However, the problem of peoples living clothed has been and still is, that the inhibition threshold for more serious violations of the social code such as "indecent touch" or "sexual assault" has diminished by mitigating the lighter code rules and thus more serious cases of breaches of rule happen compared with peoples living in the nude.
The proverbial "Nip things in the bud!" does its effect within peoples living in the nude, but within peoples living clothed, breaches of rule are considered permissible at the beginning, which of course leads wrongdoers to take the more severe breaches of taboos even no longer that serious. Ultimately, this weakening of the rules of social code in clothed societies has a correspondingly fatal effect on the rate of conflict or crime.
This comparison of development in peoples living nude respectively clothed, shows, that nude living peoples have performed the civilisingly more complex work and, moreover, have obtained distinct advantages in the degree of compliance with the social code by the members of the community compared with societies living clothed. Of course, this consideration has deliberately ignored the fact, that, for reasons of temperature, there is a need for clothing as soon as people live in climatically less favoured countries.
The widespread negative attitudes of nudity in most established, clothed-living societies of all kinds should not be a reason for highly civilised people and especially for naturists, to question attitudes of nudity anew and to find up-to-date answers. Significantly, naturist communities do not find any new answers, but, quite naturally, it automatically establishes a very similar set of rules and norms of behaviour, as ecosystem peoples have built in their history of for themselves. Naturists thus automatically find themselves be naturally placed in the dominant sequence of human development.