I don't think it's rude to be clothed on a clothing-optional beach, but it really makes me wonder why someone would go to the trouble to be at a clothing-optional beach and then remain clothed.I remember being at a clothing-optional beach one time and there were two guys who were wearing excessively skimpy swimwear. In a very uncharacteristic moment, I boldly walked up to them and asked why they were bothering to wear swimsuits on a clothing-optional beach and, particularly, such tiny very-revealing suits. I got no reasonable answer from the and dropped it. I guess I felt like I had made my point.Like all of the nude beaches I've been to, this one was populated almost entirely by men -- so, what's the point of hiding your cock from a bunch of men. And this was way back in the 80s -- they clearly were not millennials -- who are frequently terrified at the idea that another man might see their pee pee. Additionally, based on accent, they were European (Italian, if I'm not mistaken). At any rate, not prudish Americans. So, I really didn't get it.Yes. I understand it was none of my business.
They were representing normal Italian swimwear customs. While very brief suits are common, full nudity is almost nonexistent. Why they chose a nude beach is a mystery.
If it is a CO beach and people want to have cloths on it is their choice and, it wouldn't bother me as long as I could be nude even if I am the only one.
Never quite understand by people who moan and groan about being able to go nude on public beaches get bothered by being seen by others who are clothed isnt that what we want freedom to be clothes free even in an environment where others are clothed
If the beach is clearly signed as clothing-optional I can't see why everybody was avoiding the clothed contingent.
Exactly clothing optional isnt nude and if we dont ant clothed people on clothing optional beaches we are being hypocritical since that is what we are fighting for the option to not wear clothes on the beach.