This is an interesting read and it makes some good points, but I find it ironic that the author can see that our modern issues with nudity didn't always apply to humans (or our close ancestors/other hominids), yet makes claims like:
Because human babies require a long period of care before they can survive on their own, evolutionary interdisciplinary researchers have theorized that early humans adopted the strategy of pair bonding โ a man and a woman partnering after forming a strong affinity for one another. By working together, the two can more easily manage years of parental care. Pair bonding, however, comes with risks. Because humans are social and live in large groups, they are bound to be tempted to break the pact of monogamy, which would make it harder to raise children.
Which fails as soon as you go beyond the theoretical (we have not only historical evidence, but live examples still existing today that demonstrate the origin of "it takes a village to raise a child") and is supported by a piece of research that frames the opposite of monogamous "pair bonding" to be "promiscuity". ๐
They are doing the exact same applying modern morals and constructs as they're criticising others of doing with regards to nudity, only with regards to the idea of the "nuclear family" and "monogamous fidelity", which I guess is something they aren't ready to break down yet..
