Well Cary, you've done it again. You have proven once again that they are still people who have a media voice and somehow manage to use that voice wisely. They are so many variables that happen during the raising of a child, outside of abuse, that can ultimately result in that child turning into a well adjusted adult human being in spite of normal parental nudity. The issue is all so moot and so many "professional" psychologists have so many personal unsolved and unaddressed psychological issues that their so-called science is marred by their personal perceptions.

A long, long time ago I sought counseling. At the time the young psychologist was in her late twenties. I was approaching my twenty-fifth year of marriage and this young progfessional told me, without blinking, that she thought it was unnatural that I had been involved in such a long-term relationship. Her observation somehow hit my funny bone and I found that I was unable to smother the giggles that kept rising to the surface. Needless to say our relationship ended on that sunny afternoon and against the tenets of her expert observation, I am approaching my forty-second annivesary in just a few months.

So, when it comes to "experts" many times you still have to consider the source because all experts aren't equal.

My eyes kinda glazed over at about page 12 of this back-and-forth good vs. evil nudity debate, but I thought I'd just add a little tidbit for your perusal.

America has the absolute MOST sex-negative and yet highly eroticised culture on the planet.

The friggin Vatican doesn't conflate human sexuality to the extent that our warped culture has.

Kids in the U.S are told every second of every day in a variety of subliminal, subtle and blatant ways that they should be constantly thinking about sex and that thinking about sex is shameful and bad. They are also taught that naked = sex.

And that, I am sure, is why this country is so massively screwed up. It's certainly why we're so concerned with other people's sex lives, be they celebrity, homosexual or otherwise.

Take the case of a man some time back who had moved to California from Iran. He and his wife had a brand-new baby boy and one day the man was holding his son, a wee infant not 6 months old, just a little blob of gooey baby sweetness and giggles, and in his amazement at his son's adorableness and with the immeasurable love of a new father, he raised the boy in the air and kissed his teeny toes, his belly and his cute baby cheeks.

The baby was naked, as they tend to be a great deal, and Papa was standing with him in front of a living room window.

Now, in Iran and other Middle-Eastern cultures, as well as cultures all over the world, kissing one's infant offspring all over is not seen as a sexual act. It's affection. I think we can all agree so far, yes?

His neighbors saw and called the cops, and this loving father was imprisoned for child molestation. For kissing his son.

I mean, c'mon. That's absurd. What's next? We won't be able to bathe our kids?

You have to be out of your mind to think that a father kissing his baby was a sexual act. It's all about intention, kiddies.

Shame on you.

The other reason that Britney Spears is an inappropriate model for discussing this topic is that she has made a career out of sexualizing herself and her identity. Everything about her is inextricably tangled up with sex. She has done this deliberately. Britney parading around naked is not the same thing as some unknown housewife getting dressed in front of her kids -- at least in the eyes of the general public. All of that is of course irrelevant within her family -- certainly right now, considering her kids are 1 and 2 years old. But it does make her an utterly wrong example on which to base any philosophies of childrearing practice.

And it's worth reiterating that the ecosystem surrounding celebrities is profoundly toxic. If Britney's kids grow up into warped individuals, the drugs, the publicity, the insane concert tour lifestyle, and the papparazzi will be far bigger factors than Britney lounging around without a shirt on.

...in front of her kids, what about me?

No, you shouldn't be naked in front of her kids either.

What would happen if the LW followed Cary's advice and spoke to a therapist?

How about her having her kids taken away for sexual abuse?

Some people construe being naked in the same room with a child as sexual abuse and they are required by law to report it to law enforcement and social services. That would result in the kids being put into foster care (where they are likely to be abused) and the whole rigamarole of jumping through hoops and proving that you are a fit parent to get them back. Meanwhile, she will have fun explaining the newspaper and tv news stories about her to her coworkers, friends and family.

What happens to the LW and her kids is of less concern to Cary than promoting the therapy industry.

Dr. Phil is at the top of that food chain. Any questions?

Jerry Springer isn't that different, just not evil.

Such as:

What if you found out your son enjoyed seeing you naked?

What if he's disappointed when you stop being naked around him?

What if he tries to fill the void by spying on you?

You might think these questions are far-fetched or irrelevant. I don't. Humans are sexual beings, and nudity is a big part of sex, especially in our culture. We do not have innate knowledge of social/sexual mores; they need to be taught to us. Young boys, in particular, pursue their own mothers romantically until they learn not to. How do you teach an inappropriate suitor not to pursue you? By letting him see you naked?

Like I said, these are creepy questions. Most people don't like to deal with them, which is why families tend to draw pretty clear boundaries in this area. The less clearly you draw them, the greater the chance for problems. That's how I see it, anyway.