Burnley Grammar School

Childhood > Schools

3446 Comments

Burnley Grammar School
Burnley Grammar School
Year: 1959
Views: 991,585
Item #: 1607
There's pleny of room in the modern-styled gymnasium for muscle developing, where the boys are supervised by Mr. R. Parry, the physical education instruction.
Source: Lancashire Life Magazine, December 1959

Comment by: Greg2 on 25th October 2021 at 00:23

I’ve just dipped back into this site expecting to have a nostalgic read about school days’ gym and games lessons. Goodness, what’s been going on here?

I’ll mention just this: the voy.com link you’ve added spelvin, I decided to take a look at. The first bit is all about circumcision, so just the predictable usual ignorant American nonsense. A bit further down it gets much worse. Spelvin, do you really believe that the people who use that site are posting authentic, truthful accounts of genuine experiences? I’ve never read such drivel. It’s so obviously a place for fantasists to concoct their salacious stories of fiction, spiced up with their kinky needs for subservience to domineering females, and then their ensuing life of terrible childhood humiliation... In all honesty, it really needs to be said here and now, just in case anyone reading these links is left wondering, that this stuff is mostly fictitious fantasy nonsense.

It’s a pity really, because if the posters were to give truthful accounts, there might be some interesting reading to be had. But as ever on the interweb, this opportunity is ruined by certain people flooding the posts with their own dreams. Perhaps such sites are intended for such people’s stories, who knows.

Comment by: spelvin on 24th October 2021 at 15:24

Alan, I agree that children should not be exposed and ridiculed. There was no little public nudity in my own upbringing, but I have collected testimonies from men who suffered from forced nudity during their own upbringing. Here are two discussion forums which abound with such memoirs:

https://www.voy.com/206801
https://www.voy.com/223876

One of the contributors, who calls himself Bacon Fanatic, was forced to perform in nude swim when he was a high school student in Canada. He had to tolerate an audience of screaming girl classmates. He was left with psychological problems which left him feeling self-conscious when undressing in front of his own wife.

Every summer, Joe had to swim naked in front of his girl relatives at an outdoor barbecue. That was for only one day a year, but he still wakes up from nightmares in which the girls are jeering at him.

But there is also a flip side. Manuel grew up in a family which taught that God made man in His own image, and that nudity was therefore respectable. In the backyard swimming pool, he swam naked in the presence of his girl relatives and girl neighbors, and none of them ever so much as whispered or giggled. He writes, “To this day, I don’t see why I should be embarrassed or ashamed of my nudity.”

There were also nude swim team members who wandered onto the bleachers and conversed with the spectators when they were not otherwise occupied. Stan conversed with his women teachers. If a girl teammate was also sitting on the bleachers, he might invite her to walk with him into the boys’ locker room and watch him urinate.

There was another swimmer who walked over to the bleachers and conversed with his admiring girlfriend, whom he later married, along with her mother, grandmother, and two sisters. For four years, his girlfriend repeatedly saw him from head to foot. Yet he never saw her until their wedding night.

After reading hundreds of these messages on these two forums, I remain convinced of an ironclad rule: the worst thing that could happen to a boy is appear nude in front of a jeering audience; the best thing that could happen to a boy is to appear nude in front of a respectful audience.

Comment by: Alan on 24th October 2021 at 05:33

Sterling. The sad fact is some people should never have had children, and some men (and women) should not have been allowed to teach. Some people "have children" like some people decide to buy a kitten or a puppy - no questions asked, as to whether they will ill-treat the animal or child. These days we get old biddies in their 60s who want to have children, and a supine legal and medical system allows them to, thereby guaranteeing a free carer a few years down the line. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. That applies to all things in life, home and school.

Yes - some people used the belt on their children - did that stop the boys from joining gangs and indulging in low level criminal damage, or violence?. In a word: no.

If you use violence (how else can it be described?) , don't be too surprised if the boy follows mum or dad's example, and uses it himself. In the same way, if dad uses the belt because his dad used it on him, he is just perpetuating a bad habit, which will go on being repeated down the generations.

If society didn't evolve we would still be press-ganging teenagers to join the navy, or sending their younger brothers up chimneys.

Some people think "the old days" were wonderful, I doubt that people who had to go into the back yard at night to use the lavatory, or wait for a week to have a tin bath in the front room would want to return to those days, any more than those lads who were the victims of a brutal bully of a teacher, or a teacher who "liked" little boys, would want their offspring to endure a regime like that today.

