposing POV. -- Anon. 2

Removed this text from the article:

==Safety hazards of modesty==

In many situations, modesty is wise, but there are some situations where modesty can cause harm, e.g. it has often been said that "people would rather die than take their clothes off in public". With the recent bioterror attacks, the ability of people to accept being stripped and washed down may result in the saving of many lives. It has therefore been suggested that work should be done to help society overcome problems with body image, in order to be better prepared for situations that might require disrobing in less than totally private situations.

This appears to me to be a rather strange paragraph. It takes a POV: "modesty is wise", and then another POV, "work should be done to help society overcome problems with body image, in order to be better prepared for situations that might require disrobing in less than totally private situations", which it intrroduces with the

and takes up the rest of the page... Is this first meaning covered well enough by Humility? If so, should there not be a more obvious referal to it? Should I have just done the edit and not moaned about it here?

I moved the link to Humility to this small paragraph. You are welcome to expand on this meaning.--Patrick 09:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole #Controversy section needs to be torn down and rewritten. It plays up a controversy that, I would wager, does not cross the minds of the majority of human beings who are perfectly happy with their cultural norm of modesty. It places the view of the "critics" front and center without giving any indication of who they are, whence they come, and how many they number. It ignores anthropological and zoological explanations for differing modesty norms (e.g. Desmond Morris's explanation that the habit of wearing clothing stems from the stance of human beings which, alone among the primates, puts the genitals on constant display). It does not touch on the effects of climate, nor on the correlation between norms of modesty and norms of sexuality. The "Western norm" is the only one described fully (and in a very general fashion, ignoring the real cultural variations between Western countries), while others are only mentioned in relation to that Western norm—and even then, vast areas and multitudes are simply passed over. History is non-existent; there is no discussion, even in the description of western norms, of how norms of modesty can vary over time.

I've listed this page on

Most of this page needs to be moved. While modesty of the body is a proper definition of modesty, it is a rather recent definition of the word, and applies mostly to a limited group. Most dictionaries say relatively little about this type of modesty. I believe it would be good to move the majority of the article to a separate page dedicated to the more limited concept of "body modesty". This would also make the main article more likely to be improved and expanded. --EthanL 17:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might not be best to split it. There's not a whole lot can be said about modesty, unless it's the particular type of modesty which most of this article deals with. Upon searching for references to "body modesty", I find very little. Obviously it's not a common term, so there's no sense making an article by that name. Perhaps a few modifications to the article are in order, rather than a split. If nobody else steps forward, perhaps I can come up with some improvements. --EthanL 10:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire article appears to be written by someone with an axe to grind. Then there is the curious addition of a very specific (and clearly pie-in-the-sky) paragraph about what Islamic modesty is supposedly about. I added my two pence worth which will hopefully speed its deletion by pointing out its absurdity. And where is the paragraph on the modesty of Zen-Buddhists?
  Wahkeenah 11:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's a big ongoing discussion about the validity of including any links to fisheaters DOT com in Wikipedia. Seems the author of that site got a bit overzealous about putting up links to her own site. Now some people have taken to seemingly indescriminant removal of those links. I believe this one should remain, because of its relevance to the subject at hand. I restored it, without the second link to fisheaters, which was not as relevant. I'm not a follower of fisheaters nor am I even Catholic - I just think the link warrents inclusion here. If anybody disagrees, discuss it here - but be polite and to the point! EthanL 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing indiscriminate about removing the Fisheaters links. See

WP:EL

and the arguments below. I do thikn that good links to demonstrably authoritative sites, especially for the contentious subject of modesty in Islam, would be an asset, but these seem to me to be mostly spam or POV pushing.

• DOT com/modesty.html The Traditional Catholic view of Modesty is a monograph on a subset of a subset of a subset of religious views
• Modesty in Concept and Dress from a Jewish perspective as Taught by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson chabad.org is spamming a book.
• On the harm of body shame from a Christian perspective is highly POV
• "We'd rather die than take our clothes off." disaster planners say. is a web forum; interesting but if this argument is to be presented we need a
  reliable source
  .
  • This story is from The Seattle Times, and was reprinted on the web forum. The original article can be found at [1], but you need to register. EthanL 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic Clothing is spam
• Modest Clothing displays an empty box in Mozilla with no links or anything
  • Works for me.--Patrick 12:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uisng Mozilla? -
      [T]/_[C] AfD? 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Hm, it works with IE, but also not with Opera. Ok, we do not need this one.--Patrick 18:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Modest fashion site for Latter-day Saint young women is apparent spam for a publication
• Christian modesty debate is an argument

