How is she a slut? She's married with kids. She's just not ashamed of her body- nor should she be. This doesn't make one a slut.
I have always found our American attitude towards the human body totally baffling. We absolutely worship violence but will cover up a statue with a cloth if it is a nude statue. It's completely bizarre.
There's something called moral decency that exists in this country. If she want's to admire her own body, fine, do so in the privacy of your own home.
Posing for a jerk off rag is slutty behavior, it's a form of exibitionism.
As for public nudity, it is disrepectful to others, not to mention unclean. It has nothing to do with what one thinks of the human body beauty. It has to do with moral decency, self respect, and respect for others.
The difference is that violence can be morally good. Under certain circumstances (e.g. to defend one's family from an aggressor) one can use violence in a completely morally licit way. Likewise, nudity in itself is perfectly moral. For example, displaying one's nude body in order to attract one's husband or wife is morally licit.
However, just as murder can never be moral, the display of nudity in order to sexually arouse persons other than one's spouse is never a moral act. Doing so distorts the natural relationship between men and women (marriage) and damages the structure of society by weakening its fundamental building block (the family as founded upon the monogamous union of husband and wife).
This is why it's okay to show the Good Guy blowing the Bad Guy up with an RPG to the chest and not to show the same Good Guy getting it on with some chick.
(The possibility of imitative behavior is also an issue. Kids are impressionable. They like to copy the actions of those they perceive as being "cool". However, even the most impressionable of kids is unlikely to kill somebody just becaue he or she saw T.J. Hooker kill somebody in a rerun. Killing just isn't something that comes naturally to most people. Sex does. Little Jaden and M'Kaylah might not ever dream of sticking a knife in each other's guts, but there's no telling what they might try when it comes to playing doctor.)
Human sexual behavior is morally licit only as it conforms to the natural order of things -- the union of husband and wife and the procreation of children. Pornography is immoral for two reasons: first, because it reduces its subject to the status of a commodity by divorcing his or her sexuality from its proper place in the natural order of things (i.e. family life); second, because (when used for its most obvious purpose) it tempts its user to engage in morally illicit behavior by divorcing the act of sex from its purpose in the natural order of things (i.e. family life),
I'm not trying to be a prude about this. I'm Catholic, not a Puritan. I'm as guilty as any man when it comes to chicks. I like to look at naked women a lot -- maybe too much, may God forgive me. I see nothing wrong with women (or men) displaying their bodies in a healthy, normal way. Short skirts, bathing suits, muscle shirts -- all these are fine if taken in proper context, i.e. by recognizing the beauty of the body as an aspect of the whole human person. I do not object to men noticing good-looking women, women eyeing handsome men, or harmless tease like cheesecake photos or cheerleader uniforms. It is only when dress (or undress) is used to remove human beings from the status of persons in the minds of the viewer -- reducing them to hunks of meat with no value other than as a means to an end -- that nudity becomes immoral.
As married man, I would never want to see my wife, female relatives, or any future daughters reduced to being spank-off fare for some dirty guy. No man wants his own daughter displayed for the pleasure of other men in a Playboy centerfold or on the strip club stage. But if you think about it, every girl that has ever appeared in a centerfold or popped it on a strip-joint runway is some man's daughter.
"Do unto others..."