Present study, only 17-18-year outcome data were analyzed.

Predictor Variables
To determine extent of vulnerability to nudity and primal scenes, parents were asked two
questions in a face to face interview at kid’s age 3: “Does mother (father) go naked 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 http://x-nudists.com/index.php/2016/08/04/nudists-use-no-clothes/ (never) and 4 (consistently) or 1
(never) and 5 (daily). At child’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 landscapes was measured by two items. At youngster’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 (frequently). At youngster’s age 6, parents
were again asked if their kid had detected them having intercourse, and again offered a
4-point scale anchored by 1 (no) and 4 (frequently). As a result of shifts in the identity of
Moms’ male partners for some of the families over the first 6 years, and the greater
frequency of dads working outside of the dwelling and being unavailable for interview,
missing data for dads approach unacceptable amounts. So, only moms’ data were
used for these evaluations. However, whenever data for fathers existed, correlation coefficient with

Moms’ data was generally 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.
Control Variants
Control variables included participant child’s sex, http://nudismphotos.net/posts/my-girlfriend-does-the-same-and-does-never-wear-panties-either/ , and family climate
(Distressed/distressed status, pronaturalism, sexual liberalism/conservatism). Families
participating in the FLS job differed as to national organizations, stability, values and
beliefs, and amounts 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 assessment assigned 83% of families to the
same kind identified qualitatively (Weisner and Wilson-Mitchell, 1990). One of these
Sorts was termed “changeable/distressed” 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 category qualitatively. This kind was defined by shaky
family composition (defined as regular changes of moms’ male partners and/or
frequent residential changes); low dedication to whatever were the stated family values;
and commonly disturbed parent relations or alcohol/substance abuse and other pathologies.
At the time of enrollment, parents were assessed as to shared family values. Lots of
items were initially generated regarding child-rearing, the surroundings, and individual
relationships. The concept addressed by these items was termed “pronaturalism” by FLS
investigators (cf. Weisner et al., 1983). Varimax rotation was used to derive three factors
with high loadings and great commonalities (Weisner, 1986). These factors described
belief in the use of natural materials, medications, and food; a de-emphasis on materialism
and possessions; a “warm and emotionally expressive” style highlighting honesty,
Familiarity, emotionality, and physical heat and closeness; belief in “natural”
child-rearing practices including breastfeeding and close parent-infant contact; a free,
Laid back family style accentuating low contradiction, little punishment and aggression,
Adapting parenting style to the temperament of the child, and belief in the
wholesomeness of perceived fashions of pre-industrial folks who are assumed to be more
“naturally human.” (For an interesting discussion of the fallacy of the “naturally human”
assumption, find 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 measured through aggregate evaluation by FLS staff
interviewer of mommy’s answers to a series of items associated with attitudes toward sexuality.
This measure was administered at child’s age 3. “Conservative” perspectives comprised low
tolerance for youth masturbation and sex play, restrictive approaches toward nudity in
the house (independent of real presence of nudity in the home), highly unfavorable
attitudes about kids seeing parental sexual intercourse (independent of kids really
viewing sexual intercourse), an unwillingness to acquaint kids with the “facts of life,” and
“traditional” beliefs about the view of gender equality. “Liberal” dispositions included

tolerance for masturbation, sex play, and family nudity; more permissive attitudes about
children viewing sexual intercourse; a readiness to impart sex education; and “progressive”
attitudes about gender equality.
Standard Variables

Advertisements