Human nature makes a lot more sense when you consider that man is just another animal driven by instinct. Civilization is, largely, a positive influence, but exposure to it tends to foster the illusion that it is the norm rather than the exception.
So, I was talking to a person who enjoys the conjunction of nudism and swinging (a taboo subject among conventional nudists), and I was struggling to formulate a response that is respectful of nudism, yet neither hollowly dogmatic nor judgmental of an open and unrestrained approach to sexuality (which I support - in principle; it's much harder to put into practice). How do you tell someone who likes walking around naked in front of strangers and openly having sex, that walking around naked is perfectly natural, but openly having sex is not? I mean, isn't that pretty much our prime directive?
And I came to a conclusion. What if nudism isn't natural, after all? I mean, the kind of nudism that's just as buttoned up (maybe more so) as textiles are on the subject of sex. Sure, it's perfectly natural to walk around naked without draping man-made fabrics over our bodies to preserve a completely arbitrary sense of dignity. But what if it's also perfectly natural for people to constantly be having loads of sex, out in the open, with multiple partners? Speaking in an evolutionary sense, our sex drives are a powerful instinct. There may be risks inherent to indiscriminate sexual activity, but you can't argue that nature favors the "spray and pray" method. It's civilization that seeks to dampen this wanton sexual behavior.
Now, I believe in the merits of civilization. And I think we should be more discriminate in who and how we fuck. I'm ruled by the complex intelligence of my brain, not solely by my baser instincts. But the fact remains, it may be no more natural to pretend that we shouldn't be fucking around all the time than it is to pretend there's any good reason to wear clothes. This would explain an awful lot of the difficulty nudism has trying to convince the world that naked people hanging out doesn't automatically carry a sexual connotation, and why it seems (to non-nudists and sexual progressives alike) so hypocritical on its face for nudists to go to the trouble of shattering the nudity taboo but then come to the decision to still preserve our taboos around sex.
Let me state this clearly. I believe in the non-sexual version of nudism. I support it, and I actually prefer it to the alternative (which is a nude-friendly swingers' lifestyle - and why wouldn't swingers be nude-friendly?). But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's natural or even obvious. And let's stop getting endlessly frustrated with the multitudes of people who get it wrong. That's like figuring out calculus and letting every person who never got past algebra drive you up the wall. Accept that this misunderstanding is, by necessity, going to be widespread, and then work on trying to correct people with more patience and empathy, instead of writing off everyone who ever gets it wrong as an idiot or an enemy. Most people alive don't get as much sex as the force of natural evolution (and their appetite) intends. So let's give them a break.
