The Naked Child Growing Up Without Shame
<< Chapter I >>
The naked family
Dennis Craig Smith
Nakedness within the family: depraved or desirable?
Tom and Susan Johnston had always felt good about the kind of parents they had been and the choices they had made in raising their daughter Bonnie. True, their lifestyle was a little freer than most of the people in their community; they knew and accepted the differences in philosophy and political temperament, and without really having any serious conflict or discord both of them were aware that their families did not share many of their opinions. But that did not bother them. Since they respected their neighbors’ rights to their own opinions, they expected similar consideration to be given to them. Susan, a bit more politically active than Tom, often volunteered as a precinct worker for candidates they both supported, and she had become quite involved in the Le Leche League. She also conducted evening classes in the Lamaze method of natural childbirth.
In spite of their general tolerance toward others, what they believed in they believed in strongly. They supported civil rights, the ERA, and solar power, but they were against, opposed to what they called “small-minded and medieval attitudes about modesty and our bodies.” And therein lies the source of most of the controversy regarding the Johnstons.
In and around the neighborhood where they live, Tom and Susan are known as nudists. It is not a term they would have selected for themselves, for they do not belong to a nudist club and do not think of themselves as such. Nevertheless, when a playmate of Bonnie’s came into the back yard and discovered all three of the Johnstons sunbathing in the nude, the word and condemnation spread like a bad cold through the neighborhood and the community.
“You are corrupting and damaging your child for life.”
Family, friends, and a few loyal but unmistakably disapproving neighbors began volunteering advice on the impropriety of raising a child in such a lascivious environment. All of these well-meaning people were shocked. Some were outraged. But nearly all were sure that Bonnie was being sexually corrupted by “all the goings-on” in the Johnstons’ home. As a matter of fact, Tom and Susan did not believe at all in open sexuality. They considered their being without clothing around their daughter to have very little to do with sex. They believed they were providing a healthful contribution to Bonnie’s growing up by letting her get to know her body — and the bodies of her parents — without shame.
One of Susan’s well-meaning and very concerned friends gave her an article from a national magazine that was written by the author of the book on child care which Susan and Tom had grown to rely on and to respect. The article told of the dangers of open nudity in the home and warned of grave consequences. Susan realized that, if this writer was correct, her daughter might already have been harmed.
Ordinarily, when a seven-year-old, brighter-than-average little girl loves the beach, stories about horses, and trips to her grandparents, she’s considered quite normal, even healthy — and very charming. If her grades are high, if she is neither overly shy nor overly aggressive, if she is liked by her peers and her teachers, she can be assumed to be mentally healthy — normal.
As she observed her daughter in the light of this article, Susan could see that, for the most part, Bonnie fit well into the stereotype. Certainly, until the “discovery” of the Johnstons’ “nudism,” Bonnie had always been thought of as a normal child. Her teacher described her as “a delightful diversion on an otherwise dull day.” Her pediatrician called her healthy, and most people who came into contact with Bonnie found her to be typical of the positive kind of second-grade boys and girls we all like to see. But one aspect of her life — her participation in nude recreation with her parents — did set her apart from other children her age. Her involvement in finding an answer to the question of which of these two opposing philosophies — open or restricted — was legitimate and most advantageous to a child gave Bonnie’s life a dimension that most other children’s lives did not possess.
Nevertheless, when pressed by their well-meaning neighbors, Tom and Susan Johnston weren’t able to present any concrete evidence in defense of their lifestyle. All they had was their intuitive feelings. Naturally, this made them uneasy. Their claims that open nudity was good and right began to sound as hollow to their own ears — and as unproven — as the words of their critics.
This distressed them. They were both well-educated, conscientious parents who wanted to believe their instincts, but they were also reasonable enough to listen to other opinions. They did not want to trust their daughter’s future to their instincts alone without researching the literature and verifying their convictions. After all, there was a small chance their friends might be right.
Are you Unconsciously Seducing Your Children if You Allow Them to See you Nude ?
