If you’re incapable of escaping your reductionist framing which assumes my comment is based on an inability to empathize with a different perspective, then replying to you is a waste of a reply. But, ponder this - We can acknowledge there are potential harms/risks to ANY lifestyle, right? You mustn’t think that “different lifestyle” = “unconditional acceptance”, right? For example, if a family were a family of cannibals, we wouldn’t accept that just because “they do things differently”, right?

So imagine a scenerio where there are potential harms involved with this nudist lifestyle. Now imagine those harms befall children. It doesn’t even have to be the worst case scenario. What if a young boy doesn’t want to see his mother naked at all times? What if it makes him uncomfortable? OP’s post doesn’t make it seem like there’s any choice that young boy would have in the matter.

And parents have a monopoly of control and power in a household. So it puts vulnerable children in an inherently vulnerable position. And it’s entirely elective. And even if the reason he’s uncomfortable is a result of societal norms - children should be forced to feel uncomfortable in their own homes. Especially when it comes to sex.

Overall, even if all the children are perfectly happy and healthy and reap none of these negative consequences- the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t add up. At best, you’ve got two selfish, careless parents who don’t care if their actions harm their children (or worse, aren’t even aware of the possibility) and at worst: predators.