I never understand the mindset of people who went through some very dodgy procedures (forced nudity, physical punishment) who would wish that on their own offspring, or regret it's passing. There is something very wrong with their moral compass if they do.

Comment by: Shaw on 23rd October 2021 at 23:47

What's all the fuss about? Boys stripped to the waist for PE/Games was as common at school. Our timetable had PE/Games scheduled everyday. Football and rugby in skins vs vests, cross country was always run stripped to waist as were fitness sessions or basketball indoors. Teams identified by colour of shorts. No-one ever died.

Comment by: Sterling on 23rd October 2021 at 16:52

Alan, in my school the harsh regime and physical violence I experienced was approved off by the Principal and many parents. That is why it continued. They were different times. Some lads would be getting the belt at home in those days. They couldn't hide the results. So who did we complain to?

Comment by: Alan on 23rd October 2021 at 13:53

I wish we could stop this horrible voyeuristic gawping of naked kids, albeit kids of 79 years ago. Imagine if you were one of those children - would you like the idea that adults were admiring your nudity years later?

Comment by: spelvin on 23rd October 2021 at 07:18

William I am beginning to see what you mean.
This video shows children of both genders in a Norwegian sauna at abougt 9:20{
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWplD3SC-mk

Comment by: Alan on 22nd October 2021 at 09:31

William: I suppose some people might consider c 1979/80 vintage, whether r not they do, this music is on the original soundtrack, not added later to sound humorous, as to whether naked boys of whatever vintage are "wholesome" has to be a matter of personal opinion. I would have said this film was an invasion of the privacy of lads who if they are still around, - and I guess most of them are - are now men in their fifties who might be very unhappy that their nudity 40 years ago is available for the delectation of viewers in the 21st century.

Comment by: William on 21st October 2021 at 20:14

It is interesting that they used such cheerful music when showing the boys naked in showers, I have seen this stylistic choice a lot on vintage recordings with naked boys swimming or bathing, alternatively some kind of choir singing. Perhaps naked boys were considered wholesome?

Comment by: Danny C on 20th October 2021 at 02:53

Claire wrote on 10th October….”That's an awful lot of kids shown for posterity in a state of undress, almost certainly without their, or their parents', permission” in response to photos being published of boys in minimal kit in a gym by a teacher I think it was.

Well I’d like to share the following on here. This is the ITV schools TV programme that first set off my fears and anxieties in a big way regards senior school PE requirements. I watched it in primary school at the age of about 9 or 10 when it first came out. The programme is called Good Health and the title of this episode is Fit & Healthy. I can never forget seeing this in school and the reaction it generated inside me and with some other boys. I couldn’t believe it. You’ve got the barechested boys in the mixed PE class. But near the end they filmed the changing room when bringing up the hygiene issue after sweating, and they filmed everything. The boys at this Redditch School in about 1979/80 are shown stripping fully naked, going into the showers together, washing together under the shower heads and walking out again completely full on exposed. Quite amazing even when I watched it in school. At 9 I never knew such things would ever be expected like that. Getting naked in school. I recall the girls sniggering and looking around at us boys as we watched them, as if to say, look what you’re going to be doing soon. Many of us visibly uncomfortable at what we had just seen. Me and friends discussed it a lot afterwards and it just gave us nothing but anxiety. It all came true of course and we did become those same boys in the programme a year or two later.

I rediscovered this schools programme about a year ago and it brought it all back very strongly to me. But now I look on even more astonished, and this is where I bring Claire and her comment about permission and consent back, because how on earth even back in around 1979/80 was a film crew ever allowed to go into a school and film such directly intrusive naked schoolboy scenes which were not needed to make the points the programme wished. I’d like to know who actually did consent to it, or not as may be. The school obviously consented in some way, but did all these boys parents individually consent to their sons being filmed naked in the school showers and changing room for TV. Really? What about the boys themselves, did they all consent willingly or not? Was there literally no consent other than the school allowing it with no other input from parents and boys involved? I wonder what they would all think now looking back at that, because these boys were shown on TV for years afterwards to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren and now even find themselves on the internet in a way they could never have imagined 40 years ago. If I was one of these boys it would infuriate me.