One of the main characteristics of the third quarter of the twentieth century is the recognition of individual rights and the subsequent appearance of alternative lifestyles. Within our society today, a greater than normal percentage of people within the society have developed and adopted these new, defiant, unconventional forms of behavior. What has become one of the most common of these breaks from tradition is the growing acceptance of total body exposure. This social nudity takes place either within the family unit (as in the case of the Johnstons), on the increasing number of nude beaches around the country, or in organized nudist clubs, camps, and resorts. Public and family nudity is increasing daily. Thousands of people went to Black’s Beach in San Diego before the city revoked its license as the first legalized nude beach in California — more than were attending the San Diego Chargers’ football games or going to the world-famous San Diego Zoo on a given weekend. These nudists, independent and organized, are for the most part thinking people who honestly feel that their nude recreation contributes favorably to their children’s growth.1
Bonnie Johnston’s parents knew better than to reject their chosen lifestyle just because one authority objected to it. Nor are they certainly alone in recognizing that arguments exist on both sides of the issue. Like many parents today, they are seeking definitive answers that will solve for them the dilemma of whether this new open physical environment is harmful or helpful to children raised within it.
A mother who, after reading some well-known “authority,” wonders if she is “unconsciously seducing her son” when she appears around the house in just her panties and bra (a common practice with her) needs a reassuring answer. A father who always showered with his sons and daughters but stopped because (for some reason he didn’t understand completely) they seemed to have become too old for that kind of thing, needs help too. Those two individuals are dealing with the same issues as are parents who own property along the lake and always, during the summer, strip down with their children, spending most of their time completely nude and completely isolated from the rest of the world. And all of them face the same dilemma that confronts Susan and Tom Johnston.
What are the rules about children and nakedness? What do the experts say when couples like Bonnie’s parents go to them for answers? Most importantly, on what do the experts base their conclusions — is there anything known about this subject for certain,?
In an article which appeared in Redbook magazine in 1974, America’s foremost pediatrician, author, and advisor to parents worldwide, expressed his views on family nudity. In it, Dr. Benjamin Spock, probably the most sought-after authority on raising children, who wrote the now classic Baby and Child Care, expressed serious reservations about nakedness within the family. He has not changed his stand on that issue in the last decade.
The doctor appears to have based his conclusions and much of this outlook on his own personal experience as a parent, and, with that authority alone, warns repeatedly against the dangers of an open physical family environment. In his article, Spock points to an incident that occurred when he was a young father with a small son. He says that the two of them (the son was age three) were in the habit of “shaving” together each morning and that, usually having just showered, he explained that often he was nude. He thought nothing, he says, of being nude in front of the boy. In fact, he confesses to have assumed that he had a healthy relationship with his son.
Spock reports that as the weeks went by he noticed the child was paying overly much attention to his father’s penis. Eventually, the child made grabbing motions toward it, pretending to be kidding but in the doctor’s own words “obviously quite resentful.” We don’t learn from the article what made it obvious to Spock that his son was not playing and that he was quite resentful. Instead, we are told that, because of this observation, Spock altered his habit of shaving nude, particularly when his son was with him in the bathroom pretending to shave.2
Evidently, based on this experience alone, Dr. Spock proposed and concluded that exposure to naked parents may keep a child excessively preoccupied with sexual fantasies, distracting him or her from other important associations. Seeing parents nude, Spock contends, can produce overactivity, excitability, sleeplessness, frequent masturbation, school failures, difficulties in parental management, and sexual behavior of which the parents disapprove. A child can become overstimulated by the sight of the parent’s genitals, and, Spock explains, this overstimulation is something that most children cannot take calmly. He says that since most of us are not able to recognize when (have little realization of whether) we are being seductive toward our children, it is better to give them the benefit of the doubt and wear clothing when we are around them.
Dr. Spock also specifically warns a parent against allowing a child of the same sex to view him or her without clothes. He appears to feel that the nudity of a parent is particularly bothersome to the child of the same sex, as in the case of a father and his son. Rivalry, he claims, occurs between sons and fathers because of the parent’s much larger penis size. This, he adds, is a common rivalry among boys and men.
Spock refers to Freud’s Oedipus Complex and feels this rivalry may also involve the opposite-sex parent.3 When attracted to the mother, Spock says, a small boy will find the increasing fear of genital injury turns the delightful attraction into an aversion. The child will also begin to fear his father and see him as a rival for his mother. This will cause him to develop castration anxiety. The child will see his father as threatening to do him bodily harm, specifically by cutting off his genitalia.
