B. Syndicated Columnists
Adults of both gender simply expected boys to swim completely nude - it was customary, typical and boys that objected to the practice were ostracized. And when a mother voiced her concern to Van Buren, her response was less than sympathetic yet typical of the times.
"Dear Abby" is a noted syndicated advice column appearing in newspapers across the US beginning in 1956, and written by Abigail Van Buren, a pen name for Pauline Phillips, and now is authored by her daughter Jeanne Phillips, who now owns legal rights to the pen name. A similar column, Ask Ann Landers, was written from 1955 to 2002 by Pauline's twin sister Eppie Lederer. These and other syndicated advice columns provide us an historical reference as to the cultural issues and perspectives in the mid-to-later 20th century. As important as the response of the columnists are the nature of letters received, as they give us a window on how things were viewed during that era. Interestingly, as western culture changed over the 20th century from a period wherein boys were expected to be nude when swimming on shores and in pools to one wherein the double standards were finally recognized and addressed, the letters seeking advice on issues surrounding this were plentiful. Of particular note was how many mothers would not only allow their boys to be nude when in the presence of their daughters, but would often require it such that the girls could learn the "secrets" boys have. Yet these letters also discuss how the reverse situation, ergo, boys being allowed to see the girls nude, was considered improper. This cultural attitude was the common thought in the 1800s and up until the mid 20th century, as these letters demonstrate.
Responses to such letters became less consistent in the 1970s. At first, columnists (particularly female) seemed to often agree it was perfectly appropriate for parents to require their sons and other boys to be nude when at their beach house or backyard pool even when it was done so to satisfy the girls' curiosity about what naked boys looked like, yet, it was improper to ever allow the boys to see the girls unclothed. Eventually, the columnists reversed their positions and started to point out the double standards of it. This alternative way of think became more pervasive as the women's rights movement and gender equality became a forefront issue of the times.
Dear Abby - 1968(click on image to enlarge for reading)
The earliest article we could find wherein Dear Abby discusses boys swimming in the nude was in 1968. In this article, a concerned mother wrote that the public school her son attended had just built a new swimming pool, and that the school was expecting all boys to swim in the raw. The mother also indicates her son was upset by having to swim in the nude. Van Buren responded as follows:
"...But your "average 14-year-old lad" had better overcome his shyness about nudity in the presence of other boys or he is apt to be uncomfortable much of his life."
Dear Abby - 1970 - Bare Boy Rule Not Same For Girls(click on image to enlarge for reading)
In 1970, a woman wrote Van Buren about her sister who had a beach front summer place, and had concern that the woman would require her boys to swim in the nude while her daughters were present, even though she had the daughters wear swimsuits. What is poignant about this specific letter isn't that it evidenced a situation wherein boys swam naked with clothed girls (as we know that was no so uncommon), but that the writer indicated the purpose this was done was to prevent the boys from keeping "secrets" from the girls. She also tells her sister writing the letter to Abby that she should do the same, that is, have her son be naked in front of her daughter to afford the daughter an opportunity to see his genitals as well. Yet the woman also believed the reverse was not proper, and that boys should not be afforded the same opportunity.
This situation presented by the inquiring letter was found again and again in letters written by other women to Abby as well as other columnists. The scenarios differed, but usually included a woman asking the appropriateness of requiring her son to swim nude with girls his age be they cousins or girls in the neighborhood, and again, much of the time the stated intent of the women for requiring the boys to be naked in front of the girls was to allow the girls to look at the boys' genitals and thus satisfy their natural curiosity. Yet in all situations it was concluded that the girls should never be nude around the boys.
The response from Abby in this specific publication was inconsistent with others we found. The first variation was published in 1970, then, in 1980 it was again published, yet the latter version had slightly different text and the ages of the children were different. In fact, both Abigail Van Buren and Ann Landers were found to recycle letters and responses as many as three or four times, with different versions each time.
Note: As noted, there are numerous versions of this column that was first published in 1970. The text differed slightly, and in some the ages of the kids varied or were not even indicated. However, we found one version that was significantly different insofar as Abby's response. In that one, she clearly was in favor of the sister that required the boys to be nude stating "it certainly is a good way to satisfy the girl's curiosity as to what boys look like while in the appropriate surroundings", however, she felt that the sister was also correct in "not having the girls follow suit, or rather lack thereof". The tenor of the letter written as well as Abby's response was basically that it was better to allow the girls to satisfy their curiosity than to be concerned about the boys embarrassment or being upset it was unfair. This position would be consistent with other columns she authored chastising boys that were reluctant in stripping nude in gym for their swimming class, and that they should "get over it". It is possible that she released the column, then had second thoughts and retracted it substituting it with the version to the left wherein she addresses the blatant double standard of the woman's sister. Regardless of Abby's true response, the letter that was written her in and of itself, which varies little between the first printing in 1970, is very telling of the culture of its time and evidences that were mothers that would stage opportunities to allow their daughters to see the genitals of boys by having the boys swim naked with the girls, and so believed it was the best way of doing it that they would encourage other mothers to also have their sons nude in front of girls. In 1970, Abby takes issue with it in the version shown; however, if it were, say, 20 or 30 years earlier, it is very possible that the columnist would agree that forcing the boys to be naked was a perfectly acceptable rule to follow.