Here is the programme link for anyone interested, it says it was transmitted in January 1983 but it definitely went out as early as the start of 1980 confirmed by a schools TV website and was therefore probably made in 1979. The truly contentious part is 12 minutes into it and it just sums up to me the attitude to boys in school at the time that it was even considered fair game to put TV cameras and the crew directly into not just their changing room but right into the boys communal school showers while they all piled in after PE completely naked with each other. Even a young kid of 9 like me could work out back then that it was eyebrow raising. I refuse to believe most of those in the programme were okay or indifferent to it.

https://youtu.be/NRRw-k7cGJs

There is actually someone called Matt Bicknell who commented underneath another Good Health show called Look After Yourself who states that he was one of the boys who took part in the Fit & Healthy episode in 1979/80 and is presumably one of those boys we see on screen at some point. How interesting would it be to hear his views.

I’m sure contributors here will have their own views too and share them.

Comment by: Alan on 19th October 2021 at 20:46

Sterling, The point is, a lot of the apologists for "old school" - literally methods - claim that PE teaching, was that boys were being "toughened up' for possible military service. This excuse became defunct in the early 1960s. The last bunch of conscripts were inducted in 1960 and discharged by 1962/63, so in the years beyond 1963, this tough militaristic treatment was quite unnecessary - it begs the question as to why it was allowed to go on into nearly the 21st century. Anybody who feels conscription might return one day, must know that the country wouldn't have the money to expand the military (the reverse is more likely). so that is yet another excuse exposed.

Comment by: Sterling on 19th October 2021 at 16:52

Alan, my PE experience was considered normal at the time. Many schools had similar regimes. The teachers where just part of the regime

Comment by: Alan on 18th October 2021 at 04:02

Sterling, That is so very true, and, as we learned last week, that soe of these questionable practices went on into the 1990s and possibly the early 2000s, I would like to think it was not too late for action to be taken against the perpetrators, some of whom advertised their proclivities.

I am not one for financial compensation, but just for them to have the shame and humiliation (which they so readily inflicted on others) of being named in open court, might go some way in exposing some of them, and at least making other adults examine and question their behaviour

Comment by: Sterling on 17th October 2021 at 18:01

As I've said before, they couldn't subject prisoners to the treatment we received.

Comment by: Alan on 17th October 2021 at 08:21

These are different days, thank God Stirling, and I am just glad more consideration is shown to boys these days. Perhaps some of the juvenile deliquency we saw in the past, was due, in part, to treating lads as if they were in prison and just numbers rather than an individual personality, with their own problems and hang-ups.

Things not considered then, for example, was that a lad might be, for example, homosexual, and felt ill at ease in a changing room or shower with other naked lads - we can be fairly sure that some PE teachers had, at least, latent homosexual tendencies, so why not the boys he was teaching?.

As regards your teachers problems (and I am sure many of those masters who enjoyed meeting out punishments with canes and slippers had them by the shedload) well sorry, but they should have worked out their problems in other ways, not literally take it out on those smaller than themselves and subservient to them. Bullying is never an excuse - bad behaviour is bad behaviour, no excuses. It is sad some lads, even in later life were prepared to sublimate themselves, and seek, even now, to excuse it. If these "men" behaved themselves in the same way today, there is little doubt that they would be dismissed, and in some cases, prosecuted.

Comment by: Sterling on 16th October 2021 at 20:42

As a lad in the 60s and 70s you never expected privacy, or your modesty to be considered.
You just got on with it.
The only one comfortable was our PE teacher. Our discomfort was the last control mechanism an old soldier, and incompetent teacher, had in his sad life.

Comment by: Alan on 12th October 2021 at 15:37

Spelvin, I have no problems with anybody who wants, of their own volition to take their clothes off, but what I object to is kids, especially, who are not comfortable practically naked, being forced into that position by dictatorial adults.

I think generally speaking from early childhood, most kids are by nature modest - the girl will want to wear the sort of clothes her favourite girl band wears, boys ditto with boy bands, or the latest fashions. Few would want to be naked, unless it was suggested to them by adults, such as those who ran schools wear nude swimming &c was not only allowed but encouraged.