But, Spock adds, fears and anxieties are not exclusive to boy children. He believes that psychoanalysis has shown that the rivalry between a small girl and her mother inclines the daughter to blame her mother for somehow depriving her of a penis, or for neglecting to endow her with one. This, he claims, creates antagonisms in the growing girl that can affect her entire life.
If one is to accept Dr. Spock’s conclusions, Bonnie’s parents are risking far more than just the premature arousal of her sexual curiosity. He explains his feelings further by alluding to Freud’s exploration of the unconscious levels of the mind and notes that Freud found children before the age of three who became worried about why boys and girls were different. That worry, he adds, is harmful to children. Spock does concede that nudity is not the only cause for the problems he outlines in his article and book, and admits that many children may not be affected in these ways. He also admits that there are limits as to how much we can make human sexuality (which is emotional) conform to our rational wishes. Nevertheless, refer-ring back to one of his opening statements, he says he thinks it is better for parents to give the children the benefit of the doubt and wear clothes when around them.
For the Johnstons and all parents like them important questions arise quickly: Is Spock’s a voice in the wilderness? Are there others who feel as he does and what, if there are, do they say? With thousands of people going to Black’s Beach in San Diego (the nude beach that the city once legalized then outlawed) — there are a lot of people like Bonnie’s parents wondering if they are doing the right thing in raising their children in a physically open environment. Some like Tom and Susan are looking to the experts and, of course, others are not.
Actually, much has been written about this subject lately and much of it agrees with Spock. Dr. Joyce Brothers, in a nationally syndicated column, warned a worrying parent about the very same issue:
“When children are surrounded by nudity their emotional attachments to their parents are apt to increase and produce terrible guilts and frustrations. The child’s curiosity about sex will never be satisfied by just seeing, and the next step is touching. I believe this kind of environment [the open physical exposure of body parts] may place so much emphasis on sex that a small child could easily become preoccupied wilh his body and the bodies of others...when and where does the parent draw the line? Incest is an obvious end.”4
Dr. Brothers goes on to say that, “Nudity, even when limited to the family, complicates a child’s sexual growth and his or her adjustment. Most children,” she states, “have Oedipal complexes, and parental nudity makes it much more difficult for them to make the needed emotional break from their parents.” Dr. Brothers refers to another source, paraphrasing Dr. Sandor Lorand, the honorary president of the Psycho-analytical Association of New York. She says he has pointed out that “any parent who parades nude in front of his children, or others, is unconsciously seducing them.”5
Dr. Fitzhugh Dodson, author of How to Parent, and How to Father, along with many other books on raising children, modified that stand somewhat when he said:
“In general, I feel that today’s more relaxed attitudes toward nudity in the home are a much healthier way of educating our children sexually. I think that for youngsters up to the age of six a rather open policy toward nudity in the home is best. It makes for a more relaxed and healthy attitude toward sex and bodily functions for children and parents to be free to be nude or partially nude around the house while the children are preschoolers. After that I think it is a different matter... for the youngster of nine or ten years or older to see the parent nude may be too sexually stimulating for the child. This precocious sexual stimulation can lead to problems because it may be more stimulation than the child can comfortably handle.” 6
Dodson tells of a young male patient who was, in his words, “Unduly preoccupied with sex.” He doesn’t go into any more detail about the preoccupation but indicates that the mother often spent time around the house in her panties and bra. His analysis was that it aroused the boy and brought him to his sexual threshold too early because the sight of his mother in her underwear was overstimulating for him. He verifies his analysis by quoting the father: “Honey, it turns me on, I’ll bet it turns him on, too!”7 Dodson doesn’t go any further into the way he measures “overstimulation” and pretty much lets the conclusion stand on observation.
Another author who agrees with this line of thinking is Bennett Olshake, who wrote the book What Shall We Tell The Kids? In it he says it is not wise to “parade around nude in front of our youngsters.”8
Haim Ginott, in his book Between Parent and Child, tells families that direct observations don’t satisfy children’s curiosity and may just stir up some secret strivings that cannot be fulfilled.
