I can’t quite explain it, mostly because any religious argument for anything defies explanation. I will say that like most religious things, the theological case is more a rationalization for their activities than the other way around.

They’re actually a pretty big segment of the (very small) nudist subculture in the USA. Which I guess isn’t too surprising – there’s kind of this nexus between spirituality, nudity, and connectedness to nature – it seems to attract a lot of religious types, mostly new age pagan/wiccan type people, but a sizable number of religious Christians as well.

My experience with them, anecdotally based on the few nude venues I’ve been to, is that they’re among the most prudish and uptight people imaginable. They constantly have to prove (to themselves mostly) that their motivations for social nudity are pure and have nothing to do with sex, and thus can’t allow even the slightest bit of sexuality to creep into it. I mostly agree with the assertion that nudity isn’t inherently sexual, but they’re so fervent with it that one imagines they must put clothes on in order to have sex. Conequently, the social atmosphere is something akin to an old folk’s home (though the demographics of nudists might have something to do with that). Kind of funny, if it wasn’t so sad – though their attitude is still a good deal healthier than those Christians that promote body shame and are so judgmental of immodesty.

I think it is a much more civilized and rational view on the body than the one we see from those gymnophobes we’re all all-too-familiar with. Sadly, most here have likely appropriated the “nudity=something to be ashamed of” mentality about the body; particularly, the female body.

More civilized, specifically, than same people who think it is a sane thing to make baby girls wear bikini tops. Personally, I think its bizarre that we even wear bathing suits to get in the water; much less forcing women to wear tops on the precedence of “indecent exposure.”