Links which illustrate various points of view are fine. Deleting all links is not helpful. You should be more selective in deleting, and perhaps also add some, if the set of links is unbalanced.--Patrick 11:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the more links there are, the more likely it is that myspace pages and other cruft will be added and not noticed. A few good links if fine, Wikilinks to articles discussing perspectives in detail is great, but dozens of links to external sites with restricted POVs really doesn't seeme to me to help at all. -

[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Rubbish links should be deleted. It is fairly easy to see which links are actually relevant. One needs to be weary of POV in external links. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV in external links can be useful, for instance, to demonstrate a particular take on the matter, or as a reference to material in the article. Of course, in order to keep the article NPOV, you need to balance out the POV links by linking to opposing viewpoints. One should keep external links to a minimum, of course. EthanL 08:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me what the criteria are to be included in a links section? Does the link itself have to be completely NPOV? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Here is the Wikipedia links policy; perusing it should help you. I've found that, in this article, the biggest problem has been the "primarily for selling goods and services" issue. Dgoodmaniii 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching on Google for references to Body Modesty. They were quite rare - rare enough to possibly qualify this as a neologism. Also, the vast majority of the top Google links were to copies of this article! In an attempt to make the article a bit more mainstream, I changed Body Modesty to Sexual Modesty, which has a much wider acceptance, at least according to Google. This term seems to describe things just as well, if not better. Any opinions? EthanL 09:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. My opinion is that the entire article is a point-of-view push and should be deleted.
  Wahkeenah 12:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

True, it does contain POV material, but wouldn't it be better to clean it up rather than delete it? I'm working on it as I'm able, but I don't always have much time. Contributions are always welcome! EthanL 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't weasel out by saying I don't have time. I'll just say it's not worth the time and effort. This article is the work of somebody who thinks modesty is bad. Plain and simple. There's no getting around it.

Wahkeenah 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems better to distinguish an inclination to cover the skin from an analysis regarding the possible sexual background of this inclination, and/or an inclination not to exhibit sexual behavior. For example, a nudist may avoid showing affection, and on the other hand a couple in love may show much affection in public but fully clothed.--Patrick 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's situational.

Wahkeenah 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there anyone actually living in the islamic world that wishes to comment? 24.86.203.199 09:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could help out - you're welcome to contribute, just so long as you provide source references. The whole article needs attention, as your comment makes clear. You might just be the one to provide that much needed attention. EthanL 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that Orthodox Jewish opinion concerning a yarmulka is not about modesty, when, in fact, the Jewish code of Law (shulchan Orach Harav 2:6) clearly states that a head covering is due to tznieus. (comment by user:Mordechai7215)

• I don't know why that is even mentioned in the article. I don't know what the word "tznieus" means, let alone how to say it, but as far as I know the yarmulka has to do with "humbling oneself before God", not anything to do with modesty whatsoever. Modesty has to do with humans interacting with each other, not about humans interacting with God.
  Wahkeenah 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He meant צניעות - Churchh 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is highly

• What's stopping you from doing it? (Although you might want to proofread your work).
  Wahkeenah 05:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The section on "Wearing more than the Western norm" has some problems with the way Islamic modesty is addressed (as already mentioned on this talk page). As such I added a dispute tag. Also the discussion of Catholic and Mormon modesty was somewhat inaccurate. The Catholic paragraph seems to imply, when it says "Catholics, especially women, must dress modestly", that their is some international law that applies to specifically Catholics regarding modesty. I corrected it to make it clear what we are really talking about is the Catholic church's teachings on modesty. The sentence on Mormon modesty gave the misleading impression that all Mormons adhere to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints modesty code. I corrected it so that it states that the church has a modesty code but not to incorrectly imply that no Mormon ever violates it. --Cab88 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of flagging it and expecting someone else to fix what you have a problem with, why don't you fix it?
  Wahkeenah 18:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think the problems flagged up on "Eurocentricism" and the wider coverage of some religious / cultural perspectives is because the article collates a number of different views which do not warrant a whole separate page. I thought the section on Islam was very limited at first, but that is because there is a whole load of other stuff on Wikipedia on the hijab / naqib (btw I altered some of this section as it referred to the burqa which is in fact a specific name for the garment worn in Afghanistan), whereas Catholic modesty seems to have been given a great deal of coverage (excuse the pun) here. There does seem to be a rather vocal fisheaters contingent, which makes for rather disjointed paragraphs - "Some say this. Others say this. However, some yet say this". I did not delete any of it because it is technically all valid; the point I'm making is that the the whole basis of the article lacks a certain coherence. --SianMycock 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address some of the repeated concerns of various posters about Eurocentrism. The complaint seemed well-founded and ought to have been fixed, and since those expressing concern did not fix it, I made the attempt.