In my opinion everyone should be entitled to wear what they are comfortable with, and not forced into a position that causes them distress

Comment by: spelvin on 12th October 2021 at 08:12

I am having second thoughts about my earlier post. Maybe Tom Pike’s subjects and Charles Du Bois Hodges’ subjects were getting the recognition which they needed.
The French writer Andre Gide was brought up in a puritanical household, where he was taught to struggle against all temptation. He developed an abnormal interest in boys and later saw the connection. He commented, “I would not have been so thirsty if I had not at first been refused to drink.” (Baskin 1968)
Gide is not alone. Goldstein (1973) asked a sample of pedophiles and a sample of control subjects how often they were exposed to nudity and sexual activity during their adolescent years. It was the pedophile subjects whose upbringing was prim and proper.
Among the Trobriand Island society of Papua New Guinea, a little boy and a little girl may be allowed to go into the bushes, set up a makeshift dwelling, and play husband and wife for a few days. This practice does not get the least bit of disapproval from the adults. There, adult sexual interest in children is unknown (Malinowski [1927] 1949): 55-57).
The converse also applies. Among the aborigines of Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of Argentina, boys and girls are segregated and watched very carefully (Cooper 1946). Girls are later betrothed with adult males (Deniker & Hyades 1891: 171). A mere coincidence? Probably not.
I recognize the noble motives those who insist on covering children up. I realize that they wish to prevent sexual abuse. But couldn’t the proper solution be the exact opposite course?
It would be interesting to look up alumni from Shears Green Primary School from the 50’s to the 80’s and attended their co-ed nude swims, or from Summerhill School, where nudity was permitted any time any day, and see how many of them have been convicted of any sex crimes. Betcha none of them have.
Baskin, W. 1968. [footnote]. In Gide, A. (Baskin, W., trans.) [1891] 1968. The notebooks of Andre Walter. New York: Philosophical Library: 90.

Cooper, J. M. 1946. The Ona. In Steward, J. H., ed. Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 1: The marginal tribes. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143, Vol. 1: 1950125. Cited in Janssen 2002.

Deniker, J. & Hyades, P. 1891. Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn, 1882-1883, vol. 7. Paris: Gauthier-Villars et fils. Cited in Janssen 2002.
Goldstein, M. J. 1973. Exposure to erotic stimuli and sexual deviance. Journal of Social Issues 29, 3: 197-219.
Janssen, D. F. 2002. Growing up sexually. Volume I: World Reference Atlas. Interim report. Amsterdam.
http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/SOUTHAMERICAOLD.HTM#_Contents_of_Section

Malinowski, B. [1927] 1949. Sex and repression in savage society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Comment by: Alan on 11th October 2021 at 18:29

"John Smith" wrote: "I have no knowledge of this person and I was only alerted to the posts on this site by a colleague."

It begs the question, "Me. Smith" why it has disturbed you so much, regarding a person you say you don't know him. If you don't know him you can hardly know what his motives were, as neither can this mysterious "colleague" of yours who was equally upset.

Had I been the person who took those photographs, and saw fit to publish them on a public website, I would have considered how it might be viewed by other people who might see them, including, ot course, the subjects themselves. They might be worried, or indeed angry that that their young selves had been used in such a manner, as might their families, as I doubt they were told they would be published back in 1991. I, too, will say no more about it, but your intervention seems rather strange, given you don't know the person concerned.

Comment by: John Smith on 11th October 2021 at 16:58

I’m not issuing threats at all. I’m merely pointing out how unwise it is to accuse people of voyeurism etc without realising that it’s just possible that the person you’re referring to may take this further to protect his reputation. I’ve had a look at the site and it appears that he was a headteacher.
I’ve looked at some of the earlier posts made on this thread and many of them are libellous - although many of the people referred to are dead. In this case the subject is very much alive.
You are being extremely brave in writing such claims down in print. Others have mentioned Thomas Hamilton in the same posts.
I have no knowledge of this person and I was only alerted to the posts on this site by a colleague.
I’d suggest that yourself, and others, and the owner and caretaker of History World be careful and check carefully on what you’ve written. You may have to prove the veracity of these claims I court.
I shall say no more.

Comment by: Bran on 11th October 2021 at 16:53

I will apologise to Mr Pike if you feel able to vouch so strongly for his character. If you have read all my submissions to this site you will know I personally felt very humiliated when an adult I barely knew forced me to strip for no better reason than he had the power to do so. The boys in Mr Pike's class may be junior school kids rather than middle school but our ages were the same so I feel confident in assuming some would have much rather been allowed a vest if Mr Pike had been willing to offer the choice, especially as the girls share the class and we're naturally allow shirts. In the photo's all the boys are stripped to the waist, there was clearly no choice. That is the background to my feelings on the matter.

