Sorry but I just don't buy it. There's no functional difference between swimming in undergarments or swimming nude, so if you choose nude, it's because you don't think it should be stigmatized.
If you think it feels so much nicer, consider that it's because it's a mild rebellion against a social norm.
Look mr prudent, you don't get the motivation why folks do it, fine, but show some respect. And yes there is huge difference between swimming naked and in some swim shorts. I couldn't care less about rebelling against something, and I am definitely not any kind of exhibitionist.
Done it cca twice if I don't count swimming during night, second time got sting on the shoulder from medusa that left burn scar for years and hurt like hell back then. The idea of getting something similar on my johnson makes me shudder even now.
Why is being nude normal in some places, but not others? That suggests that a stigma exists in one but not the other, and so participating in one or the other is implicitly supporting that.
How can it be so difficult to comprehend, that people might want to be nude with other people but not have it shared with the entire world for all eternity?
How can you not comprehend there are stages between "complete and total privacy with one person for a moment" and "film this and display it for all time to everyone"?
You shifted the goalposts into a false dichotomy about "public vs. private" and the concept of de-stigmatization. I am saying the entire premise is bunk, there is not only "private" and "public".
There is clearly a definition of "public" that involves a limited, semi-unrestricted number of like-minded people in a safe setting without tools to record behavior for eternal and unlimited rebroadcast. You do not acknowledge this; you are talking in binary.