As someone below mentioned that it isn't necessary to overcomplicate things, I found this argument about the film rather amusing, but not at all convincing.
Charles Musser in ‘The Emergence of Cinema’, wrote that
'this comic situation, in which the gardener and the bad boy humiliate each other, reveals a rich latent content from a psychoanalytic perspective. The long nozzle attached to the hose, which practically runs through the gardener’s legs, is an allusion to the ****. The boy’s actions in blocking and unblocking the hose suggest masturbatory play with homosexual references. While the boy’s punishment at the end resonates with societal prohibitions against ****, it does not fully negate the pleasure involved in the boy’s play with the hose. Moreover, an (implicitly assumed) adult male spectator could find nostalgic pleasure in both the transgression and the punishment.' (p. 143)
(interesting that TCM puts **** there)