As for taking pictures I stand by my feeling that this was inappropriate because he did it for himself not as a school project or at least that is the impression his site gives. It is probably also inappropriate these days to publish such photo's to the web.

I hope Mr Pike comes onto the site for a serious discussion about past attitudes to PE and not in anger. He could make an important contribution to the discussion which takes place here.

Comment by: Alan on 11th October 2021 at 16:11

"John Smith" If that is your real name. Perhaps you feel by issuing threats of this nature you are quashing debate. I think one of the questions this photographer would have to answer was WHY he was taking photographs for his own personal archive during working hours. He also taught mathematics. Why not photograph the children there?. Why make the boys pose in nothing but shorts when, by that time, most schools would have been wearing rather more clothing in their lessons and did he get the permission of the parents, not only to take the photographs, but to publish the material on a public website.

As the law stands today, if you were to take, for example, photographs in Trafalgar Square and there was a child in the view, in street clothing, you would have to get the permission of the parent or guardian BEFORE taking the photograph (you will notice in street scenes in newspapers, if any children are photographed, their faces are pixilated, to save such permission being needed). That is not the case with these photographs appearing on a website in 2021.

I have reasons for taking a very dim view of this sort of practice, but that is no concern of yours, but please stop the stupid threats.

Comment by: Alan on 11th October 2021 at 16:03

Bran I think the late date of this behaviour worries me more than anything. To think it went on into the 2000s is horrific,

You can see the psychology thugh start them off very young with this "minimum kit" lark and they will accept it as "normal" when they get to secondary school. I would have hoped that teenage lads by that time would have been more rebellious, but if they were indoctrinated from day one to suggest that was a standard procedure they are less likely to question it. Our P.E teacher became more "interested" the older you got, but I will say no more about that here. All I can say is that if I had been head teacher, or even a colleague, I would seriously have challenged why he was taking photographs of near naked boys. I would have hated to be one of that class of 1990, even thirty years on, to know that photographs of me from that time were floating about. Thank goodness my Mr X never got addicted to a Polaroid camera!

Comment by: John Smith on 11th October 2021 at 14:44

Some unwise comments being made on here by Alan/Mr Dando or Maltaman etc…
I hope you are prepared to back up (in court) your allegations/suggestions about Tom Pike. I’ve sent him a link to these comments. I would advise him to see a solicitor to look at possible legal action again the people above (I’m confident they can be traced) and also against the owner of this site. Unless you’re Elon Musk defending yourselves against muking such slurs will be very difficult and ruinously expensive.

Comment by: Bran on 11th October 2021 at 12:08

Alan, my first thought when seeing the photo's and the date was this could easily have been me if our teacher liked photography. Then my second thought after reading about his running of Boys Clubs + the photo's made Thomas Hamilton immediately come to mind. That's probably going too far I know and we know this guy would have some stock excuses for the shorts only rule.

we have always done it that way
we saw no need for tops for the boys
there was never any complaint
the boys could work more "freely"
it was school policy

But these are all very weak arguments. What it does show is just how easy it was for someone potentially dangerous to get into PE teaching in the 80's. Become a scout leader---->run a sports team---->spend a year in teacher training school---->get a job in a junior school specializing in PE---->enjoy lots of opportunity to boss around, discipline and photograph bare chested young boys. It is kind of scary isn't it.

As for my middle school I would be pretty certain the practice went on into the 2000's. A busy road ran along the playing field and I would occasionally find myself driving along it during school time during the summer term and very clearly for all to see the young middle school boys would be doing athletics stripped to the waist. There would be cars parked alongside the school fence, anyone could have just parked up and enjoyed the view. If the same practices I experienced were happening in games then they were probably happening in PE too.

Comment by: Alan on 11th October 2021 at 04:20

Bran: "Was this teachers policy of keeping his 10/11 year old boys bare chested for PE right into the 1990's still appropriate.

It might be just me but the reasons he gives for entering teaching, his choice to become a PE teacher and his free use of the camera to record his boys (and girls) makes me suspect his motives. What do you think?"

Thanks for publishing this, Bran, and also Spelvin for bringing that disgusting book to our attention.

