Discussing naturism with swingers: accusations of being judgmental

"Judgmental" is the last accusation I would expect to hear levelled at naturists. Every true naturist I have met (and I have met many) is accepting, or at least tolerant, of all body types, ages, social classes, ethnicities, sexual orientations... And yet more than one swinger I encountered this weekend accused naturism of being judgmental. I spent New Year on a clothing optional farm/resort, camping with my local naturist association. There was a group of swingers also camping on the same farm, but in a different camping area. Although the groups were separated, there was some mixing and there were no doubt a couple of erotic encounters of members of the naturist association with the swingers group in the swinger territory: not a problem in itself, so long as the rules of our association (which include no swinging) were adhered to in "our" part of the camp. I made a few acquaintances in the shared area of the farm (the pool) and had some interesting chats. They were aware of our group, and a couple of them referred to "The Naturists" quite disparagingly, so I took the opportunity to clear up any misconceptions they had. They could ask me any questions they liked. The first thing they seemed to have an issue with was the association of nudity with sex. For them (women and men), walking around totally naked is a type of signal of availability. They could not seem to get their heads around the idea of being naked around other people purely for the sake of being naked, and the joy of being naked in nature. Surely, they argued, there is some erotic component to it? I explained that one can appreciate beautiful bodies, but if one is aroused by them in a naturist setting, one is expected to hide it (if it is obvious), make no approaches, and keep it to oneself. That, they felt, was dishonest. When I explained that it is a) not part of the ethos of naturism, and b) that there are sometimes children around in a naturist setting, they considered it weird that children would be exposed to a variety of naked adults. I also explained that a naturist environment is one in which women can really let their hair down without having to worry about being harassed, because people (at least in our association) are very vigilant about sexual harassment. Yet again, society's confusion of nudity with sex. I am no prude, and I am easily aroused as anyone else, but for me, as for most other nudists - I think - the naturist setting is not inherently erotic. I guess a lot depends on one's expectations when visiting a location like that: the naturists were there to be naked in nature in like-minded company, while the swingers were there for the purpose of hook-ups. But it was the accusation of naturists being judgmental that really stumped me. Some of the swingers appeared to feel that naturists consider themselves superior to swingers and look down on them. That is certainly not the case for me, and I don't believe that most other naturists feel the same way. Given the right context and circumstances I wouldn't be averse to some swinging fun - but not at a naturist camp. Their other bugbear was the idea that everybody should be naked in a naturist setting, and they believe that that expectation is judgmental. They feel that if somebody is not comfortable with their body, they should be able to remain clothed while being surrounded by naked people. This is where I have a problem with that view (excluding children, of course, because I think naturist settings should be clothing optional for them). Nudity is a social leveller precisely because it makes everyone equally vulnerable. If I am naked in the company of a clothed person, my social defenses immediately kick in, whereas if we are both naked we are equals. A clothed person in a naturist environment - with logical exceptions for weather or sunburn or arousal - stands out, sets themselves apart, sets up a power differential that was not there before. In my mind, that is antithetical to the spirit of naturism. Do we judge such a person as being inferior, or do we merely consider that they are not, themselves, playing fair in the social contract?