I've seriously been thinking about this.

In most Democracies, over the last 20 years a general social moral consensus has arisen that is founded in consent.

As in, if two people with the mental/emotional capacity choose to Do the Thing, we should let them (even if we personally Don't Like that Thing). Conversely, if a person does not consent, our moral indignation flares up -- it threatens our peaceful, tolerant, inclusive society. We really don't like rape or rapists and men will performatively show how much they are not "like that".

Contrast with prevailing social norms in authoritarian states like Russia, the Eastern European nations that never really escaped its orbit, and theocracies like Iran or even affluent Gulf states.

In those societies, from what I've seen, consent is viewed more as a luxury than a basic requirement. Instead, observance of social hierarchy is the social norm that we monkeys enforce on each other . If "she was asking for it", if "he was an obvious Queer", if the person is clearly "lower social standing", then their rights and feelings simply don't have the same weight.

do you mean naturists?

naturalists: people who study plants and animals and such.

naturists: people who advocate being naked in public, usually for ethical, philosophical, or health reasons

They should be equally acceptable without needing to be sexualized. But even if you like seeing tits, the best way to see other's is to not be weird, dehumanizing, or non-consenting about it. That's like the 1 rule of etiquette anyway, try within reason to not make other people uncomfortable.