I first categorized what was formerly titled something along the lines of "Western Norms" as norms generally accepted in most of the world. I think this is a just characterization; those general outlines of behavior seem to me (from my experience, anyway) to be fairly widespread, and one appearing in this way would be acceptable in most parts of the world.

I then outlined some of the prominent exceptions to the rules, including Australian and aboriginal Australian cultures, Muslims, Jews, and Catholics. These were made subsections under the "religious and cultural differences" section.

I wasn't sure what to do with the brief mentions of the Amish, Sikhs, and Mormons. I finally decided that the information was so sparse and added so little to the article that they should be simply removed. What had been there told us practically nothing about them and only linked to the Wikipedia article about the group in general, which is interesting but not really topical. So I took them out. I would certainly be interested in seeing all of these groups, and more besides, added in, but what was there simply wasn't helpful and I know little or nothing about any of them myself, at least in regards to modesty. I'd encourage anyone who does know about them to add them back in.

If anyone thinks this judgment was in error, please add them back in. I won't make a fuss about it.

I thought about beefing up the Islamic section, but as another talker has pointed out, the wikilinks in that section seem to pretty much cover the whole ground.

Dgoodmaniii 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit about some previously widely practiced Jewish practices of modesty that somehow few are aware of these days. Unfortantely I don't know how to properly put in references... so, in case someone wants to help.. here are a some more references:

Mishneh Torah - Hilkhoth Ishuth 24:11

"These are the matters that if she did one of them, she transgressed the 'faith of Moses:'

She went out in the shuq [marketplace] and the hair of her head was exposed,.."

Mishneh Torah in Sefer Nashim in Hilkhoth Ishuth 24:12

"...What is meant by 'the Jewish faith?' It is the practice of modesty that the 'Daughters of Israel' are accustomed to. And these are the things that if she does one of them, she transgresses the 'Jewish religion:'

She goes out to the marketplace or to a passage way with openings at each end while her head is uncovered and without a reh'dheedh [long descending veil / cloth-material] on her as all the women, even though her hair is covered in a scarf / handkerchief,

Or that she was spinning [fabric] in the market and [there is a] rose or something similar on her face, on her forehead, or on her cheek, as is the way the immodest idolatrous women do,

Or that spins [fabric] in the shuq [marketplace] and shows her forearms to people.."

Halakha 13 of chapter 12:

"Azra made an edict that a woman / wife (same word in Hebrew) should always have a belt in [her] see'nar (britches) while in her house, because of modesty. And if she didn't put on a belt, she has not transgressed the 'faith of Mosha,' and she does not relinquish her kethubah."

There are many more references, though I do not have the specific locations memorized off hand. I'll try to post them soon.

Omedyashar 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update on references: OLAMOT SHEL TOHAR (Worlds of PURITY)

__________________________________________________

THE JEWISH WOMAN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE A Psychosocial Perspective by Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing House, 1986) p. 239., 77, pp. 316-317. Also see Swidler, op. cit., pp. 121-123., p. 139.

