<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Skirt lifting

September 19 2003 at 6:50 PM
Barry 

 
When girls were caned or given the slipper on their knickers who lifted their skirts? Was it the girls themselves or the teacher? I often wonder about this but would like to make it clear that I am not a pervert.

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Gillian

Re: Skirt lifting

September 19 2003, 7:03 PM 

I hope Barry receives the number of replies that he deserves.

He is obviously not a pervert.

 
 
Roger

Re: Re: Skirt lifting

September 19 2003, 8:45 PM 

A vacancy has arisen at our research team and Barry is just the man to fill it. If you are interested in joining us, Barry, please get in touch at the usual address.

 
 
World Wide Traveller

To Roger

September 27 2003, 11:04 AM 

I recently had contact with someone who attended a convent school in South Africa. Like most of her schoolmates, she seems to have been caned quite frequently, usually on the hand but sometimes on the bottom. Apparently it was made very clear to the girls that to bend too far forward was very unladylike and the raising of skirts was out of the question.

 
 
Kate

Skirt lifting

September 27 2003, 3:25 PM 

I have been away from the internet for some time and have only just discovered this forum. I used to post on the Inside the Web School Corporal Punishment Forum which has now closed down.

I was only caned once while I was at school. I was in the third year at secondary school and another girl and myself had been caught playing truant. We were summoned to the office of the headmistress and told that we would be caned. The other girl was told to bend over the desk first and the headmistress lifted up her skirt and laid it across her back. She was then given two strokes of the cane. When it was my turn I felt uneasy about the headmistress lifting my skirt, so as I approached the desk I pulled it up myself to about my waist and bent over. The head adjusted it so that it covered my back. I was more worried that she would pull my pants up tight than I was about the caning, but she didn’t. I have always had a thing about people touching my clothes, particularly my underwear.

 
 
Michael

Re: Skirt lifting

October 9 2003, 6:54 PM 

Kate - would you mind giving some details about you uniform please? Was it classic navy or green, and ws it a rule that yo had to wear regulation knickers?

 
 
Kate

Re: Re: Skirt lifting

October 9 2003, 7:50 PM 

The school uniform consisted of a white blouse, a navy blue skirt, a v-necked jumper with a yellow ‘v’ and black shoes. The tie was also navy blue with thin yellow stripes. We had to wear white cotton knickers.

 
 

Is it important.?

October 10 2003, 1:22 PM 

It is really important about the colour of the uniform.??I think the most important is make sure the caning is not that painful.!

 
 
Nick

Re: Is it important.?

October 11 2003, 1:35 PM 

I am only slightly interested in the colour of schoolgirls’ uniforms, but am obsessed with knowing the colour of the knickers that they wore underneath.

 
 
Belinda Rose

Re: Re: Is it important.?

October 11 2003, 2:51 PM 

I have a friend who was at Charles Edward Brooke School in Lambeth. They wore a brown uniform and their knickers were the same colour.

 
 
Phil

Cover

July 14 2005, 12:49 AM 

Skirt lifting did happen, as in the Janet Dines case. How much of the bottom would a girl’s knickers cover? Were some or all strokes on the bare?

 
 
Gas Mask Wearer

Re: Cover

July 21 2005, 4:04 PM 

No strokes would have landed on the bare flesh because in the days of Janet Dikes schoolgirls wore BIG knickers as seen here modelled by Lavinia.



I have noticed that a lot of women are wearing flouncy white dresses this summer that are almost see-through. I have peered intently to see what kind of knickers they are wearing underneath, but so far have not seen any. Perhaps they are wearing those disgusting thongs.

 
 
Nathan

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 8:14 AM 

For regulation knickers to be part of a school uniform then there must be a system of checking. The only person I know who had uniform checks was my wife. Her school would measure the hems of girls skirts each Monday to see that it sat one inch above the knee, and each morning the girls had to raise their skirts at the right hip.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 10:18 AM 

"Her school would measure the hems of girls skirts each Monday to see that it sat one inch above the knee" says Nathan.

I find that somewhat difficult to believe as schools are busy places, teachers are busy people and any teacher who can see well enough to use a ruler or a tape measure can simply run her eye swiftly over dozens of girls in a couple of seconds and see at a glance whether or not any skirt is significantly higher than one inch above the knee.

". . . and each morning the girls had to raise their skirts at the right hip" says Nathan.

That might possibly have happened at St. Fantasia's Academy for Imaginary Young Ladies but, believe me, dear readers, schools and teachers in the real world have much better things to do with their time.

 
 


Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 10:30 AM 

I don't know - I'm reading a study of English girls boarding schools at the moment (from 1971) and that describes a school at which the girls had their temperature taken every single day except Sundays and Ascension Day. The apparent ihtention was to ensure staff had close person to person contact with the girls each day.

If they wasted time like that, I can believe just about anything.

The same book does mention one school that set rules on underwear - all girls having to wear white knickers, and that was apparently checked when girls sat cross legged on the ground during assembly.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 10:47 AM 

The temperature-taking is just about believable as it might be said that it cast a favourable light upon the school in terms of its caring for girls' health and welfare.

The knicker-inspecting at assembly might also be true if it were a casual and unofficial sort of inspection but I can assure readers that (a) the vast majority of girls would have ensured that their underwear could not be seen when sitting cross-legged and (b) the vast majority of girls' schools would have instructed girls always to sit in such a way that their underwear could not be seen.

 
 


Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 10:59 AM 

Oh, I believe what has been written - it comes from a fairly prominent psycholgist with a good reputation, not likely to be lightly put at risk describing things that she personally observed while undertaking a scholarly study of girls boarding schools.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 2:28 PM 

People will always believe what they want to believe but, when deciding the plausibility of any account, it's usually wise to employ common sense and intelligence before relying upon the allged expertise or reputation of the story's source.

Our more intelligent readers will immediately have spotted the flaws in the claim that the colour of girls' underwear may be efficiently deduced by teachers watching girls sitting cross-legged in assembly.

Firstly, in any such group of girls, only the front row are at risk of having their underwear seen.

Secondly, unless the skirts are micro-mini in length, a viewer would have to be some distance from that front row in order to see sufficiently far up the skirts and that distance would be multiplied very considerably if the viewer were sitting or standing upon a raised platform.

Even under optimum conditions, therefore, the vast majority of the girls' knickers would not be visible and, under anything approaching normal conditions, few if any of the girls' knickers would be visible.

The story very obviously apocryphal.

 
 

Dean

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 2:46 PM 

Yes, of course it is.

A scholarly expert from Cambridge University engaging in primary research in boarding schools, reporting what they've personally observed during field studies in those schools is wrong - and you, from your perspective as an anonymous nonentity on the internet knows better.

 

Message edited to include name of sender.


 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 2:52 PM 

I eat experts from Cambridge University for breakfast.

 
 
Danny

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 4:34 PM 

I wish one would eat you for breakfast .... wishing ... wishing ... wishing!

 
 
Steve M

No,Honestly!

October 26 2006, 6:30 PM 

LOTTA

Not if the Cambridge expert were disguised as a Cambridge ornithologist, camouflaged as a tree on the platform, with a pair of large and high-powered binoculars!

As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, the world is full of this sort of very diligent researcher, especially regarding schoolgirl underwear. Didn't they have one at your school?

Why, I bumped into one this morning when I rode into work on my favourite purple camel,whose name, for obvious reasons, is Humphrey.


Steve

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Cover

October 26 2006, 8:09 PM 

Dean calls me a nonentity but we should remember it is he who has the imaginary wife and imaginary baby.

 
 
Ketta

Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 12:07 AM 

Of course the diligent boarding school researcher existed, disguised lurking in the school laundry, his role seeking out knickers of the more desirable types, immediately confiscating.

Each term on arrival, an infantry of possesions checking the authorised number of knickers permited, names attached of course. As each girls laundry returned , the regulation knickers placed neatly on top , by hypothesis of elimination any girl found knicker less or returned less than the regulation pairs would immediately be sussed, guilty of non conforming.

No doubt our Oxford laundry researcher having teamed up with our Cambridge ornithologist researcher, from his hide doing a roaring trade on the black market.

 
 

JformerlyJethro

cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 12:31 AM 

Here is one of my old primary school pics which I've scanned and the girl sitting on the floor 2nd from left is Heather. Clearly she was not instructed not to show her knickers and although I can't remember noticing at the time I expect the photographer enjoyed taking the pic. The pic is not blurred so he was probably using a tripod. The boy standing far left is David who was late joing the group and to take his place he walked in front of Heather after she was seated. It looks like he also enjoyed the display as he appears to have a massive erection. The school is St Stephens School in Worcester and the pic was taken late 50s with the class teacher being Miss Walsh if anyone wants to check authenticity. I do have the complete pic but cropped it to give a better view of Heather's knickers.
I later met Heather in a pub by chance when I was about 18 and she looked absolutely gorgeous. I was too much of a gentleman to mention the knicker display incident of course.

J

 
 


Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 7:38 AM 

The researcher in question most certainly did exist, and for that matter, still exists. Her name is Mallory Wober, and she - not he - is quite a well known psychologist.

In 1966 she was asked by Dr Royston Lambert, who was head of the Boarding Schools Research Unit at King's College, Cambridge to carry out a detailed investigation into girls boarding schools - most research prior to this had revolved around boys schools. To carry out her research she visited and stayed at (or occasionally near) 23 different girls boarding schools from across England.

The results of her study were published in 1971 by Allen Lane The Penguin Press under the title 'English Girls' Boarding Schools'. Though, out of print, this book would not be too hard to find in British academic libraries.

Her statements about the school which had rules about the underwear its girls could wear, and the fact that this was enforced because could see violators as they sat cross legged at assembly can be found on page 123 of that study.

It's one minor point in a 300 page study - it was hardly a major focus of her research, but it is there, and it should be quite easy for anyone who wants to check it, to do so.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 8:10 AM 

"Her statements about the school which had rules about the underwear its girls could wear, and the fact that this was enforced because could see violators as they sat cross legged at assembly can be found on page 123 of that study" says Dean.

I am quite willing to accept that the above is true and have never disputed that non-regulation underwear 'could' be seen in those circumstances. Indeed, it is quite obvious that non-regulation underwear 'could' be seen in those circumstances.

Readers with a moderate-to-good command of the English language will of course realise that the fact that non-regulation underwear 'could' be seen in those circumstances means simply that it was sometimes possible in those circumstances to see one or more girls wearing non-regulation underwear.

As a method of detecting such rule-breakers, however, it's absurdly inefficient and could never have been a detection 'method' at all.

Neither teachers nor psychologists can act outside the laws of physics and I rely upon those laws to support my case that in such circumstances the vast majority of the underwear - regulation and otherwise - would have been hidden from view.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 8:19 AM 

The poor girl showing her knicks is, predictably, on the front row and even if a thousand of her exhibitionist ilk were seated in rows behind that front row, none of their knickers would be visible.

I rest my case.

 
 


Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 8:38 AM 

"There was evidentally not much need to control underwear, as few girls would hazard expensive oddities here. At one school it became fashionable to sport coloured bloomers, which was not officially resisted; but at another, a rule enjoining the wearing of white knickers could be enforced as all the girls sat cross-legged on the floor during part of morning assembly, during which time offenders could be spotted by staff"

This is what is reported from observations by a competent and trained observer. They know what they could see.

But go ahead - continue to argue that you are right and that the person who was there - a named, reputable observer was wrong.

It just illustrates exactly how little attention anybody should bother to pay to your views.


 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 9:05 AM 

Readers competent in English must make allowances for Dean who appears to have only the most basic grasp of the language.

 
 


Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 9:15 AM 

BA(Hons) in English Literature and History, you supercilious, sanctomonious, boviforous ignoramus.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 12:55 PM 

A BA(Hons) in English Literature and History is clearly no guarantee of competence in the English language as Dean misspells 'sanctimonious' and employs an entirely non-existent word 'boviforous'.

Boviforous? What on Earth can he mean?

He might have intended 'bovivorous' which, although I can't find it in my dictionary, must surely mean 'in the habit of eating cattle' but why would he want to denounce me as a beefeater?

What a very strange man Dean is!

 
 
Tinybibsofus

Re: cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 4:58 PM 

Gosh, isn't Lotta clever!


 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 6:18 PM 

Yes, I have a PhD in 'The Detection of Fake Headmasters, Fraudulent Floosies and Fantasy Wives'.

 
 
Steve M

Re: cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 6:33 PM 

LOTTA

Now, dear girl, go for the big one and tell us which of them is J,then!


PS

This is getting as heavy as that old Deep Purple standard:-


Come On...

Come On....

Come On------------Let's go skirt-lifting!


Steve M

 
 
47david

Cheltenham

October 27 2006, 7:29 PM 

I think there is also reasonably firm evidence that a headmistress of one of the girl's private schools in Cheltenham circa 1960 insisted on a parade of the entire school pupils at which skirts were lifted in order to check that the regulation green knickers were being worn. I can't be bothered to look, can anyone else find a reference? I think this possibly gets a mention in Arthur Marshall's "Giggling In the Shrubbery" (a survey of girls' schools and a follow up to his similar boys' schools book "Whimpering In the Rhododendrons"). The shrubbery book also contains several good knicker yarns, including one about a school doctor who thought navy blue knickers were harmful to girls because of the dye and insisted on plain white ones. I don't actually have a copy to hand of either book, but they're worth looking out for..

 
 

JformerlyJethro

Re: cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 7:43 PM 

Lotta said: "even if a thousand of her exhibitionist ilk were seated in rows behind that front row, none of their knickers would be visible."
******************************************************************

What this statement shows is that Lotta does NOT have a PhD in History of Fashion. I gave the date as late 50s so was pre-Quant and dress length was modest. Now move on 10 years into the Quant heyday and the girls sitting in the 2nd row would have been wearing very short skirts and showing a great expanse of bare thigh. Just for the photographer they would have been sitting with their knickers well and truly on display and no doubt giggling at the bulge in the front of his trousers.

J

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Cheltenham

October 27 2006, 8:27 PM 

I think there is also reasonably firm evidence that Arthur Marshall didn't attend a girls' private school either in Cheltenham circa 1960 or in any other place at any other time.

That being so, it is highly unlikely that he witnessed the alleged incident and we must therefore assume that the story is anecdotal.

It is also almost certainly apocryphal

 
 
Steve M

Re: cross-legged showing knickers

October 27 2006, 10:51 PM 

J

I picked a school at random on FR & this is Manningtree Sec(Essex) 4th ot 5th year 68 or 69:-










Plenty of legs in that front row,but not a lot of underwear on view.

Strikes me Lotta's Mum might have been that age & that's where our little Minx got the non-knicker showing knowledge.

If that makes the slightest sense-which it probably doesn't.


Steve

 
 


Re: No,Honestly!

October 27 2006, 11:04 PM 

Oh wow. A misspelling.

Spelling is one of the most insignificant elements of competency in English. That's why we teach it to primary aged children, and leave the more complex areas of the language until they are older.

I actually do spell reasonably well, but not perfectly.

As for boviferous, it is a real word. The fact you couldn't find it in whatever dictionary or dictionaries you looked at is a reflection of the fact that no dictionary contains every single word in the English language (the OED comes closest). It's a poetical variation of the word boviform (a poetical variation that I selected because it scanned better with the other words I was using), which means resembling a cow or an ox - I thought it lacked a little bit of style to just come straight out and call you a cow, but that is what I was doing.


 
 

JformerlyJethro

knickers showing in 2nd row

October 29 2006, 9:26 PM 

Steve I accept your word that you picked that pic purely at random and I'm not going to suggest that you spent hours trawling the net to find a pic that supported Lotta's opinion on knicker inspections.
Also, I'm not going to suggest that you would want to support Lotta because you have a secret desire to get her across your knee while she is wearing a St Trinians' uniform.
However, you've missed the point here because your pic doesn't show seated girls. Lotta said this about my pic of Heather:-

"The poor girl showing her knicks is, predictably, on the front row and even if a thousand of her exhibitionist ilk were seated in rows behind that front row, none of their knickers would be visible."

Really? Not one pair of knickers would be visible? Here are a couple of pics that I also found by a random search and didn't spend hours trawling the net looking for them either.

WOW-knickers!


....and more knickers!


J

 
 
Steve M

Re: knickers showing in 2nd row

October 29 2006, 10:04 PM 

J

Yep, 2-1 to you!