“When children are allowed to be present while we sunbathe or exercise in the nude, they may imagine that they are invited not only to be there but to do something to please us. They become overstimulated, confused, and caught in hopeless fantasy.”9
He says that we can tolerate their occasional intrusions and stares when we are showering and dressing, but that we should not encourage this kind of behavior. “The sight of a naked mom or dad may stimulate genital excitement and sexual desires that can never be fulfilled.”10
The New Encyclopedia Of Child Care and Guidance explains to parents that “it is more wholesome for children to grow up always having known about sex differences between boys and girls; it is a good idea for them — while still young — casually to have seen both boys and girls naked.”11 [The emphasis is ours.] Here, again, as with Dodson, is the notion that there is a time for this kind of exposure and a time when it becomes very damaging. Dodson, Ginott, and the editors of the encyclopedia of child care seem to think that when children reach the ages of eight, nine, and ten they should not be allowed to see their parents nude. Jerome Fass, in A Primer For Parents, does not make this distinction. He states that:
“I and many of my colleagues have seen children who on exposure to their parent’s nude body were eithe£ sexually stimulated or in later years had sexual difficulties. It is simply that the genitals of the parent become difficult to blot out, even though the child has become an adult looking at his or her marriage partner. And the thought of incest becomes most threatening.”12
He does not explain how he knows this for a fact and quotes no studies verifying his opinion-prognosis. He also takes issue with parents and people in general who propose that a child should grow up free of inhibitions and takes aim at those who are proponents of the idea that children should be exposed to nudity. He says:
“Siblings and parents are told not to be embarrassed and to simply parade their unadorned bodies about in each other’s presence. These people fail to recognize a simple truth. Children, all on their own, without any sort of pressure, develop a sense of modesty.”13
“Current available research does not indicate that nudity ... has any kind of predictably negative effect....”
Before we succumb to the pressure of these authorities who hold that children will be, or may be, psychologically damaged by repeated exposure to naked parents and other adults, we need to recognize that they are not without opposition. Bonnie Johnston’s parents were able to find other opinions that take a much different stand on the issue of raising children in a free and open physical environment. And those authorities, too, are available to any who are serious in their search for knowledge on the subject. Dr. Albert Ellis, founder of the Institute for Advanced Study in Rational Psychotherapy, took exception to both doctors Spock and Brothers when he pointed out to us that there was no evidence for their claims. He said:
“I by no means agree with Joyce Brothers when she says that by being surrounded by nudity children will develop terrible guilts and frustrations and that this will lead to the obvious end, incest.”14
Ellis went on to say that there are always persons who will be susceptible to guilt and frustration depending on their reaction to certain aspects of their lives. The current available research does not indicate that nudity in the lives of these individuals has any kind of predictably negative effect on them. In commenting on the problems that can be caused by the lack of sexual inhibitions, that should set in according to Spock’s article, Ellis states: “This is an interesting hypothesis of Dr. Spock’s, but I do not know of any data that supports it.”15
Not seeing parents and other family members nude causes sexual trauma and poor sexual adjustment.
Marilyn Fithian, author of The Nudist Society with Dr. William Hartman, also takes exception to what Dr. Brothers maintained about incest and nudity in the home.
“I can tell you from our experience working with clients that incestuous behavior was not related to nudity in the home. It was more often directly related to lack of love, warmth and affection from parents. Seeing parents nude was almost always received as a positive experience except where peeping had to be done to see the parents without clothes.”16
Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt, a psychiatrist and president of the School for Parent Education in Reinack/Basel, Switzerland, writing in the explanatory text for the book Show Me expressed strong feeling in this regard:
“Although the modern sex instruction given today in many schools is extremely valuable, its effectiveness should not be overestimated. Many children, by the time they reach school age, are already encumbered with prejudices and misconceptions as a result of a repressive attitude to sex in their home and environment.... A child who has never been allowed to see his parents and brothers and sisters naked sees nudity as something shocking. Children will only have a sense of their bodies as something “good” if they receive much tenderness and devotion from their parents from birth. In order to enjoy sex fully, it is necessary to enjoy one’s own body naturally.”17
This author goes on to explain that the naturalness that she sees as essential can only be achieved through spontaneous and ongoing experiences of “nakedness, sexual honesty, and love.” Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt takes exactly the opposite position as Spock, Brothers, Ginott, and Dodson. She insists that it is not harmful for a child to see his/her parents nude. She says that it is not seeing parents and other family members nude which causes sexual trauma and poor sexual adjustment.