__________________________________________________

Page Shin Lamed in Mori Qafehh's edition of Mishneh Torah with commentary, Sefer Qedusha - Isurei Biah chapter 21 halakha 17:

(Note Kaf Hhet) Tractate Ketuvoth page Ayin Bet - alef. From what is taught/learned in the school/yeshiva of Ribi Yishmael there is a warning to the daughters of Israel, that they shouldn't go out with their head uncovered. Our teacher (Rabeinu [Rambam]) learned/taught [from this]: 'whether one available/unmarried or married.' Therefore he made no distinction between an older woman or a little girl; And [quf resh mem] Qriat Melekh. (Rav Shin YudHet Qaniveski) wrote regarding the 'available/unmarried one' in NUN SHIN ALAF in Sefreh siman Yud Alaf, -- [** writes] that it is like this [mashmA ken]] I found a proof from Tamar, that she was a pnuyah (available/unmarried); And look into Tractate Nedarim page Lamed - bet: "and minors (qatanim) forever [should]...etc.."; And [look into] Tosafot there [on this Gemara]; and look into Tractate Eruvin page Quf - bet: "wrapped up like a mourner;" What is it [maihu] TzadiAyin ( ???) in Mishna Ketuboth Tet Vav - bet, "...and her head is uncovered, (until here/ahd kan - ayinkaf) -- and it's a difficulty for this [idea?] (qasha leh) according to Rashi concerning "uncovered hair upon her shoulders from her father's house to her grooms house;" However, there is no conclusive proof to this / can't draw a conclusion from this, and it could be that she goes out from the courtyard of her house for only one small hour for some ceremony like it was the custom in Yemen [among the Jews?], and as I describe in my book Halikhoth Teimon page 134. vav lamed quf mem.

_____________________________________________ In the photo section of Mori Yosef Qafehh's book Halikhot Teimon one sees how Yemenite Jewish women of the area of Sa'ana dressed in private and in public. They wore a radheedh in public which they would pull over their face leaving their eyes exposed, when they would encounter a man with whom they were unfamiliar. The style of Jewish women's hair/head-covering in Yemen was very clearly distinct from the style of the muslim women. The Jewish women of Sa'ana area placed the radheedh on top of the gargoush - a hood type haircovering which was slightly coned at the top.

There is a book in English called "The Yemenites: 2,000 years of Jewish History," with photos showing how Jewish women of other regions in Yemen dressed/dress.

________________________________________

Israel & Ishmael ( Studies in Muslim - Jewish Relations) Edited by Tudor Parfitt in chapter titled "Cover Her Face:" Jewish Women & Veiling in Islaamic Civilisation by Yedida K. Stillman pages 13 - 29 [also includes a chapter on the Hemerayit Kingdom of Yemen]

Pictures of female Jewish dress (references learned from the above book):

Jewish woman in Smyrna, Turky in late 1700's/early 1800's; painting of Jewish woman indoors -- hair covered face exposed/ outdoors -- only eyes exposed; From "A History of Jewish Costume, 1973, page 42; A. Rubens.

Actual photo of Jewish woman in Baghdad, Iraq wearing a radheedh which the Jews there called khiliy and the Muslims called pica -- from "Album of Jewry of Iraq," A. Twena Ramla, 1981 p.171

Actual photo of a group of several Jewish women from Tunis, Tunisia in early 20th century visiting a cemetary, all but one wearing traditional dress - consists of a large radheedh called 'tantar,' which sits on top of a cone type hat the women wear underneath it; The radheedh practically covers them entirely; from Robert Attal. [Here is a similar and clearly related photo I found online: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/pages/J12I276T.jpg ]

Actual photo of Jewish Berber woman from Tafilatt/lt?, Morocco wearing radheedh; Jean Besancenot Collection.

Actual photo: Rabat - Les mellahs de Rabat - Sale', Paris 1927; J. Goulven. Omedyashar 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this needs to have more anwsers to things.

Deep. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I went ahead and changed the article's listing on systemic bias, in light of the corrections to Western bias that have been discussed above. The article still suffers from such bias, and needs to be repaired, but it's better than it used to be, and I thought that the extremely uncomplementary entry on the Systemic Bias List should reflect that.

Dgoodmaniii 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not enough source adding. But a lot, still.

Anyway, in my continuing efforts to get this page removed from the

I divided up "cultural" norms from "religious" norms, because they're different. I.e., Western norms vary greatly according to culture (the Finns are different from the French are different from the Canadians etc., independently of the religion), but religious norms also vary greatly even within a given cultural norm. So I separated them, and moved the Finnish sauna stuff to be an exception to what we've classed as general Western norms.