Because our source of that version was off of a website forum and not the actual news source. We did not use it on this website. Instead, we posted the version that was found in the greatest number of newspapers. For those that can contribute to this website, we are happy to provide via email.
Abigail Van Buren again encountered a similar letter from a mother that was asking weather she should let her boy swim nude at the neighbor's pool. In the letter written, the mother indicates the neighbors believed it was good for boys to be naked when swimming with the girls as it was "proper" for the girls to see boys nude, but improper for boys to see girls nude. There were less variations in the actual printed columns of various news sources, but the facts and ages were consistent in all. This specific copy to the left was taken directly from page 43 of the August 8, 1971 edition of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. This particular version has the tag line "Don't Wear Swim Suits" implying Abby is recommending that the son should also comply with the rule and swim naked. Indeed, in some variations of this article, Abby admits this was a double-standard, but ends up recommending that the boy should be allowed to comply with the rule anyway as all versions begins with DEAR READERS: Since your son already knows what boys look like, why not?
Text
"DEAR ABBY: Some neighbors of ours have a swimming pool behind their house. They also have a pair of 11-year-old twin boys and two
daughters, 9 and 13. These neighbors allow their boys to swim in the raw at the same time their daughters use the pool, but the girls
wear swim suits. That's their business, but it presents a problem to us because the twin boys have invited our son to swim in their pool.
Our son says swimming in the raw doesn't bother him, girls or no girls. (Can this be?) He also says that the neighbor boys were raised to believe that it is proper for girls to see what boys look like, but it is not proper for boys to see what girls look like. How do you feel about this, Abby? And should we let our boy swim at the neighbors? -COLORADO READERS
DEAR READERS: Since your son already knows what boys look like, why not? "
The fact that Abby was getting multiple letters along this theme evidences there was still a culture of double-standard among some families wherein boys were expected to be naked in the presence of the girls, but the reverse was unacceptable and boys were never allowed to see the girls nude. But what is more poignant about these letters is how mothers preferred the boys to be nude in front of their girls as they wanted their girls to have an opportunity to look at the boys' genitals, and thus engineered it so the boys would indeed be nude.
Dear Abby - 1971 "Don't Wear Swim Suits"(click on image to enlarge for reading)
Not nearly as recognized as Dear Abby or Ann Landers columns, Pertinax, which was the pen name for Mary Sampas, also wrote on similar topics. In this particular 1971 column (written the same year as the above Dear Abby column of the same subject matter), a woman ("Nameless") writes Pertinax about her husband's friends who has invited them over for an afternoon cook-out. The woman indicates the couple has four children and a home with plenty of land and an outdoor pool. Similar to the above scenario, the parents have the boys swim and run about the estate entirely nude, although the girls are always fully clothed. The woman, who has a boy and girl, asks Pertinax if she should object to the practice, or, have her kids play with the other children including her own son following suit (or rather lack thereof) and play with the other children completely naked.
Interestingly, she also mentions "They are very well built boys so I suspect the mother takes some satisfaction in showing them off this way." Certainly, their well built physiques could be equally as shown off by their wearing just a bathing suit. So this woman is clearly implying that the "showing off" must be of those physical attributes that are unseen when suits are worn, ergo, their naked rears, penises and testicles. This almost suggests as sexual aspect of showing off the naked boys bodies to other female guests. Of course, the opposite occurring - that is a father showing off his naked daughters - would have been unconscionable.
But Mary Sampas responds a bit differently than Dear Abby to this same scenario in that she essentially tells the woman that the property is that of the hostess, and if she wants the boys to be nude, then the guests should respect that right and do the same citing "When in Rome, do as the Romans." Whereas Dear Abby in her similar story questions the response of the hostess that "boys should not be allowed to keep their "secrets" (i.e. genitals) from girls" as a double-standard in not having the reverse happen, at no time does Sampas question the same double-standard, but instead, reinforces that it is the right of the hostess to require it that way. And this includes the whether the mother writing should abide by that protocol in having her own son be naked at the event. Further, the aspect of the mother having the boys be nude to showing off their naked buttocks and genitals is not even considered to be an issue. Truly different times!
On a side note, as with the Dear Abby article, this author received different versions of the column with different ages of the children. As noted previously, this was sometimes based upon the "acceptability" of the article with certain ages, or, simply the columnist changes her mind at a later time about not concealing facts and then re-releases the article with the different ages. Only one version of this could be authenticated; however, the essence of this article is less about the ages and more about both the customary practice and this particular female writer's view on the mandated nudity for the boys.