Lloyd de Mause, Director of the Institute for Psychohistory and a member of the training faculty of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training as well as editor of The Journal of Psychohistory, in a statement made upon hearing the views of the experts quoted in the first part of this chapter, responded:
“It is not true [that] ’experts’ [his quotes] on childhood think nudity in the family scars children. As one expert myself ... I and most of my associates allow nudity in our families, and can report’ that our children have only been helped by the openness.”18
Mr. de Mause believes that an open physical environment has exactly the opposite effect on children from that which Dr. Brothers predicts. He also points to the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims that exposure produces a higher number of psychosexual problems (emotional problems related to sexual adjustment) in either children or in adults, who as children, were raised in such an environment. Margaret Mead speaking on the subject once gently pointed out:
“Living in the modern world, clothed and muffled, it is easy to lose sight of the immediacy of the human body plan. The little boy needs to see the changes in body form and hair, the gradually developing genitals, the spreading hair on chest and armpits, the first soft facial down that no razor will recognize, to bind his sense of himself, still so small and undeveloped, to the man that he will become. And the little girl, to be equally assured, needs to be one of a series of girls, up through the nubile girl with budding breasts to the mature young woman, and finally to the just pregnant, the fully pregnant and the post-parturient and suckling mother. This is what happens in those primitive societies in which the body is hardly covered at all and most of the bodily changes are present to the child’s eye. . . . The worried and frightened comparison between the small boy and his father — the only exhibit of maleness that is vouchsafed to him in our society — are not the characteristic features of such an experience.”19
In her later book she added:
“Ideally, parents will unostentatiously allow their children to become acquainted, from infancy on, with the nude appearance of family members, juvenile and adult, in the normal course of dressing, undressing and bathing. . . . There are surprisingly many American children today who literally do not know the genital difference between males and females, others who have a great store of misinformation about reproduction to confuse them, and still others who know enough but are so inhibited that they can’t talk about it. This is not to say that we should go all the way back to nature but that occasional exposure to parental nudity and a high school course in sex education are not enough.”20
Ms. Mead based her feelings on years of observation in the field. Many times in her writing she predicted social changes that recently have come about. In her column for Redbook magazine, written in the early 60’s, she remarked that current subculture trends might begin to influence society so that within limited ranges of social situations children “can run free and adults can enjoy unexciting relaxation without wearing clothes. Mixed swimming under controlled conditions probably is not far away.”
In the same article she said she felt that swimming and sunbathing were two activities in which total nudity really made sense, especially in a temperate climate. “What we need is both freedom from prudery and the freedom to express our feelings.” She wrote these words long before Black’s Beach in San Diego attracted 20,000 naked beachgoers on one particular Sunday, and long before more than 500 beaches from coast to coast had been designated by the users as “Nude Beaches.” In the same article she said she felt that swimming and sunbathing were two activities in which total nudity really made sense, especially in a temperate climate. “What we need is both freedom from prudery and the freedom to express our feelings.” Since then at least three books have been written and published on the subject, as well.
One of them, Sexual Signatures: On being a Man or a Woman, is dedicated to sexual identity and sexual confusion. Scientists John Money and Patricia Tucker stressed:
“A baby boy needs help and reassurance in identifying himself as a boy who will grow up to be a man and help in learning how to do it. He needs to know that his penis is a proud, integral part of what makes him a boy, a promise of his future manhood, and he needs a concept of how he will use his penis to validate his manhood. It’s easy for a mother who may adore her baby but despise her husband and his penis to communicate to her infant son in subtle, covert ways a conviction that he would be even more adorable if it weren’t for that rather disgusting little appendage on his belly. Anxiously the baby, whose life is so literally in her hands, must seek to wish away the offending member. If such messages are compelling enough in infancy, and are not countered by his father, the baby can be led to reject his penis and his masculinity altogether, heading toward transexualism.