I added some sources about Finnish saunas; also some additional sources to the Catholic section, and a new "other Christian" section (lest I use the word "Protestant" and someone object, in order to avoid any controversy). I wanted to add some of the Biblical information on modesty in, but I haven't yet decided where that would belong. I placed the Catholic and "other Christian" sections as subsidiaries to a "Trinitarian Christian" section, thus avoiding the whole "are Mormons Christians or not" question, because everyone agrees that Mormons are not trinitarian. I did this also solely in order to avoid controversy, and fervently hope that it doesn't engender any. If Wikipedia already has an established policy on this question, please let me know and I'll rectify the situation immediately. I left the Mormon, Jewish, and Islamic modesty sections where they were.

This reorganization also enabled me to remove the "external links" section, which only had one link anyway, as I used the one there as a source in the "other Christian" section, where it seemed appropriate.

If anyone objects to any of these changes, as usual, here's the place to go after them. Thanks; I hope this helps. If anybody thinks we're good enough to get out of the bias list, let me know, but I think several sections will need considerable beefing before that happens.

Dgoodmaniii 09:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

An anonymous user reverted all these edits, plus several that had come before, returning the article to a much earlier version. If that person is here, please explain this action; I'm interested in your justification. If others think it was a good idea, please chime in. Otherwise, I think I'll revise it all back. The changes I and these others made aren't perfect, but I think they were still clearly better than the original. Dgoodmaniii 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over it, I think that the revert should be reverted. I also request a few little changes. It seems like the controversy and finnish sections got left out in the big changes that you made. Maybe those should be put back. Seemed to have valuable and referenced info. Other than these small sections, your changes seem a great improvement to me. Wrad 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the content of the controversy section was just moved to other places, including the Finnish section. I think I'll go ahead and revert it back. Uh...just have to figure out how to do so... Dgoodmaniii 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if I might have missed it. Just compare the two pages to each other via the history tab and click "undo". Wrad 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured it out. As always, if the user who made the reversion wishes to defend it, I'd be more than happy to hear his reasons here. Dgoodmaniii 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modest is also a first name. Maybe a directory page should be created.

"Children normally stop going to the sauna with their parents by age six or seven though this age has sometimes been higher in the past and has varied regionally."

Didn't see any source for that statement, and being finnish myself, I think that is false. I don't know if there's any statistics for the age, and of course it varies regionally, people in bigger cities probably starting to go to sauna intependently earlier, but me, and most of my friends and relatives have stopped going to sauna with their parents at the age of about 10-14, strongly correlating with the start of puberty, though many girls don't ever stop going to sauna with their mothers. After the puberty is over people usually start to go to sauna with their same-gender family members, though usually they are living on their own by that time and thus have not many possibilities to do so.

Also "This is true even though some sort of swimsuit is generally required in pool areas." I have to note that in pool areas, going to sauna with a swimsuit is often forbidden. Swimsuits are supposed to be soaked with pool water, which includes chlorine. Chlorine gas being poisonous it's easy to see why it is forbidden.

And "It should be noted that men and women generally do not bathe together in the sauna unless they are related." is generally true. However, for teenagers and young adults going to sauna with the members of opposite gender is not unheard of, at least if the people are having a "sauna night", a typical way of spending a weekend evening: drinking, chatting and going to sauna. This is even more true if the group consists of close friends or at least few people who have mutual attraction. The sauna itself, though, is still a non-sexists place, even if you see members of the opposite gender naked. It is considered really rude to stare.

213.250.104.144 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the section labeled "Codification" was clearly from a non-NPOV and I've removed it as such. Besides that, it was almost entirely uncited, except for sections that were taken out of the "Catholic Modesty" section and transplanted into this "Codification" section. While the citation to Webster's was present prior to that section being added, it didn't seem to add much, so I removed that, too. It made no sense to include the "Some Christians writers" part in this section, so I moved that back into the Christianity section.

Regarding the Christianity section, the reason I originally divided it into Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian sections was to avoid a flame war over whether Mormons are really Christians or not. Everyone agrees that they're not Trinitarian Christians (so far as I can tell, anyway), so I divided it up that way. No one has objected to it here, so I restored that arrangement.

Having to reintegrate some of the moved "Some Christian authors" section out of "Codification" led to a reconsideration of the format of the Catholic section. This was therefore edited substantially.

Discussion on any of these changes is, of course, welcome.

