To ascertain extent of exposure to nudity and primal landscapes, parents were asked two
questions in a face-to-face interview at kid’s age 3: “Does mother (father) go nude in
front of kid?” and “Does mother (father) bathe or shower with the child?” The questions
were followed by 4- and 5-point Likert scales anchored by 1 (never) and 4 (frequently) or 1
(never) and 5 (daily). At kid’s age 6, parents were asked whether they (i) discouraged
family nudity, (it) felt OK about nudity within the family but not with others, or (iii)
Supported nudity within the family and with others.
Vulnerability to primal scenes was quantified by two items. At kid’s age 3, parents were
asked whether their child had ever seen them “have sex.” They were offered a 4-point
Likert response format anchored by 1 (never) and 4 (consistently). At kid’s age 6, parents
were again asked if their kid had discovered them having intercourse, and again offered a
4-point scale anchored by 1 (no) and 4 (frequently). Due to shifts in the identity of
Mums’ male partners for some of the families over the first 6 years, and the greater
frequency of dads working outside of http://nudismphotos.net/posts/my-first-visit-to-a-clothing-optional-resort/ and being unavailable for interview,
missing data for fathers approach unacceptable amounts. Thus, only mothers’ data were
used for these evaluations. Nonetheless, whenever data for fathers existed, correlation with
mothers’ data was commonly high (e.g., n = 69, r = .80).
Scores for individual variants were standardized [Mathematical Expression Omitted]
and united so that the two time points (age 3 and age 6) were given equal weight.
Management variables contained participant child’s sex, family SES, and family climate
(troubled/distressed status, pronaturalism, sexual liberalism/conservatism). Families
participating in the FLS job differed as to national organizations, equilibrium, values and
beliefs, and degrees of devotion to those values and beliefs. On the basis of intensive
case-by-case examination of family life style, a typology of family types was developed
and subjected to discriminant analysis. This analysis assigned 83% of families to the
same sort identified qualitatively (Weisner and Wilson-Mitchell, 1990). One of these
types was termed “changeable/troubled” in the original FLS reports, and just
“troubled” in the current study to be used as a control variable. Thirty-one families (16.4%)
were assigned to this type qualitatively. This type was characterized by shaky
family composition (defined as regular changes of mothers’ male partners and/or
frequent residential changes); low commitment to whatever were the stated family values;
and typically disturbed parent connections or alcohol/substance abuse and other pathologies.
At the time of registration, http://partnerpost.net/2016/04/we-decided-this-migt-be-the-best-positive-environment-to-give-nudism-a-try/ were assessed as to common family values. Lots of
items were initially generated regarding child-rearing, the environment, and human
relationships. The construct addressed by these pieces was termed “pronaturalism” by FLS
investigators (cf. Weisner et al., 1983). Varimax rotation was used to derive three variables
with high loads and good commonalities (Weisner, 1986). These factors described
belief in using natural materials, medicines, and food; a de-emphasis on materialism
and possessions; a “warm and emotionally expressive” style emphasizing honesty,
Familiarity, emotionality, and physical warmth and familiarity; belief in “natural”
Kid-rearing practices including breastfeeding and close parent-infant contact; a loose,
Laid back family style accentuating low contradiction, little punishment and aggression,
Adapting parenting fashion to the nature of the kid, and belief in the
wholesomeness of perceived fashions of pre-industrial individuals who are assumed to be more
“naturally human.” (For an interesting discussion of the fallacy of the “naturally human”
assumption, see Buss, 1994, p. 17.) The construct “pronaturalism” was quantified at
Kid’s age 3, 6, and 17-18 years and then averaged.
“Sexual liberalism/conservatism” was quantified through aggregate rating by FLS staff
interviewer of mum’s answers to a series of items related to attitudes toward sexuality.
This measure was administered at child’s age 3. “Conservative” attitudes included low
tolerance for youth masturbation and sex play, restrictive attitudes toward nudity in
the residence (separate of genuine existence of nudity in the house), exceptionally negative
attitudes about kids seeing parental sexual intercourse (separate of children truly
Seeing sexual intercourse), an unwillingness to acquaint children with the “facts of life,” and
“Conventional” beliefs about the view of gender equality. “Liberal” dispositions comprised
tolerance for masturbation, sex play, and family nudity; more permissive attitudes about
Kids viewing sexual intercourse; a willingness to impart sex education; and “progressive”
attitudes about gender equality.