Nudists don't like to associate themselves with exhibitionism for obvious reasons (e.g., it harms their public image, and attracts undesirable attention). Is nudism really just exhibitionism in disguise? No. Is there some overlap between what occurs in nudism and what exhibitionists seek? Yes, of course. Admitting that is just being honest. Nudists and exhibitionists both like to take their clothes off in front of other people. That the two do it for largely different reasons is relevant and important information, for sure, but it doesn't change the truth of the previous statement.
It is a natural fact that exhibitionists are going to be superficially drawn to nudism. So-called "true" nudists can't be entirely faulted for resenting this kind of negative attention (and I call it negative because, as alluded to above, it has a tendency to interfere with the relaxed and family-friendly atmosphere of non-sexual nude recreation, and indirectly affects the image of nudism on a larger scale). But I don't think the exhibitionists should be disparaged for their all-too-human error in thinking nudism could be an outlet for their interests. They simply need to be educated. Because the truth is, an exhibitionist can gain a lot from nudism if he simply learns the boundaries, and is capable of behaving himself.
It would be naive to believe that there aren't exhibitionists already doing this. Now, I don't think every nudist is secretly an exhibitionist. But surely some nudists, if not many of them, are not unfamiliar with the exhibitionist thrill of being naked in a public setting. It would be more accurate to say that nudists are simply the exhibitionists who know how to behave themselves (because, typically, those that don't are quickly ejected from the premises of an official nudist resort). And for those that can behave themselves, I don't see anything in the world that's wrong with such a thrill being part and parcel of the motivation and the experience of nudist recreation.
Of course, where I and most of the rest of the population differ is in my truly sex-positive outlook. I think that if the worst case scenario is somebody engaging in some kind of sexual act in view of non-consenting others, then that's really not so bad anyway. I'm not saying you aren't justified in discouraging and even punishing that kind of behavior [in places not designated for that sort of activity, where the inclusion of that activity could legitimately harm the atmosphere of the resort]. I'm just saying that if it does happen, it shouldn't be treated like a capital offense. Nobody's going to be "traumatized for life" (no, not even your kids), unless you wig out and make a big deal about it.
Furthermore, in this alarmingly litigious society (nigh bordering on being a police state), where the most bloated and life-scarring punishment is reserved for so-called "sex offenders", I think we should exercise restraint before potentially ruining a person's life over a harmless case of bad judgment, where the worst damage incurred is on the level of "offense". Obviously, I am not talking about truly serious crimes like rape, but merely daring to transgress against the socially-imposed agreement that we pretend we're not all sexual organisms constantly driven by an overpowering desire to mate (who decided this in the first place, anyway?). Can we just get real for once?
sex offender (noun)
def: a person whose sexual practices offend someone else (i.e., the entire human population)
note: the vast majority of sex offenders are unregistered