The article, When is nudity in the home harmful to children?, published on February 1, 2026, neither argues against family naturism nor gives it a blanket endorsement.
Its core claim is that nudity itself is not the harm—harm comes from how nudity is practised, whose needs are prioritised, and whether children’s developing boundaries are respected.
From a family-naturism perspective, that actually lands closer to a qualified “pro” than a “con”, because the psychologist explicitly says the naked body is not inherently harmful; children can learn that bodies are natural and diverse, and brief or contextual nudity is usually neutral. Problems arise only when adult comfort overrides a child’s comfort.
Where the article becomes cautious is around regular, habitual nudity that ignores a child’s developmental stage or signals of discomfort. That caution isn’t anti-naturist; it’s anti-boundary-blindness.
In fact, many ethical family-naturist frameworks would agree with this argument completely: consent is complex with children, power matters, and parents carry the responsibility to adapt as children grow.
So if we’re honest, are we against careless or adult-centred nudity? Yes. Against respectful, responsive, child-centred family naturism? No. Aligned with best-practice family naturism? Largely, yes.
In other words, the article doesn’t reject family naturism—it challenges parents to practise it well.
And that’s a distinction worth making clear, especially in public conversations where “nudity” and “harm” are too often lazily linked.
- Richard Betteridge