Dgoodmaniii (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to split hairs, especially as I haven't really gone through this article, but after reading through the bullet list at its beginning I notice that the sentence "Avoiding the display of one's body, sexuality especially in public." might be confused as either

"Avoiding the display of one's body or sexuality, especially in public"

"Avoiding the display of one's body in a sexual manner, especially in public"

Perhaps it should be slightly reworded in whichever fashion is correct? Jamestttgrays (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to the first, but with "and".--Patrick (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The application of the standards of modesty at an early age is most noticeable on a public beach when baby girls, even before they can walk, are dressed in two-piece bikinis.

This is only true in the US, but certainly not in mainland Europe.
Little boys and girls usually have their genitalia covered on public beaches at around 2 - 4 years old.
Girls usually cover the places where their breasts will develop after 8 - 10 years old.

This sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me: "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." A cited source might help... Thoughts?Lily20 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new photo to illustrate intercultural differences in body modesty. I welcome others' feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzanon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modesty Blaise could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now, the article states:

"The Church also expects men to dress modestly, but the demands are not as strict for them as for women; this is largely because men are often thought to be more inherently susceptible to sexual thoughts."

The demands are just as strict. There are just fewer culturally accepted violations of it for men therefore it gets less attention.

It is uncited and without basis so I am removing it. LaRoza (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear various IP, as you did tonight the umptieth deletion of "strangers of the same sex" stated with the reason "we don't do that" please note that this is not an article on a special cultural oder religious group. So who is "we"? The context reads 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: … In some context and situations it is okay for people to disrobe or robe in presence of other people of the same sex or show them parts of the body. Fullstop. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150510043220/http://www.modestworld.com/laws.html to http://www.modestworld.com/laws.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

The intro emphasizes girl's modesty expectations more than men's. For example, it brings up what swimwear is considered modest, specifies who women are allowed to talk to to be considered modest, and describes Muslim schoolgirls laxed circumstances. In order for this article to begin from a gender neutral standpoint, it needs to include both male and female definitions of modesty. Kylanmalady (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article under the "Body" section, there are four categories of people who can see someones body without it being immodest, and one of these categories is "people of the same social class." Social class seems irrelevant to whether or not a certain way of conducting oneself/dressing is immodest. For example, it wouldn't make sense to say that rich people think short skirts are immodest while poor people don't. There's no evidence to back it up. If this is a legitimate claim, it needs citations to back it up and examples to clarify exactly what it means.Kylanmalady (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following are sources about islam, amish, and gymnophobia and can help in adding citations to this article.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12335

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/21/modesty-part-1/

http://islam.about.com/od/dress/f/hijab_girls.htm

A return to modesty : discovering the lost virtue by Wendy Shalit

http://www.religionfacts.com/amish Kylanmalady (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Amish are a well known group of people known specifically for their conservative attire so I think the article should have a larger section on them.

http://www.religionfacts.com/amish

This article addresses their beliefs practices and history which should be briefly mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylanmalady (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding a section for Eastern Norms on this page for a class, however, many of the sources and ideas are western based and referring to nudity. Would anyone else be able to add to it or make changes?TRacer202 (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Necessity" paragraph needs to be futher explained and re-written. For example "At times of public or private emergency, expectations of modest dress may be suspended if necessary" This is just strangely written and should definitely be rephrased and elaborated on. Lisfry (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thinking of adding a sectioning or elaborating more on how modesty is seen today. As norms are ever-changing it is sometimes hard to keep up with what is or is not seen as modest. Sbenedict14 (talk)

I've removed the above section, which was added by one of the students I oversaw this past semester. I tried seeing if there was a way to merge or rewrite the content, but it just came across too strongly as original research. If anyone wants to try their hand, I've linked to the revision above. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modesty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129185312/http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/ to http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

Many fairytales and other related media feature women from or of ethnic origin from Western Europe and Northern Europe to be demure due to their typically soft features. Famous examples include Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Little Red Riding Hood, Wendy Darling from Peter Pan, Maid Marian from Robin Hood, Christine Daaé from The Phantom of the Opera, Ophelia from Hamlet, and Dorothy Gale from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

—Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article links to the German article "Bescheidenheit" in the language switcher, which is confusing, as "modesty" as explained in this article sounds more like what most Germans would call "Prüderie" instead. —Feeela (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Modesty can be translated with "Anspruchslosigkeit", "Anstand", "Bescheidenheit", Sittsamkeit", whereas "Prüderie" ("prudery") has a pejorative character. From the given possibilities I should rather choose "Sittsamkeit".--Medusahead (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]