Modesty Died when Clothes were Born

[jbeegoode]

Just a quote from Mark Twain...

...Modesty Died when Clothes were Born

Jbee

[Peter S]

That sounds the wrong way round. Before clothes everyone was naked so there was no modesty. The arrival of clothes enabled covering up and created modesty. Or am I missing something profound?

[nuduke]

I would guess that what Twain meant was that without clothes we are naturally modest and equal to one another - but that clothes enable us to be immodest in the way we present ourselves and enables showing off, self aggrandisement etc. which is the antithesis of modesty.  I draw this conclusion from the following related Twain quotes:

We must put up with our clothes as they are -- they have their reason for existing. They are on us to expose us -- to advertise what we wear them to conceal. They are a sign; a sign of insincerity; a sign of suppressed vanity; a pretense that we desire gorgeous colors and the graces of harmony and form; and we put them on to propagate that lie and back it up.
- Following the Equator

Strip the human race, absolutely naked, and it would be a real democracy. But the introduction of even a rag of tiger skin, or a cowtail, could make a badge of distinction and be the beginning of a monarchy.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

Does that work for you, Pete S?  I don't think the quote has much to do with naturism in fact but perhaps it reveals a latent naturist tendency in Mr Twain in that he has a few other deprecating things to say about clothes and the wearing of them - although this quote:

Clothes and title are the most potent thing, the most formidable influence, in the earth. They move the human race to willing and spontaneous respect for the judge, the general, the admiral, the bishop, the ambassador, the frivolous earl, the idiot duke, the sultan, the king, the emperor. No great title is efficient without clothes to support it.
- "The Czar's Soliloquy"

Would suggest that Twain was a supporter of clothes to differentiate men one from another and establish their role in the world.  Rather grim prospect I feel. 
John

[jbeegoode]

I think that it has everything to do with naturism, as it is an anti-clothing attitude. Nudity, nudism,and naturism are logically, or naturally the antithesis of clothing. Clothing is inherently generally bad socially, unhealthy, wasteful, insensitive, manipulative, restrictive socially, restrictive physically, false, false prideful, demeaning as a good nudist will point out. Nudism has a wisdom from experiencing the state. Clothing is immodest and naked is less so.

Is this a rant!?

Clothing bad. Protective covering good. Nude best. Burn the clothing! Hang the garment industry leaders as criminals and the dress designers! Liberate us all!!! Lock 'em up!...
... Zealotry is so much fun.....

So, my compliments on those quotes that you found from Mark Twain, Nuduke. Gotta wonder how that was received back in Victorian America. He was very popular, celebrated. His characters skinny dipped, hung out naked on the rivers. I think it was Huck that said that he wouldn't wear them at all, if he could. Hangout naked, smoking from a corn cob pipe.

Jbee

[nuduke]

Yeah..What you said, man! 
John

[jbeegoode]

I was gifted some local Native American tobacco seeds recently. Maybe I'll find me a corn cob pipe...or make one...go sit under a tree....
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

Just a quote from Mark Twain...

...Modesty Died when Clothes were Born

Jbee

I don't know what that even means.   

[jbeegoode]

People get puffed up in their costumes and turn them into roles. Immodest would be a rich man bragging and feeling better than a poor one, the only true difference is some fancy clothing. Modest would be a more egalitarian sense of oneself in relation to others.

Clothes kill modesty, nudity strips away all but the person. Like when people used to put on social airs in fiction and society of Clemon's times. People seem to get along better at socially nude events.

That's what it means to me. I'm not so positive about what it meant to Mark Twain.
Jbee

[nuduke]

My theory is on my post lower down, Bob, 26th May
John

[Greenbare Woods]

Modesty Died when Clothes were Born

I recently read some history that explains this quote.   Back before Queen Victoria clothing was ostentatious.   (Showy, .Fond of or evincing, ostentation; unduly conspicuous; pretentious; boastful.)  Modest had the meaning of being poor, having limitations, as in "A man of modest means."

We all know that our default condition is naked, and cloths are an artificial affectation.  Clothing was laborious and therefore expensive prior to the industrial revolution and the invention of powered cotton seed separation, powered spinning, powered looms, and powered sewing.  A person of modest means could not afford to adorn himself or herself with ostentatious fabric body covering.  Modest meant poor, and poor people couldn't afford expensive cloth.   

Queen Victoria is blamed for reversing the meaning of "modesty."   Wearing clothing became the standard, and required.  Going naked became showing off, not modest (poor). 

[jbeegoode]

Yes, a great reply Bob.

Clothing used to be about social status. People in many cultures going way back had fewer toys to spend their wealth on. Fancy clothing not only showed wealth, it showed status and was used for social and economic games.

Fine cloth from far lands was status. Now, clothing comes from cheap labor is these places. Clothing is more modest today than before tech status and tech toys to spend money on.

 I'd say, too much done about something very superficial was an immodest undertaking.