LIke you, Bran, I have severe reservations about that teacher, and if the police and education authorities took this sort of blatant voyeurism and child abuse seriously, the photographer assuming he is still alive (the book author died a couple of years ago) could expect the sort of early morning police visits several TV celebrities have enjoyed.

I was especially shocked that this sort of "minimal kit" as some people like to describe it, was still allowed in 1990, and it makes you wonder what his "dress code" would have been for older boys.

Many people on the site have sneered at my observations over the past year (and "Mr. Dando" gets it far worse than I have), but anyone who has ever been at the mercy of one of these weirdos (and that is putting it politely) might understand my reluctance to put it down to "those were the times". I have often said that, during the conscription years, which ended in the UK in 1960 there might have been some grounds for hardening boys up, but since 1960 is now over 60 years ago, there was no excuse for it to continue past 1960, when any lad who wished to experience military life could do so, but the vast majority who did not, could be spared the indignities we eventually went through. There was no excuse, and I maintain, those teachers who continued to use this excuse into the 1980s (and beyond, as we now see) was hiding more scabrous personal motives. At least two of the perpetrators have condemned themselves - you have to wonder how many more of them with paedophile tendencies who wasn't so ready with a camera got away with it for so long.

I have felt for a long time, anyone going into teaching, especially into PE , should be investigated by a psychiatrist.

One final thought about the English photographer - he taught other subjects, if his interest in young boys and girls was merely the beauty of their faces, why not photograph them in the subjects he taught them that did not include their removing their clothes? - and where the hell was the headteachers sense in allowing him to snap away when he should have been teaching?. I hope both are now retired.

Comment by: Claire on 10th October 2021 at 21:38

(The school concerned is still open, btw)

But doesn't mention PE kit in either the Uniform or PE sections of its web-site.

Comment by: TimH on 10th October 2021 at 19:26

All: Follow-up to my previous posting - I've no idea what I meant by a 'TP personal webpage' - put it down to an old age mis-type and leave it as 'personal webpage'.
(The school concerned is still open, btw)

Comment by: spelvin on 10th October 2021 at 16:22

That site reminded me of a book entitled In Search of Young Beauty, a book by Charles Du Bois Hodges, published in 1964.
The last time I looked at that book, I noticed that the word "enviable" appears a few times.
My guess is that he didn't get enough looking and showing during his own childhood and was trying to make up for lost time.
Here is my review of the book on the Amazon site:
...........................

The volume abounds with nude and seminude photographs of children and adolescents. This is ostensibly because children and adolescents are less inhibited models (8).

On top of this, he offers numerous other reasons. One reason is informality. In one photograph, he tries to convince himself that a girl at least 7 years old would typically play outside wearing only shorts (22). In another photograph, he tries to convince himself that a boy would typically perch on a tree branch wearing only undershorts (16).

Another reason is relevance. In one picture, two boys, disguised as Indians, appear shirtless (32). He also skinny-shoots a boy in a forest setting and titling the picture "Young Fawn" (164). In another picture, an adolescent girl posing as a member of the working class appears shirtless because shirtlessness symbolizes the working class (198).

Of course, nudity and seminudity are appropriate in some settings, so Hodges makes certain not to miss any of those settings. He poses a girl at home in underpants to show how she is seen by her family (76). Since total nudity is related to the river and the ocean, this is where he sets several photographs (152).

Composition is still another reason. In "Study in Rotundity," a chubby girl sits backwards in a curved chair, facing the viewer and showing her upper chest (50). For other photographs, he argues that a plain subject is imperative in order to compensate for a turbulent background (92). He could just as easily simplify the background or ask the subject to wear a solid-colored outfit, but why throw away a perfect excuse?

Hodges is also fond of using nudity as a symbol. A girl inspects a bud on a bush while showing her own budding breasts (178). A boy sitting on the riverbank displays his penis as proof of his gender (162). In the companion piece, titled "Nature's Verge," a girl with baby breasts and a fuzzy vagina steps into the river (160). He eventually runs out of constructs to represent, so he uses nudity as a symbol of nothing in particular (149).

Hodges' real reason might be that he got a buzz out of stripping children and showing them off. In other words, he might have been like an alcoholic on the constant lookout for people to toast.

Comment by: Claire on 10th October 2021 at 15:53

That's an awful lot of kids shown for posterity in a state of undress, almost certainly without their, or their parents', permission.