Clothing laws vary considerably around the world. In most countries, there are no laws which prescribe what clothing is required to be worn. However, the community standards of clothing are set indirectly by way of prosecution of those who wear something that is not socially approved. Those people who wear insufficient clothing can be prosecuted in many countries under various offences termed indecent exposure, public indecency, nudity or other descriptions. Generally, these offences do not themselves define what is and what is not acceptable clothing to constitute the offence, and leave it to a judge to determine in each case.
Most clothing laws concern which parts of the body must not be exposed to view; there are exceptions. Some countries have strict clothing laws, such as in some Islamic countries. Other countries are more tolerant of non-conventional attire and are relaxed about nudity. Many countries have different laws and customs for men and women, what may be allowed or perceived often varies by gender.
Separate laws are usually in place to regulate obscenity, which includes certain depictions of people in various states of undress, and child pornography, which may include similar photographs of children.
In some countries, non-sexual toplessness or nudity is legal. However, private or public establishments can establish a dress code which requires visitors to wear prescribed clothing.
There are a variety of laws around the world which affect what people can and cannot wear. For example, some laws require a person in authority to wear the appropriate uniform. For example, a police officer on duty may be required to wear a uniform; and it can be illegal for the general public to wear a police officer's uniform. The same could apply to firefighters and other emergency personnel. In some countries, for example in Australia, the boy scouts uniform is also protected.
In most courts of law, lawyers and judges are required by law or custom to wear court dress, which may entail robes or traditional wigs.
In many countries, regulations require workers to wear protective clothing, such as safety helmets, shoes, vests, etc., as appropriate. The obligation is generally on employers to ensure that their workers wear the appropriate protective clothing. Similarly, health regulations may require those who handle food to wear hair covering, gloves and other clothing.
Governments can also influence standards of dress shown on television through their licensing powers.
In addition to nude beaches and similar exceptional locations, there are some public events in which nudity is tolerated more than usual, such as the naked bike rides held in several countries.
International laws and customs and culture
There are many specific circumstances where body parts have to be covered, often for safety or sanitary reasons.
Australia In Australia, indecent exposure laws only refer to the genital area. However, many local councils impose their own rules, and have the power to ask topless people to leave an area. Additionally, women who appear topless in public may be charged under broader public order offences, such as causing a public nuisance or engaging in offensive behaviour.
On public beaches, local bylaws are not heavily enforced, and women can often sunbathe topless without issues.
Breastfeeding in public is a legal right in Australia. Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, no business or service provider can discriminate against a breastfeeding woman.
Bhutan
Bhutanese law requires all Bhutanese government employees to wear the national dress at work and all citizens to wear the national dress while visiting schools and government offices. Certain colors of sashes are legally reserved for use by royalty or clergy.
Brazil Ever since 1940, in the Title VI of the Penal Code, naming crimes against sexual dignity (until 2009 crimes against [social] conventions), the fourth chapter is dedicated to a crime named "public outrage [related] to modesty" (, ).
It is composed of two articles, Art. 233 "Obscene Act", "to practice an obscene act in a public place, or open or exposed to the public", punished with arrest of three months to one year or a fine; and Art. 234 "Obscene Written Piece or Object", to do, import, export, purchase or have in one's property, to ends of trade, distribution or public display, any written, drawn, painted, stamped or object piece of obscenity, punished with arrest of six months to one years or a fine.
It is often used against people who expose their nude bodies in public environments that were not warranted a license to cater to the demographic interested in such practice (the first such place was the Praia do Abricó in Rio de Janeiro, in 1994), even if no sexual action took place, and it may include, for example, a double standard for the chest area of women and men in which only women are penalized. Such a thing took place in the 2012 FEMEN protests in São Paulo.
Criticism Pervasive points of criticism to the legislation have included: They do not attack anyone's sexual dignity, instead causing outrage at best, but generally just extreme discomfort or embarrassment, that can be easily avoided through not looking to such a scene. The Art. 234 is aside obsolete, unconstitutional, for the 1988 post-military dictatorship Constitution having in its Fifth Chapter: "[the people] are free to the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communicative activity, independently of censorship and license", reason to which, instead of making it suffer penal restriction, gives any distribution of media the right to be fully exerted. The flourishing Internet culture of Brazil, where such clearly banned media is freely shared in a public place, as well as its pornographic industry and sex shops.