“A baby girl needs help and reassurance in identifying herself as a girl who will grow up to be a woman and help in learning how to do it. She needs to know that her vulva is a proud, integral part of what makes her a girl, a promise of her future womanhood, and she needs a concept of how her vagina and the hidden “baby nest” above it will validate her womanhood. It’s easy for parents and others to convey in subtle ways the message that there’s something vaguely disgusting about a vagina and menstruation; in fact, such messages are built into many cultures and are anything but subtle. The fact that it’s women who give birth to all babies, male and female, makes it harder to deflect a girl into differentiating a male gender identity, but it can be done. A parent who wants to use a daughter as a substitute for a wished-for son can, without admitting it even to himself or herself, let the baby girl know unmistakably that the way to the parental love on which her life depends is for her to code her male schema positive. If such messages are compelling enough and are not countered, she can be led to reject her femininity and head for transexualism.”21
All these statements in favor of nudity are encouraging, but Bonnie’s parents, and others like them, are looking for more than just differing opinions. They want some kind of empirical evidence, something that they can rely on that has some scientific credibility.
One study that deals with this question in a scientific manner was done at the University of Northern Iowa by doctors Marilyn and Norman Story. Their research compared the body self-concept of nudist and non-nudist preadolescents and adults. The study drew from a national sample of 264 three-to-five-year-old children and their parents or guardians. The results of this study do address themselves to the questions Bonnie’s parents are asking about the effects their openness would have on their daughter.
In terms of how positive they felt about their bodies, their attitude toward their genitals and what the research termed “total body self-concept,” nudist children and adults scored higher than non-nudists in all categories. In analyzing the classification factors of the research, nudism was found to be more important a variable than sex. Social nudist males scored higher than non-nudist males and females. Social nudist females also scored higher than non-nudist males and females. “At home only” nudists scored significantly higher than non-nudists.
The study by the doctors Marilyn and Norman Story only deals with body awareness and self-concept. It does not intend to explain anything outside those areas and does not at all disprove the contentions (mentioned earlier in this chapter) of high incidences of incestuous behavior or psychosexual emotional problems relating to parental genital exposure. It doesn’t try. But it does show a positive element of open physical awareness that was, of course, left out in the opinions of Dosdson, Brothers, Spock, etc. It points to one factor of personality and says: “This we found to be the case; this environment seems to determine positive body self-concept and was significant at the .001 level.”22 In other words, the relationship between body self-concept scores and nudity in the family could happen by chance only one time in 1,000.
Dr. Manfred F. DeMartino, writing in The New Female Sexuality: The Sexual Practices and Experiences of Social Nudists, Potential Nudists and Lesbians, says that from a psychological standpoint, in terms of security-insecurity ratings and levels of self-esteem, the sample of female nudists he studied were, as a group, of sound psychological health. He said as a group they were very sexually active and reported a very high incidence of sexually satisfying lives.23
Dr. George Serban, who is president of the International Society for Existential Psychiatry, once commented on the myths which surround the open physical environments that exist in our society. He said those who think nudists are undersexed because of their failure to be sexually aroused by the sight of others’ nakedness are as misguided as those who, for the same reason, maintain that nudists are oversexed. The sexual content of a situation, he says, depends on factors other than nakedness. To the nudist or the open family, being without clothes is so much a part of their everyday lives that it is not a sexual cue at all.
There are, then, authorites who actually prescribe an open physical environment. A. S. Neill, founder of the Summerhill schools and author of Summerhill and Freedom, Not License, was asked by a young mother if her friends were right when they warned that bringing up a child in an atmosphere of nudity can arouse unfavorable reactions. In response, Neill advised, “Ignore your neighbors.... Nudity in a home is excellent, natural.”24
If these experts are right, if raising children in an open family physical environment is not harmful but helpful to the child’s sexual emotional growth, then from what sources do the attitudes about severe consequences come? To get some insights, at least according to some psychological historians, we have to go a long way back into our history. There we find some dramatic parallels to many of the attitudes that are expressed today.
Some concepts accepted by “experts” are antiquated and no longer applicable today.
In 1405, Giovanni Dominici wrote about the “innocence” of children. He said children after the age of three years should not be allowed to see adults nude. He claims that: “granted there will not take place [in a child] any thought or natural movement before the age of five, yet, without precaution, growing up in such acts [adult nudity] he becomes accustomed to that act of which later he is not ashamed....” He warned parents to keep covered. Fathers should sleep covered with a night shirt reaching below the knee. “Let not the father nor the mother touch him. Not to be so tedious in writing so fully of this, I simply mention the history of the ancients who made full use of this doctrine to bring up children well, not slaves of the flesh.”
