Is that really his reason? He does say, "I want people to become conscious that we are ashamed of our bodies." A much better reason, no?
But that can't really be the guy's mission. Unless he follows forcing people to confront their shame with some kind of claim that that shame is wrong, then the confrontation is pointless. I could do something like that: I could walk across Pennsylvania wearing a lime-green t-shirt with chartreuse pants, forcing people to confront their distaste for the combination of lime green and chartreuse. But then so what? They understand better how not to paint their homes?
are people who clothe dogs ashamed of dogs' bodies? if a person's body is a physical emobdiment of the person's laziness and sloth, why doesn't that person have the right to be ashamed? if we're "ashamed," why do we think so much about sex? Wouldn't the typical reaction to being nude in public be embarrassment, not shame?
and, are there really benefits to nudism? psychological benefits besides the thrill of violating taboos. if there are, is nudism the best answer? i'm doubtful.
People don't look at him and say "put some clothes on, you're going to chafe," they beat him up and think he's a pervert. (I don't think the thesis is that "clothes originate in shame," but that long years of wearing clothes have alienated us from our bodies. He doesn't say that, but I think "shame" is a pretty good substitute for what he's trying to show--so to speak.) To put it another way, there are good reasons to wear clothes, but those reasons don't explain the vehemence with which nudity is denounced.
All this reminds me of those people who want to reach the peak of Everest without supplemental oxygen. How do they decide to draw the line at oxygen? Don't they wear high-tech synthetic fabrics? And sunglasses? And (come to thnk of it) fillings in their teeth? Only naked, squinty people with their natural (dental) cavities should get to claim to have conquered the mountain unaided.
Ogged makes a good point...it seems the real "problem" with nude people is that we tend to associate it with odd and deviant behavior. So nudism in front of your fiancees parents isn't simply just a faux pas in itself, but connotes further deviancy. I imagine the grandparents were wondering about the sexual link between their son-in-law and their grandchildren. It seems, from the article, that his nudity is at least minimally tolerated until children become involved...part of the our taboo on the association of children with sexuality. So in that sense neither his nudism, nor ours, can be tolerated, for it would seem to make impossible the sex-free zone society tries so hard to impose around children. His "attack" on that attempt is all the more frightening becomes we know without admitting it how false and illusory our attempts are, and that children, despite our best efforts, will remain sexual. (quick and dirty proofs: masturbation studies, and boys' and girls' bathrooms)