Exceptions Brazil has about 35 spaces open or mostly open to the public where it is possible to freely practice nudism, its sole public spaces being 8 beaches. They are not criminalized when the clothes-free area is private and away from a view from the street, or through legislation when the beaches are officiated by a municipal decree, for example. It has hosted the meeting of the International Federation of Naturism in 2008, and there is a growing interest in the practice.
Canada
In Canada, s.173 of the Criminal Code prohibits "indecent acts". There is no statutory definition in the Code of what constitutes an indecent act (other than that the exposure of the genitals for a sexual purpose to anyone under 16 years of age), so the decision of what state of undress is "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges to decide. Judges have held, for example, that nude sunbathing is not indecent.R. v. Beaupré, 1971, British Columbia Supreme Court. Held: "mere nude sunbathing is not of sufficient moral turpitude to support a charge for doing an indecent act." Also, streaking is similarly not regarded as indecent.R v Springer, 1975, Saskatchewan District CourtR v Niman, 1974, Ontario Provincial Court Section 174 prohibits being "nude" in a public place or in public view without "a lawful excuse", but defines "nude" only as being "so clad as to offend against public decency or order". The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.R v Benolkin, 1977, Saskatchewan Court of the Queen's Bench. It was found that "this offence is not aimed at conduct such as swimming nude at an isolated beach, even where the accused misjudges the loneliness of the beach".
Toplessness is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario, while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent. The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offence.District of Maple Ridge v. Meyer, 2000 BCSC 902 (CanLII) . See esp. para and . Since then, the court ruling has been tested and upheld several times.
A Canadian legal advice web site observes, "Canada has a tangle of confusing and inconsistently-enforced nudity laws. ... The public nudity section is one of the few areas of the Criminal Code that requires the attorney general's consent to lay a charge, implying a certain grey area around what constitutes illegal nudity. According to the government's Public Prosecution Service, the attorney general's consent is needed for two reasons: to avoid the specific harm that could result from prosecuting an innocent person; and to avoid the general harm resulting from prosecuting a case that is not in the public interest. A policy manual from the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service enumerates the principles for which they would consider granting consent, which are:
consent will usually not be granted when the nudity occurs at an isolated or secluded location; consent will usually not be granted unless a warning has been given to the alleged offender by police or an authorized enforcement agency, and there is blatant or repeated disregard of such a warning; consent will usually be granted in instances of aggressive exhibitionism; consent will usually be granted when nudity is accompanied by lewd behaviour or indecent acts involving the alleged offender, or others (assuming that the matter cannot be adequately addressed through prosecution under other provisions).
In 2022 petition e-3999 was circulated to legalize public nudity ("nudism") in Canada. It was determined that the current laws are adequate because "not all acts of public nudity are criminal", thereby leaving the doors open for lawful public nudity. The Attorney General of Canada is concerned about "protecting the public from harmful conduct" rather than public nudity per se. This interpretation of the law means that those who would use nudity to cause a disturbance can still be charged, while those participating in nudity for self-fulfillment purposes may do so without fear of criminal prosecution.
An example of public nudity that is not lawful is the Brian Coldin case, where Mr. Coldin approached people while naked in a park and attended drive-through restaurants while naked. The court found thatR. v. Coldin, O.J. No. 1009 [Coldin] Mr. Coldin's conduct appeared to lack a connection to the philosophy of naturism, his conduct was confrontational, proselytizing and flamboyant, and did little demonstrate "the pursuit of truth, participation in the community or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing". Instead, the Court found it was disrespectful and designed to shock and express disdain. The Court found that the method and location of the defendant Coldin's expression was not worthy of protection.
In regards to the Coldin case, the Court stated “naturists find some fulfillment in the conduct of being nude, and, not simply in being nude in private, alone, but being nude in some form of quasi-public place, such as a naturist camp. For them, the conduct of public nudity is imbued with meaning; hence, expressive.”R. v. Coldin, O.J. No. 1009 [Coldin] ¶161 This indicates that the law recognizes 2(b) Charter protections for nude recreation, but only for self fulfilment purposes.
India
In India, British colonial acts such as "indecent exposure", "public indecency", and so on, that involve exposure of a specific body part (genitals, buttocks, anus, nipples on women), a specific intention or effect (being sexually suggestive, offending or annoying observers) are illegal.
People in India have the right to wear any dress they like. The Constitution of India gives their citizens the right to wear anything as per their comfort.
Iran Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iranian law made the Islamic hijab mandatory for all women in public spaces. In Iran, laws related to the hijab and modesty are enforced across various sectors: