Are all stories of pants down canings "fantasy"?

Over the years, I've heard several stories about "bare" punishments from people who were not "spankos" and didn't have any reason to make it up. (I don't spend all my life talking about coporal punishment, but it does come up in conversation from time to time.)

When I was about 12, I met a kid of my own age on holiday and we got to talking about our respective schools. Where my school used the cane about once a year as an alternative to the death penalty, he said that it was in daily use at his school. (This would have been about 1978). Even ordinary teachers (not just the head) had canes in their cupboards. He swore blind that on one occassion he had seen another boy up in front of the class for a caning. The victim had, foolishly, attempted to "pad" his trousers, and when the teacher had spotted this, he had been made to drop his trousers and pants for his punishment.

As an adult, I got to reminiscing about primary school with a college friend, who said about his primary school headmistress "She was a right old so and so. She used to pull boys pants down and smack their bums."

Another college friend had been at an all boys school which still had the charming tradition of compulsery nudity in swimming lessons (i.e no swimming trunks allowed.) He said that one gym teacher would deal with misbehaviour in the pool by making boys bend over and thwacking their bare behinds with a flip-flop.

Finally, I have head from more than one source that there were old-fashioned catholic boarding schools into the 80s where a headmasters caning was done pants down, bent over a desk, being held in place by prefects.

In the STOPP anti-CP book (called "A last resort>", I think) there was an account of a PE teacher who punished a whole class by slippering each boy in turn on the bare behind. What was extremely wierd was that the boys took their shorts off altogether, nad queued up in the nude, although apparently the teacher didn't force them to do so. Maybe in a changing room, taking your shorts off seemed like a natural thing to do.

What all these stories have in common is that the person describing the event thought that they were surpsing, unusual, worth commenting on. My friend who had been to the "frequent-caning" school regarded the cane as a very normal fact of life, "yeah, well, I've been caned two or three times of course"; but when he talked about seeing the older boy being made to drop his pants, he became slightly hysterical, like "He was 14, and they made him pull his pants down in from of the whole class! and it must have really hurt as well!". They guy who told me about the swimming pool slipperings was obviously slightly disgusted by it (as well he should have been.) So although I can believe that pants down punishments went on, I can't believe that they were ever officially sanctioned, let alone routine.

A lot of the "Official documents" including CP regulations say things like "caned on the buttocks as usually clothed" or "on ordinary cloth trousers". This suggests that bare canings were never common in state schools: but on the other hand, if they never happened, there wouldn't be much point in having a rule in the regulations banning them!

In any discussion re what was 'normal' at school, we must first accept that there was a world of difference between state schools and the private sector.

In a private school, the head teacher was all-powerful and subject only to the law of the land (which, it must be said, was usually reluctant to investigate anything short of murder at a private school). Bare-bottom punishment was not illegal and was therefore permissible at the individual head teacher’s discretion.

BB canings were common at many boys' schools in the private sector up to the middle of the 20th Century and would have not have been considered unusual at any time thereafter.

In girls' schools in the private sector, BB spanking was not uncommon in junior schools around the middle of the 20th Century and was still to be found in some such schools right up to abolition decades later. Girls of secondary school age were (if caned at all)caned on the hand, on the skirt, or on the pantied bottom. - although I know many would have accepted a BB caning without question had the head asked them to lower their panties. Certainly, if I'd been offered a choice between 3 on the bare and 4 on the panties, I know which I would have opted for. Modesty be damned where the agony be lessened!

In state schools, punishments were controlled by the local education authority and I know of no school at which BB punishments were commonly administered. Where such punishments are reported, they are usually described as rare and happening to boys only in circumstances where the boy was already undressed (e.g. showers or gym changing room) and to girls in circumstances which subsequently gave rise to prosecution under the criminal law.

P.S. I can confirm that compulsory nude swimming was still in vogue as late as the 1970s in some private boys' schools - as I have colleagues who were subject to such strange regimes.






.

I think the full title of the book to which you refer was "A Last Resort? Corporal Punishment in Schools".

It was published by Penguin Books and its ISBN no is:
0140806989. The author was Peter Newell. It is listed on both the UK and US Amazon sites, though not immediately available.

I read this book many years ago and can confirm that it does contain the account to which you refer about a class of boys being slippered on the bare bottom. It was an anti-CP book and I have little doubt that if the author had come across a large number of cases of bare bottom canings and slipperings he would have mentioned more such incidents.

I agree with your conclusion, and that of Sara Jane, that such events were very much the exception rather than the rule in state schools.

Normaly "unofficial" punishments i should think. They occur in several autobiographies including Laurence Oliviers,Richard Adams,Francis Chichesters etc. A caning on the bare behind could cause some bleeding if done with any force. I have heard a few accounts from friends who were beaten in that way at school.

I don’t think bare spankings were “officially” sanctioned or were common, but they certainly occurred. At my school on only two separate occasions, it was universally alleged that the Head had given canings in private on the bare skin for two acts of vandalism, which was very rare then. The rumours were excitedly conveyed to everybody and I can’t say that anybody appeared disgusted or even sympathetic, but they would have been surprised by this uncommon punishment. A few other Teachers I know frequently gave these “unofficial” punishments, often not in the main school building. Boys were willing to boast they had been caned, but concealed that aspect and I notice on school sites that it is never mentioned. For example, I know from Family members that it occurred at school in Ireland and boarding school in India, although these are not State schools as such, but being caned is frequently recalled on their sites with all details of canes, position, etc.offence, except any pants off order is given a miss! I leave you to ponder why, but my best guess is embarrassment. I believe some parents would have objected and some, like mine, would have deemed it quite acceptable.
Matt
A tale about the Primary School. A boy trespassed on the Railway and was electrocuted. On returning to school a long time later, he was caned by the Head in front of all the junior boys for his bad behavior.
Matt

From Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Benjamin Britten:

Yet another contemporary of Britten's at prep school recalls that Sewell, the headmaster, removed boys' trousers and underpants before beating them: "Sewell said [it was] 'to enable me to see what I am doing', i.e. so that he could lay off if he was, say, drawing blood."

In circumstances where the cane is likely (by virtue of the force with which it is applied) to break the skin, the removal of all clothing would appear to be an exceedingly sensible idea - for the simple reason that exposure of the target area would ensure that its destruction did not proceeed unnoticed by the wielder of the cane and others present.

Such appalling butchery was commonplace in private schools of the early 20th Century. However, within the lifetimes of all but the site's very oldest contributors, the cane was used with significantly more moderation - the effect being that victims still suffered considerable pain but left the Head's office with their hide still intact.

The change to 'bloodless' canings removed any legitimate reason for the exposure of the bottom. Even claims that it was done in order to add humilation to the victim's punishment do not hold water - as boys at private school (in stark contract to many elsewhere) were by virtue of their school lifestyles by and large completely unashamed by nakedness.

It seems therefore that, once bloodless canings became a thing of the past, the only reason for baring a pupil's bottom was to add to the teacher's titillation.

A graphic description of a bare bottom caning is given in Roald Dahl's book "Boy" when he was a pupil at Repton in the 1930s. His friend was made to bend over the arm of a settee and then received 10 strokes across the bare behind which resulted in the skin being cut. Interestingly the headmaster who administered the caning was later to become Archbishop of Canterbury.

Would this be the same Rev. J.P.(Peter) Newell, who, when Headmaster of a large fee paying Grammar School in northern England in the 1960's wielded the cane with vigour and we always suspected, enthusiasm?

We swam nude at our school (northern boys' grammar) until the 1970's and maybe later (possibly until girls were admitted in the 1980's).
No one thought it strange. In what way is it strange?
We also shared baths after games.
Boys misbehaving in swimming were smacked with the hand or a p.e. shoe (which we called 'pumps'), obviously on the 'bare', and no one thought that odd either, although it was not a common event.

I wonder if this is right. Boys who were well used to swimming in the nude and communal showers might nevertheless have found bare bottom punishment humiliating.

Surely there was a great difference between being one of many naked boys and being obliged to take down shorts and pants and touch one's toes in front of a single adult?

I think you are absolutely right. There is usually easy acceptance of nudity in the company of others. You feel your nakedness differently in other circumstances.
Matt

There is clearly an element of humiliation in being obliged to take down shorts and pants and touch one's toes in front of a single adult.

However, I suspect that in the case of a boy unashamed by his own nudity the major part (if not ALL) of that humiliation lies in the touching of the toes and submitting to the beating, rather than in the exposing of the bottom.

I see no significant difference in bending over in the Head's office for a caning and bending over in the boys' showers looking for the soap.

Except, of course, that you'd require a lot more courage to do the latter!

LOL, Sarajane, but it remains true that, depending on the circumstances, nakedness can be a liberation or a humiliation.

Many men and boys hate taking their clothes off in front of other men. Just because there were communal showers at a particular school didn't mean that boys stopped being embarassed by them. And it CERTAINLY didn't mean they stopped being embarassed by nudity at other times.

If you go to a swimming pool or health club as an adult, there is probably a changing room or sauna where everybody goes about nude; but take two steps through the door in the nude, and someone will call the police. Being nude in a place where you expect to be nude is not that embarassing (although, as I said, some men still hate) but being nude in a place where you are NOT menat to be is mortifying. People have nightmares about being naked at parties, but not about being naked in communal showers. i.e It's not just being nude that people are scared of...the place and circumstances makes a difference.

A traditional headmasters study is a very formal, "serious" enviroment; books, filing cabinets, arm chair, etc. Just the sort of place where you would not expect to be naked. So dropping your pants in that environment, when your punisher is wearing a suit (or, in the traditional scenario, a special cap and gown) would make you feel very embarassed and vulnerable.

The traditional image of pants-down CP is to do with partially undressing -- pulling your trousers and pants down to your ankles. Isn't this more humilaiting/embarassing than if (say) you were asked to step behind a screen and strip naked?

I think that when people say that caning is "humiliating", they really mean "it makes you feel inferior", and I think that's the point of it.
I think that CP has to do with "being shown whose boss". You've stepped out of line, and the boss puts you back in your place by exercising his power over you. He tells you to do a series of completely unreasonable things, and you do them. I think that this is more important than the pain; by itself, a sore bottom wouldn't be that much of a deterrant.

So teacher says "At 4 o clock, in my study, I intend to hurt you", and instead of running like hell, you turn up to his study at 4PM. He says "right, now I'm going to hit you" and instead of running away or defending yourself, you take up a position which makes it as easy as possible for him to hurt you...and in fact, you take a funny sort of pride in bending over "well" and taking it "like a man". That's why you get things like "fun slipperings" and symbolic punishment, or being let off at the last minute. Having turned up and shown your willingness to be beaten, the punisher thinks he has asserted his authority enough, and doesn't need to go through with the actual punishment.

So every extra "unreasonable order" he can think of to give makes the demonstration of "whose boss" more convincing. Popular examples are "go and fetch the cane" or "select which cane you'd like me to hit you with" or "choose what kind of punishment i'm going to give you." (American schools seem to have a very refined version of this, where the pupil is very frequently put in the position of having to "choose" or even "ask" to be punished.)

Since nudity is such a big deal, the order "pull your pants down" is a particularly impressive way of showing that you are boss. After all, all our social conditioning tells us that me mustn't dispaly our buttocks or genitals, so what could make you feel more inferior than being told to partly strip off in public.

Plus, of course, it stings more...

Of course, 95% of this is "fantasy" -- I imagine that, down to recent times, very few schools which practiced CP carried out these highly ritualised thwackings. In most cases, I imagine, it was an over-and-done with walloping by a teacher who had lost it on a child who had stepped to far over the line. This is why certain people who shall remain nameless like to invent impossibly detailed whacking regulations for imaginary schools: to try to convince themselves that these hightly ritualised whackings were the norm, which I doubt that they ever were.

I'm sure we could theorise all year about how humiliating it is (or isn't) for various types of people to bare their bottoms in various circumstances.

My point is simply that research shows beyond doubt that, in Britain, privately educated males tended to be unembarrassed by their nudity in circumstances where state-educated males were often almost mortified.

Also, although it might be true that a BB caning stings more than does a caning over trousers or panties, it's true only in the sense that it's true that being hit by a 20-tonne lorry at 60mph hurts more than does being hit by an 18-tonne lorry at the same speed.

On the basis of all available evidence, I'm convinced that in the world of 'bloodless' CP, the baring of bottoms in schools was motivated largely (if not entirely) by sexual desire.

Both Beano and Sarajane raise interesting points. From what I've read I'm sure that boarding schools generated a sense of being comfortable with nudity in a same-sex environment that most people in state schools didn't possess. I remember many girls being ridiculously modest in the PE dressing room of my grammar school, especially in the first few years of secondary school when we were all at different levels of sexual maturity and very squeamish about such things.

On the other end of the social spectrum, however, living with siblings in close quarters can also create a sense of openness about being seen naked by one's peers.

Whether any of this translates into feeling comfortable about being made to strip for punishment in a head's study is another matter. I strongly doubt it. In my early adolescence it was not uncommon for my cousin or aunt to see me undressed (including during spankings), yet I would have been mortified had a headmistress instructed me to lower my knickers for a caning. The reason, as Beano suggests, is that a school office is not a place where nudity is acceptable, and forcing one to strip in such a location focuses attention upon the humiliation of being nude. I think that one reason why much unusual CP took place in PE dressing rooms (apart from the fact that teaching PE attracts sadists) is that people would think less of a bare-bottom smacking in such a local. To use a parallel example, I would have felt less bad had a PE teacher yelled at me on the pitch than if a teacher yelled at me in a classroom, because raised voices were far more common during PE.

If you get by a 60 tonne lorry it will not hurt. Think about it!
regards,
jay

One's reaction to being seen in a state of undress depends almost entirely on one's perception of the reaction(s) of those who see one.

(Sorry about using all these 'ones' - I must sound like Princess Anne!)

The most basic distinction is probably between the reaction of a sibling who has seen one naked hundreds of times before (i.e. no reaction whatever) and the reaction of large group of mixed-sex strangers in whose fully-clothed company one finds one's self standing inexplicably naked.

When naked or otherwised exposed, one tends not to be embarrassed when one feels that the viewer has no interest in the parts exposed (e.g. a sibling) or when any interest taken is non-lascivious (e.g. a doctor).

In an ideal world, a teacher administering BBCP to a pupil is totally unmoved by the sight of the exposed parts and - like a doctor - concentrates only on his/her professional duty.

If, therefore, the pupil believes the teacher is thinking only professionally, I fail to see how very much embarrassment can ensue.

While many such stories are fantasy, bare bottom canings have certainly occurred at times. In over 40 years as a teacher, I administered the cane across the bare buttocks less than half a dozen times (and not at all after the early 1970s). I did it only in cases where for special reason, an unusually severe caning was justified - most notably in a case where a boy had manipulated me into giving another boy six strokes for a crime the second boy had committed, and extreme punishment seemed called for - but I felt some degree of lenience was justified as he had eventually come forward and confessed (and expelling him would have been problematic for other reasons).

He received 9 strokes across the bare backside - when I started I had intended to give him 12 but my nerve failed after 9 strokes.

Dominum

I think it's well established that bare bottom caning is not significantly more severe than caning delivered over tight school clothing (panties or trousers).

In any event, the small amount of protection afforded by such clothing would easily be made up for by the application of an extra stroke.

Since canings ceased traditionally to break the skin, bare bottom = sexy fun for the teacher and nothing more.

P.S. And I'm still waiting for someone to name me a post-war state school in the UK where bare bottom canings took place.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but in the absence of school names and the years in which the alleged canings took place, I have no choice but to dismiss any such story as pure fantasy.

Sarajane,

As I am not in the UK, nor have I ever taught in a state school, I think your assertions are fairly meaningless in this case.

You are, of course, free to make any allegations or assertions, you wish, but I would suggest you don't make assumptions. It doesn't do anything for your credibility - and that's a shame, because frankly I like to see people trying to keep these forums honest.

Dominum

You may well feel it's well established "well established that bare bottom caning is not significantly more severe than caning delivered over tight school clothing", but I do not agree. It's not that I am saying definitively that it is more severe, I'm just not sure there has been enough reliable study on it to draw any conclusions. Anecdotally, I was caned on the bare backside at school and over the clothes and in my recollection, the former was more severe - but that's a recollection going back around 50 years at this point, and as I was only on the receiving end at that time, I can't really be certain it was the absence of clothing that made it worse or some other factor - perhaps they held back on other occasions. Perhaps my memory is faulty.

But when I caned a boy on the bare bottom, it wasn't really because I wanted to cause him more pain. I did this on only a very few occasions, for very specific reasons. In the case I've mentioned, it was primarily because I wanted the boy in question to realise in no uncertain terms that he was receiving a more severe punishment than the boy he had framed. And I was bloody furious - I'd actually delayed caning him overnight to calm my temper - and that really does indicate how angry I was, because normally I wouldn't have bothered delaying out of anger. I would have caned a boy then and there. He had initially committed what I viewed at the time as a particularly heinous crime, he had done so without considering the implications for the school, or for his own father. And then to make it worse, he had diverted suspicion by setting someone else up. It was really one of the worst patterns of offences I ever dealt with - certainly the worst for which a boy was not expelled.

Sexy fun for the teacher? Hardly. It made me feel physically ill. And I am not proud of it - I was still young and fairly inexperienced, and to be honest, rather angry with myself for having been taken in and punishing the wrong person previously.

Dominum

Accounts of punishments in distant countries, like those in distant galaxies, are rather hard to verify and must therefore be believed or not as the reader chooses.

And on a point of 'distance', am I unique in that the further away from my own country a punishment took place, the less it interests me?

I am with you on that one Sarajane.Any bare bottom punishments would be verging on abuse, so you wont read about them in punishment books or official school histories.Just the odd isolated cases like Helston grammar and Dulwich preparatory that end up in the courts. I am sure there were the odd rare cases and i am just as sure that the teachers concerned are not going to be offering there confessions on this bulletin board. As for punishments abroad i must admit the paddle doesnt offer the same aesthetic style as the cane but obviously thats just a personal view.

It must be nice to live on a planet where one can be so certain of your facts.

Bare bottom canings 'verging on abuse'. That really comes down to definitions. In the modern context, that would certainly be the common viewpoint. In the context of 30 years ago, it was very much a minority view - some would have considered it abusive. A larger number would have considered it distasteful, and some would have viewed it as suspicious. When I have used the cane, as far as I know, I never broke the skin (I cannot say that categorically as it is only in a small minority of cases that I actually saw the area I targetted during or after a caning), and I never inflicted any lasting damage - and those are the standards that I believe would indicate abuse.

I do agree that on one occasion, I did come close to crossing the line and that is the case I have described. It's why I stopped short of the full punishment I had intended, and never administered as severe a punishment again. That time, it did indeed 'verge on abuse' - but that was only one incident. I don't believe I even came close on the few other occasions that I caned on the bare. Others might disagree but as we have a Judge here in my country who only yesterday expressed a view that even smacking a child was abusive, that is a very subjective viewpoint.

You would find every caning I have ever administered properly logged if you were able to look - while when I started teaching, a great many incidents at my school were not logged properly, I always took great care to do so, and when I got into a position where I could impose greater controls on the logging, I ensured it became more or less universal.

Your assertion that you are "just as sure that the teachers concerned are not going to be offering there confessions on this bulletin board." Well, you can make any assertion you like. But you're wrong.

Why wouldn't I 'confess' on this bulletin board? What I did was not illegal, and I have strong legal advice that this is so - a fairly recent case in this country where a man was awarded a large payout as a result of being strapped at school in the early 1980s, meant my school brought in the lawyers to assess our current and past practices. Caning on the bare bottom wouldn't cause any legal problems they could see until at least 1983, and probably not until 1992, provided it had been administered fairly. So I have nothing to fear legally - at least we don't think so - judges can rule in a way that lawyers didn't anticipate.

In terms of my career, I could retire at any time I wish. I remain a teacher because I love teaching, but my GP is already telling me I should be slowing down. I'm well respected as an educational professional, and my reputation is secure enough that I'm not particularly concerned at what people might think of what I did 35 years ago (I'm already an anomaly, and will soon be an anachronism - those who would view me as a dinosaur, already do so) - but nor do I tempt fate by making it easy to identify me. That's more out of concern for my school than personally.

So there's no reason I wouldn't 'confess. And there is a reason that I would. Though I believe in corporal punishment - I feel it as a place as a tool to be used to discipline students, I have been deeply concerned throughout my teaching career at how readily, and how easily, corporal punishment could be abused. It only happened in a minority of cases - but even a minority is too many. Abuse was hidden because people were unwilling to talk about such things openly, and faced with this, as a man who believes that corporal punishment has its place, I believe it is important to be fairly open about it - it's harder to hide abuse, when the subject is an open one.

And that includes talking about what I have done. I don't believe that those few occasions where I caned a boy across his bare backside were abusive - so why conceal the fact. By being open about non-abusive cases, we make it harder for people to hide the abusive ones. And I'm also very aware of how easily the line could be crossed. I came very close to crossing it - to abusing a child out of anger, rather than correcting him out of concern for his future. I don't believe I crossed the line - but I came to it. It was frighteningly easy to do. And maybe if someone had been open with me about that fact, I wouldn't have come as close. I never did again.

But my idealism does have limits, I admit. I'm not completely and totally open, because I don't want to harm my school, and while I think my own reputation would survive intact, I'm not certain enough of that to throw myself on the altar of full public accountability - certainly not in an environment where witch hunts can easily develop.

And, in closing, I'd just point out that just because I am overseas doesn't mean I don't use a cane. There may be some confusion over this. This planet is not divided into the UK and the US. I live in Victoria, Australia, where, while corporal punishment in state schools generally meant the strap, the cane was the instrument of choice for many private schools - and still is for the handful that retain its use.

Dominum

Many excuses have, over the years, been offered by men who took young boys' pants down.

"I did it out of concern for his future" is an interesting addition to the list.

A home run for dominum, and the crowd go wild!

I am not complaining at the entertainment value of the postings on this bb. I admit there is a possibility that you are all telling the truth but it is more likely that you are fantasists. On the subject of abuse, if you take a childs pants down to administer discipline what is your reason? Surely the most obvious one is a selfish one, that you yourself get pleasure from it.I am not making a moral point but just a point in favour of being honest with yourself. If you were honest about your motives then i would be more likely to believe these stories of yours. Perhaps i am in the minority on this, any way please don't be offended

Dominum explains his caning of the boy's bare bottom thus: "it was primarily because I wanted the boy in question to realise in no uncertain terms that he was receiving a more severe punishment than the boy he had framed.

Er . . . but if the boy he framed got six strokes, wouldn't the framer have realised he was receiving a more severe punishment as soon as you told him him was to receive more than six strokes?

I think even the dimmest boy in Australia would realise that receiving 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 . . . strokes is a more severe punishment than receiving 6.

The truth is as plain as it is simple - when an adult male takes an interest in boys' bare bottoms, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with discipline.

First of all, to correct an irrelevancy - but I like being correct.

I am not an ex-headmaster. I am a deputy head, I have been an acting head. But I've never actually been a headmaster, except in a temporary capacity.

Now - you may think that it is obvious that a person would gain pleasure from taking a childs pants down. And, certainly, I can accept that for some people that would be the case, including, I have no doubt, some teachers. I'm certain there have been cases where people have deliberately done this for their own sexual gratification. But I have never done so. I have no sexual interest whatsoever in the backsides of young boys - nor, for that matter, in that of any male at all. While I've come to accept over the years that there is really nothing wrong with homosexuality, I am not that way myself. I have no sexual interest in the male of the species. Nor do I have any interest of that type in children. The idea is abhorrent to me.

One thing I have learned in over sixty years on this planet is that sexuality has many, many facets - and sexuality can be a very unique and individual thing. Frankly, I think that anyone who makes assumptions as to someones sexuality, or to what they gain pleasure from, based on a few posts to an internet forum is drawing a very long bow indeed.

I am honest about my motives. I'm straight. I have no interest in boys whatsoever.

Now - I have been teaching over 40 years. Conservatively, I have probably administered over 1000 canings. That sounds like a lot - hell, it is a lot. But if I had wanted to, and taken every opportunity to cane a boy, it would have been least three times that amount - I let a lot more off with warnings than I ever caned.

If I had wanted to - at an estimate - I could have easily caned over 300 boys across their bare backsides. Totally legally. That level might have inspired some comment - but 30 in the ten years from around 1964-1974 would not even have been worthy of notice (prior to 1964, I was too junior a teacher to be making these types of decisions; after around 1974, in my school at least, the use of the cane across the bare backside was more or less abandoned - it remained an option technically for a number of years after that, but wasn't used). But, in fact, I decided to administer such a punishment less than 6 times over that period.

If I'd wanted to cane boys in that way. If I'd gained pleasure from it, I could have easily taken advantage of the situation three or four times a year. But I didn't.

In fact, I did everything I could, commensurate with what I felt was my dury and responsibility, to avoid using the cane in that way. I only did it when a boy had committed an offence he could have been expelled for, and for one reason or another I didn't feel that such an extreme step was justified. I have never enjoyed caning boys - and administering a caning across the bare backside actually made me quite ill. No pleasure - just nausea.

I became a teacher because I wanted to make a difference. I had attended a respected private school on a scholarship, after my father died, and some of the teachers I met there had a profoundly positive impact on my life (I also did encounter some who had a very negative impact, and one who was seriously perverted - believe me, I'm aware of what can happen when a teacher abuses his power). I became a teacher because I wanted to have a positive impact on others. The idea of deliberately causing severe pain to a boy is not one I find in the least bit pleasureable. I have used the cane, because it's part of the job description and because I do believe that for some boys in some cases it can have a long term positive effect on their behaviour, their character, and their future success. But I've never enjoyed it. It's a duty - and an onerous one. All jobs contain duties that you find unpalatable, and you do them not because you enjoy them - but because they are necessary. I've never enjoyed marking test papers either - and I really despise taking detention classes - I didn't do anything, why am I losing my Saturday morning? But it's part of the job.

Now - if you want to talk sexual excitement from administering corporal punishment, yes, it's happened. In the early 1970s, I did have occasion to cane three girls under rather special circumstances. While I still found it highly unpalatable, and I did it because it was part of the job, I do admit that there was some sexual arousal there. I didn't take advantage of it. In fact, if I'd been able to find a way out of it, I wouldn't have done it after the first occasion, because I was very uncomfortable with it. The girls were around 16, and I caned them across their skirts and, I would assume, underwear as well - I didn't check for obvious reasons.

It left me with the firm conviction that girls should either only be caned under wholly unusual circumstances, or at the very least, only by female teachers.

I'm not immune to sexual arousal. And when it has happened I don't have a problem admitting to it. But it has never been a factor in caning a boy, either on the bare or under any other circumstance.

Dominum

Well, there's a fair question there amidst the accusations and allegations.

You ask if the boy wouldn't have been aware he was getting a more severe punishment, simply by the number of strokes administered.

Obviously, they answer is yes - unless he was an imbecile. Provided, of course, he was aware of what the other boy had received.

He might have been - under normal circumstances he would have been, but there are some reasons why in this case, I suspect he didn't know the details (the main one being that he had come forward to confess in the apparent belief the other boy was facing expulsion, which he wasn't, which indicates that the grapevine wasn't up to its normal standards).

The cane was in common use at the school - we had somewhere around 800-900 boys at the time, and canings were a more than everyday occurrence - there were around 400 properly logged canings a year - and given how lax some teachers were, I'm not sur what the accurate number was - I would guess more like 600. Canings were commented on, but were routine.

Every boy knew that in extreme cases for extreme offences, they could be caned on the bare bottom. They knew it was an option - they also knew that while they stood a good chance of being caned during their school career, there was only a slight chance, they'd ever face caning on the bare. Really, it was anticipated and more-or-less expected they'd get caned. Boys will be boys. While being caned obviously meant they'd done the wrong thing, it wasn't that serious - they weren't 'bad' kids - they were just kids and kids made mistakes - that was part of growing up.

But to get caned on the bare - that wasn't normal. That wasn't expected or accepted as normal. You hadn't made a mistake. You had deliberately chosen to do something seriously wrong.

And that understanding - which all the boys had - lead to an expectation from the boys that if they crossed the line - really crossed it - they would face that type of caning. It was expected by them. I didn't set these rules and practices up. I was the deputy (and acting) boarding house master. I didn't really have a huge amount of discretion.

I was a junior master - the position as deputy boarding master was the first position of authority I'd been given at the school. And a part of my job was maintaining discipline and meting out punishment when it was called for. If I wanted to move up the ladder - and I did, I had upset some of my family by deciding to go into teaching and I really did want to make a success of it - I needed to do a good job.

I also had my reputation with the boys to think of - and that was a significant factor. Show a sign of weakness and they'd devour you. I'd been told that since I started teaching, and I believed it completely.

Both in terms of my professional reputation, and my ability to teach the boys, I couldn't afford to appear weak.

The boy who I first caned on the bare bottom hadn't just committed a breach of the school rules - he'd committed a criminal offence. Even worse he had attempted - had succeeded - to frame another boy, and ensured he was punished for it. He'd put his father's reputation in danger. He'd put the school's reputation in danger. He'd made me look a fool, personally - and yes, that was a factor, I admit it.

I could have had him expelled - oh, so easily.

I could have called the police, though that would have been an interesting way of resigning my teaching position.

I could have called his father, which might have made me an accessory to murder (joking on that last one - but his father would have been livid - and the man terrified me.)

*But* he had confessed. In the final analysis, when he thought he'd caused another boy to be expelled, he had, finally, done the right thing - and it must have taken a lot of courage to admit to an offence you thought someone else was being expelled for.

So I wanted to be lenient - as lenient as I could be.

I didn't even have the option, really, of sending him to the headmaster, because that would have almost certainly resulted in his expulsion.

But he needed to be punished in a very severe fashion. He had crossed the line - twice, really.

I didn't act swiftly - I believe I told him he wouldn't be expelled, although I'm not certain of that - I was very angry - but I would decide what to do with him in the morning - I was too angry to be sure I would deal fairly with him.

And in the end, after reflection, I really didn't see an alternative but to hand out the most severe caning authorised - 12 strokes on the bare buttocks.

I didn't create the environment where that was the most serious sanction I had. I didn't create the environment where weakness on my part could have damaged my career, and my ability to teach.

I was part of it, though. And so was he. He knew what happened when you crossed the line - and if I hadn't carried that out, that would have got around. That I had been too wet to do the job.

So I did it. And after nine strokes, I was so sick to my stomach at what I was doing, that I let him go - thankfully I hadn't told him he was getting twelve, or I might have felt I had to go on with it.

Could I have handled it differently? Yes, maybe I could have. In the same situation today, if the same expectations applied, all the same circumstances, would I do it again?

Yes, I probably would. Knowing it would make me ill. Knowing I might have to deal with people sitting comfortably at a computer in 35 years time casting their slings and arrows.

Yes, I think I would. Because that was the job. And while I hate, hate, hate certain aspects of it, I do it because as a whole I think I'm good at it, and I think I've made a difference.

Sarajane - you might think there's a plain and simple truth. I know the world is a complex place where there are a huge amount of factors that can affect every decision we have to make.

You're wrong in condemning me as some sort of pervert interested in young boys backsides. You want to attack me - well, there's plenty of real scope. You can attack me on the basis that I regarded my career as important enough to influence how I treated the boys in my care. You can attack me on the basis that I considered how *I* would look in making my decisions, on whether or not to punish a boy. You can attack me for lacking the moral courage to take a hard decision to expel a boy who I quite liked, when I would have been happy to see the boy he framed expelled.

In the end, I do believe, and I do hope, that I acted in the best interests of the boys I taught, and that I continue to do so. Even when it means I've had to look at myself through lenses I really don't like. Even when it has made me sick. Even when I wish I'd found another way.

I believe I've done my duty by the boys I've taught. From those I've spoken to, from those who've chosen the same schools for their sons, they seem to think so as well. But I'm not perfect - my judgement is not infallible.

And unlike some people, I'm aware that I can be wrong. And that the plain and simple way I see things, may not be the way they really are.

Dominum

Dominum,

I spend much of my life reading statements and forming opinions re what's true and what's not and, if I wasn't good at it, I'd be out of a job.

My impression is that you're a fundamentally honest man who's being truthful in his postings on this BB and I accept without hesitation your assertion that you have no extra-curricular interest in the male posterior.

There are several postings on this BB (and many more on others) that are obviously works of pure fantasy and I despair for the human race when I see other readers lapping them up and asking for further and better particulars.

However, as I say, my impression based on the all evidence is that YOU are genuine.

Well, thank you very much for saying so.

I really do not have a problem with being questioned - though I do admit I can get heated in reply, and I really do wonder if some of the people objecting to your presence have any idea of how many fetishists there are out there. The vast majority aren't out to hurt anyone, but they can still make it very hard to separate fact from fiction.

The number of fakes does seem to outnumber the number of genuine people quite substantially in any forum unless people are willing to question them. And, frankly, having participated in a number of forums over the years, I think anyone who is genuine has to *expect* to be questioned. It's routine - and if you are genuine, it seems to me you'd be pretty much used to it.

It can get excessive at times. It can be extremely irritating on occasion - but if you choose anonymity, as I have done, either total or partial, I think being questioned is the price you pay for that anonymity.

And also, speaking as a teacher, who has heard all too many stories of unmitigated abuse by teachers who have abused their authority, and got away with it, because nobody exposed them to scrutiny - a certain amount of scepticism as to motives, etc, is certainly better than the alternative on many occasions.

I doubt that in practical terms, much harm could be done by posting in this forum - but frankly, any teacher who is not willing to face having their motivations questioned should probably have taken a different job. It's fairly routine. And so, should be used to it. I can't say that's definitely true for those older than I am - but there aren't that many of us around.

Dominum

Dominium, was this a state or RC school?

Here's a site where a student reminesces about receiving a bare-bottomed caning at an English school in Cairo:

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/viewall?forumid=9606&it=0

Here's the quotation:

"Nostalgia
by Michael Pohoski

Freddy-I cannot picture you but suffice it to say that I ran around with Dick Moates-in fact if it were not for him (actually his parents) I most likely would not be living in San Diego. I have been trying for many years to locate Dick Moates but have not been successful to date. I have located George Loukaitis, Andy Vayanos, Maurice Eskinazi, Tousson Rushdi, Saad Mohaffel, Rauf Mishriki and am in touch with all of them. Do any of these names ring a bell to you?

Yes I got one caning from Beard-I must say it was rather sadistic to have you pull your pants down and touch the bottom of the chair you were kneeling on. Once was enough though.
Respectfully, Michael Pohoski

Posted on Mar 1, 2002, 10:52 AM"

Caned on the bare in Cairo?

I wonder if he told his mummy ??????

No, neither a state school, nor one associated in any way with the Catholic church. We're independent, and while there is a religious ethos involved, it's a fairly ecumenical Christian one - we have Catholic pupils, we have them from Protestant backgrounds, we have non-religious - we even have a few from Jewish backgrounds, as the Christian aspect is fairly low key.

Dominum

An adult removes a childs underwear in order to cane him on his bare buttocks yet obtains no pleasure from it? A lot of people on this forum must have read Rousseau, Desmond Morris, Ian Gibson and numerous other authorities who all point to the sexual significance of beating the bare behinds of children. My own personal childhood experiences of corporal punishment i believe have led to my own deep interest in the subject. If you really did obtain no pleasure from caning these boys what on earth are you doing on this forum in the first place. Why aren't you checking the weather or on a sports forum or doing what ordinary people do? The mere fact that you are here sharing these memories with us leads me to think you have more than a passing interest in the subject.Admit the truth if these stories of yours are really true, that you obtained sexual satisfaction from it and stop being such a humbug.

I obtain no sexual pleasure or arousal from the backsides of young boys, whether bare or clothed, nor from those of any male at all. That is a fact whether you like it or not. I am very well aware that there are writers who have pointed out that there can be a sexual significance involved in 'beating the bare behinds of children', and I believe they are correct - there can be. But no credible authority would ever claim that this is absolute. Because intelligent, educated people are very well aware that in dealing with human behaviour, there are no absolute, universal truths. Only fools assume that generalities - even common ones - apply in all cases.

In addition to being a teacher, I am a trained psychologist (I've never stopped studying, having built my skills and degrees over the years through part time study - two Masters Degrees and still going) - I specialised in educational psychology, but as part of my courses, I did have to go into other areas. I am very well aware that people can gain sexual pleasure in all sorts of ways - and that there is such a wide variety of sexuality, and sexual behaviours involved that it is foolish in the extreme to assume anyone fits into any neat pigeonhole.

As to why I am here - I am here because I am interested in corporal punishment - as an educator. I'm also in several forums that relate to the teaching of science - does that mean I get turned on by covalent bonding (I'm sure that sounds really dirty to some people)? No. Interests do not have to be sexual. I'm a teacher - with a firm belief that corporal punishment serves a useful purpose in schools. Please look at the title of this forum.

Nothing would please me more for the perverts and the fetishists to go away. This is not a sexual issue for me - it's one of educational policy and good (or bad) pedagogical practice. And, frankly, I am sick of people injecting the sexual proclivities into it, because it muddles the issues. It's less of a problem when people are open about them, because at least then you can assess where they are coming from. I'm fully in favour of people being honest and open about their sexuality if it is relevant - and if I got sexual pleasure for using the cane on boys, it would be relevant. But I don't - and I'm sorry if that makes it hard for you to fit me into your little pigeonholes and theories - but it's a fact.

I would love to find a forum where people weren't constantly injecting their sexuality into this issue. I even started a fully moderated forum two years ago to try and keep the fetishism out. Interestingly it has 757 members and about 17 messages a month, which indicate just how many fetishists there are hanging around reading. I know they are there - but I'm not one of them.

Now - do I get much serious discussion, realistic discussion, out of posting in this forum - not directly, although I wouldn't object. But I do manage to make contact on occasion with other people who like me are looking for somewhere where we can avoid the sexually charged rubbish. I also hope that I can show people that not all the teachers who hit them were perverts taking advantage of their job. If honest decent teachers don't post in these forums, that's the impression that is left - and as a teacher, I find that disgusting.

Humbug? Hardly. I am what I am. I am posting anonymously, and I very much doubt anyone could track down who I am. So what the hell would I have to gain from not admitting to a perversion if it would shut you up. Nothing - except such an admission would be a lie.

Dominum


done an edit - do not use no rude words please dom thankyou
carl

The argument between Jamie and Dominum is unusual in that both sides are right.

Jamie is saying that whacking another person's bottom is 'sexual' (at least in some basic primeval way) - and he's absolutely right.

Dominum is saying that he has no sexual interest in male bottoms, never used his position/power to obtain access to same or to enable him to cane same, and never derived sexual pleasure when he DID cane same - and I believe he says that honestly.

If Jamie were to push him on the matter of deriving at least SOME sort of erotic gratification from caning pupils, it may be that Dom would concede that being human he is subject to basic human psychology and that there might have been some section of his psyche that was at some times not altogether unaware of the sexual elements involved.

But that is a far cry from deriving sexual pleasure from caning his pupils.

In the preceding post, I refer to James S as 'Jamie'.

It isn't due to over-familiarity; I simply mis-remembered his name.

Sorry, James S.

As an educator and someone who had no interest whatsoever in boys bottoms.As someone whose interest in corporal punishment..is purely non sexual and scientific, do you not feel that you are yourself pandering to all the "disgusting perverts and fetishists" by the information you have posted on this forum.If we swallow the idea that you did not obtain just a small frisson of erotic pleasure from pulling those pants down and gazing at those boyish bottoms before you whacked them, do you not worry that you may yourself have helped create both boys and girls who derive sexual pleasure from being beaten. In any case don't be so smug and sanctimonious about other peoples sexuality even if you are this robot you pretend to be. The first part of your names not an acronym is it?

Am I worried that I am pandering to perverts and fetishists by posting?

Not really, no.

Provided they are not hurting anyone, I really don't have a problem with them. And reading what I have to write won't do any one any harm.

I only have a problem with these people when what they do has an impact on other people.

My objection to these people in public forums isn't when they just read what is written. Nor do I object if they are clear that they are a fetishist (or whatever term they prefer), because again, they can't really hurt anyone.

But when they start posting lies, or claiming to be something they are not, I do object - because frankly when somebody lies and claims to be a teacher, their posts impact on my profession and I do not like that one bit. That's why I wish they'd stay away.

But if they just want to read, or if they are quite happy not to lie about who they are, well, while I admit I'm not entirely comfortable around such people, I don't think I have any right to object to their presence. What they do is their business, up until the point it starts to harm other people.

Do I worry that I "may have helped create both boys and girls who derive sexual pleasure from being beaten"? That's a tough one.

Yes, the idea that I might have had a negative impact on any aspect of one of the kids I've taught does worry me. And, I know it's happened. I know that my influence on my students has not been universally and 100% positive. I've tried my best - but I'm a great distance away from being perfect. I think, and I hope, that I have had a positive impact on a significant number of the boys I taught. I'm sure that despite my best efforts, I've had a negative impact on some as well. Most - well, probably neither positive nor negative in any significant sense.

So, the idea that I might have caused long term harm to some of my pupils *in any way* does disturb me. But, frankly, I think I helped a lot more than I ever harmed.

Besides, the fetishists I've encountered over the years - well, most of them don't seem to regard their fetishm as a negative. They seem to enjoy it.

I don't intend to be smug or sanctimonious about my sexuality. But I also do not expect to be told that I have sexual feelings about things that most certainly do not excite me. People have been attacking *me* on the basis of their prejudicial beliefs about how I should fit into their neat little pigeonholes. And I object to that most vehemently. If, in defending myself, I have come across as either smug or sanctimonious, I apologise. I think people should be free to have any sexual identity they feel fits who they are - but the fact is, there are people on this forum who have chosen to attack me and claim that my sexuality must be something that it most certainly is not.

As for my name, it's a variation of a nickname some of my pupils gave me quite a few years ago. It was in the early 1970s, and I was their form master. I also, apparently, bore something of a resemblance to a character called 'The Master' on Doctor Who. These were junior boys, just starting out learning Latin and one of the first words they learned was Dominus, Mast