(click on image to enlarge for reading)
1971 Pertinax (Mary Sampas)
In this August 15, 1972 edition of the Indiana Evening Gazette, Van Buren is responding to a mother who was asked by a neighbor that was mother to three girls but no sons to let her son go over to their house so that they could bathe him, thus allowing her daughters to look at the boy's genitals and satisfy their curiosity about them. The manner it is presented is that there is nothing wrong with a mother presenting a naked boy to her daughters specifically to give them a chance to look at his penis and testicles up close. Abby's response was that in effect, the boy should not be "borrowed" for the purpose, but it's fine to let the girls come over to satisfy their curiosity.
This is an unremarkable article as the boy is a small child and at an age where such intrusion on his privacy is meaningless. What is interesting to note, however, is a double standard. Imagine that if the genders were reversed, and, a father was asking another father if he would allow his little girl to come over and be bathed in front of the three boys to allow them to look at her vagina - would Abby have responded the same way? I think not!
Dear Abby - 1972 "Easing Girls Curiosity"(click on image to enlarge for reading)
"Ann Landers" was the pen name for syndicated columnist Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer, the identical twin sister of Pauline Phillips, a.k.a. "Dear Abby", who started her advice column within months after Lederer began writing her Ann Landers column. The Ask Ann Landers column continued for 47 years.
Ann Landers - April 17, 1974(click on image to enlarge for reading)Where Dear Abby showed lack of insensitivity to young men embarrassed about forced nudity, in this 1974 column addressed to a young man upset about forced nudity, Lander's displays one of the most tactless and misguided derision we have seen. When he indicates he believes it is an invasion of privacy to be forced to be nude in the gym with other boys, her response is:"Dear Speaking: Sometimes what people term an "invasion of privacy" is a cover-up for something else. I suspect this is true in your case. You need to talk to a school, counselor and learn why you are so uptight about being seen naked, or more to the point, seeing other boys who are naked. If you look around you'll find the vast majority of the guys who are showering are not the least bit self-conscious. Please, take my advice and see a counselor. It could make a big difference in your life. You have a problem, Son."Following this response, there were a series of back-and-forth columns as letters poured in. Most notably, on August 9, 1974, Landers published a letter from a woman chastising her saying "Do you believe that just because a young boy doesn't want to parade around naked in the presence of other boys that he is sick?" (column is not posted here but part of our downloadable archive). Subsequently, a gay man's letter was published on August 23rd (bottom left), lauding obsequious praises that Landers is always right, and the boy needed psychiatric help for his latent homosexual urges stemming from his insecurities about his nude body being seen by all others in his class. The last letter was published on December 4, 1974 (bottom right) by yet another adoring fan, a women, that commends Landers' position. When asked why it was different from girls, Landers gives the classic double-standard response, and that girls simply needed (and deserved) greater privacy.
COMMENTARY: Throughout this site, I (Brad) have only presented articles and critiques from what I believe to be somewhat an objective standpoint only citing the historical facts from which a conclusion could be drawn. But this one is where I make an exception. In her Ann Landers column of April 17, 1974 and the following responses, Lederer demonstrates some of the best reasons we should ignore advice from any megalomaniac that so over estimates their own intelligence and understanding of the world that they feel they can advise others. Let's face it, Ann Landers' was anything but someone to admire. She married a wealthy man, then, after years of ridiculing others about getting a divorce and giving advice on how one can improve their marriage, she divorced him taking a wad of cash with her. Further, most identical twins are inseparable, yet Lederer was estranged from her sister "Dear Abby" for decades because of jealously and rivalry, and only was able to be on speaking terms with her just before her death of cancer in 2002. In fact, Lederer wasn't even original enough to create her own pen name, but instead took it from a woman (Ruth Crowly) that created the image and following of "Ann Landers" some nine years before her grabbing it in 1955.In her above 1974 exchange, she provides hurtful and condescending advice to a young man that is concerned about his own body image and how he compares to other boys enough to seek her direction. For this, she ridicules him by telling him such a concern translates to his being psychologically inferior as well, and does it from a homophobic perspective that would not be tolerated in today's more enlightened world. She then is very selective in the letters she prints giving exposure to those that are obsequious and deferential to her expressly saying "she's right!". One is from an unstable gay man who implies the boy is mentally sick and risks becoming a (god forbid!) homosexual himself. Most gay men I know would never write such a letter as being a homosexual is not a sickness and not something that environmental conditions trigger like a common cold.
Yet despite Lederers' clearly unbalanced personal life and misdirections, and, demonstrated lack of psychological insight, the media publishers kissed her lily-white fat ass for almost five decades with her syndicated columns calling her a "national institution and cultural icon". Lederer was no more than a celebrity hack that took advantage of the fame thrown at her. I can only hope that the millions she damaged with her poor advice were able to get through their troubles with help from other more wise, and more deserving mentors.