Five hundred years ago Dominici warned about the same things that doctors Spock and Brothers caution us about today. They say that after a certain age children should be sheltered from seeing their physical reality. We have already noted that the modern advocates of this policy appear to base their statements on personal experiences or on a few cases of troubled individuals for whom nudity was accompanied by many other problems. Similarly, the writers in the 1400’s did not quote studies that weighed and reported empirical evidence. These early “authorities,” using hearsay evidence only, talked of demons and spirits and other evil forces that tempted children into sexual misbehaving. They spoke from superstitions and misinformation from a science of the times, based on and derived from alchemy, astrology and other disciplines that are viewed today as primitive, naive attempts to understand a complex, changing world.
That was all those early writers knew. But in today’s society, and in the context of all that modern science has taught us, those concepts simply cannot be applied to our lives. Even Freud’s castration complex, still held in great esteem, takes on a new understanding and meaning when we look at historical facts.
In Medieval Europe, it was common practice to castrate as a punitive measure, especially when dealing with sexual acts considered “crimes” against the teachings of the church. Castration anxiety was a very real part of a young boy’s life. In the History of Childhood Quarterly: The Journal of Psychohistory, Lloyd de Mause wrote:
“Signs of castration surrounded the child in antiquity. In every field and garden he saw a Priapus, with a large erect penis and a sickle, which was supposed to symbolize castration. His pedagogue and his teacher might be castrated, castrated prisoners were everywhere, and his parents’ servants would often be eunuchs. And although Constantine passed a law against castrators, the practice grew so rapidly under his successors that soon even noble parents mutilated their sons to further their political advancement. Boys were also castrated as a ’cure’ for various diseases and Ambroise Pare complained how many unscrupulous ’Gelders,’ greedy to get children’s testicles for medicinal and magical purposes, persuaded parents to let them castrate their children.”25
When Freud talked of the fear a small boy might have that his father may castrate him because of his rivalry for his mother’s affections, he could very well have been speaking of a real fear that children had good reasons for in his day. This act of castration was used as a form of punishment for masturbation and, according to de Mause, this practice reached an “unbelievable frenzy” by the nineteenth century. Parents, and doctors as well, would stand before a child with knives and scissors — threatening to cut off the child’s penis or to perform a clitoridectomy if the youngster were caught masturbating or otherwise committing sexual transgressions. We still retain some of these notions in our literature and our language. In some contemporary dictionaries masturbation is still defined as “self-abuse.”
The deeper we go into our sexual belief systems in our search for the reasons behind our sexual inhibitions, the more apparent become the influences from our medieval past on our sexual fears and beliefs. Our equating sex with sin, nudity with sex, and evil with our genitals and their functions, is easily recognizable as a product of superstition, the fear of demons, and, finally, the Biblical story of original sin and the puritanical, Biblical penance for original sin.
In the twentieth century we have two kinds of information available to us: that which is believed, and that which has been proven. Bonnie Johnston’s parents were looking for more than opinions. Yet, in the age of space travel and science they still found very little support of their open lifestyle. The unfortunate feet is that there is far too little written to counterbalance, to actually disprove the concept, the ideas, first mentioned at the start of this chapter, that dire consequences are inevitable to a child raised in an open physical environment. But in spite of this dearth of written material, there is much empirical evidence that speaks for the Johnstons.
In the previous pages we have looked into the thoughts of many of the most prominent and most respected minds in the English-speaking world and we have isolated two philosophies: One warning against children viewing their parents’ nakedness and a second speaking in favor of family nudity. This dichotomy among “authorities” is confusing to say the least. The answer can be a most important, critical factor in little Bonnie Johnston’s life. Her parents must make a choice, either by conscious effort, intellectual decision or through their actions. They need help in this important step.
In the following chapters this book will try to go further than just listing opinions. We will report on our five-year study, in which we tried to see what kind of adults these “open environment” children make and have become.
In the course of this study, we will address the problems of incest, the Oedipus complex, castration anxiety, parent seduction, terrible guilts and frustrations, overstimulation, sexual obsession, school failures, penis envy, adolescent sexual promiscuity, sexual deviancy, parental hatred, exhibitionism, bisexuality, and a few of the other consequences that have been attributed to children being exposed to naked adults, and more specifically, to A Naked Family.
>>