Problem is, there's nothing in the 2nd row, although one of your picks being a mixed school, the possibility of that is halved(I hope!!!). Plus one second row is standing-which is no help to either side!

I admit to being an expert on 2nd row, as I was forced to play there for the 4 n' a half years I couldn't get out of doing rugby,instead of football. I did develope an evil king-hit at scrums, but that's all 2nd rows ever did for me.

I think there was generally more underwear displayed in the 60's than Lotta and a lot of older women would like to admit-they clearly didn't all have HER sharp mind when facing a box brownie or instamatic. But that gormless forgetting of what all nice gels were taught-did it spread past the FRONT rows?

The plot thickens. We could be on the net for days trying to prove that!!


Steve M


PS-Lotta wouldn't need to be in school uniform, either. Just a looker!!! But would she really want to bother with a failed 2nd row forward, or would she see it as the man who created happy cows??

We shall never know! Especially if Sarah has anything to do with it, let alone Lotta!

 
 
Ketta

Re: knickers showing in 2nd row

October 31 2006, 10:58 PM 

Looks like some one in the second/third row forgot to act like a young lady




 
 
Ketta

More knicker Inspections

October 31 2006, 11:09 PM 

An extract from womens studies university of wales Bangor

“For my MA in Women’s Studies I interviewed a cohort of middle class, well-educated women from three generations to compare their life experiences and their attitudes to feminism. They were over seventy-five years of age, forty five to fifty five and eighteen year olds. As part of informal discussions, the subject of underwear would sometimes crop up.
By the time my eldest women were at school they were encased in salmon pink wincyette ‘harvest festivals’ – all was safely gathered in. The next generation (mine) wore two pairs, white cotton briefs and sturdier outer drawers in regulation navy blue or bottle green to match the uniform. These were encased in thick ribbed tights under petticoat and heavy serge skirt or gymslip, more Fort Knoxers than boxers. Spot check knicker inspections were common and one girl was expelled for wearing pink nylon pants, although the official reason was given as ankle socks in October, when the tight season had started.”
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/ced/currentstudents/womstuds/writings/notfeministbut/susanbradley.htm


 
 


Re: More knicker Inspections

November 1 2006, 8:30 AM 

It really does look like knicker displays in schools were more common than Lotta thought.

 
 
Steve M

Re: More knicker Inspections

November 1 2006, 6:58 PM 

KETTA

Blimey, talk about money for old rope-wish I'd bloody gone to Uni now!

I must admit I hope this student never got on University Challenge & had the gall to announce what her degree studies were in!


Steve M

 
 
Wackford Squeers

The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 1 2006, 8:06 PM 

Any more of this and I shall start believing that Lotta has a point. No one was ever expelled for wearing the wrong kind of underwear or socks. As for the little tell-tale triangles of white in the school photos, do the words 'Adobe' and 'Photoshop' ring any bells?

The references to Cheltenham presumably are linked to the UK's number one girls' public school, Cheltenham Ladies College, which, according to believable female witnesses speaking to a TV camera, really did have, back in the Fifties, some kind of knicker fixation. A mistress, it was alleged, was positioned at the foot of the main staircase, poised to look up the skirts of the descending pupils and to report those girls who had rolled up the legs of their knickers.

But please don't ask us to believe that Cheltenham or anywhere else would kick out a pupil whose parents were paying thousands to send her there, just on the ground that her bottom was covered in the wrong fabric. As we used to say on East 40th and Lexington "Get over yourself'.

 
 
Tony

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 1 2006, 11:49 PM 

Hmmmm.... Report to my study suitably attired, Miss Ketta. We need to have a little 'talk' about this...


 
 

The Camera Never Lies

November 2 2006, 8:24 AM 

Wackford Sqeers said:
"As for the little tell-tale triangles of white in the school photos, do the words 'Adobe' and 'Photoshop' ring any bells?"

My camera never lies
So I’ll put you in the picture and cut it down to size
(My camera oh oh)
My camera never lies anymore
‘Cos there’s nothing worth lying for
(My camera never lies)
There’s nothing worth lying for
(My camera never lies)
My camera never lies anymore


J

 
 


Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 2 2006, 11:23 AM 

But please don't ask us to believe that Cheltenham or anywhere else would kick out a pupil whose parents were paying thousands to send her there, just on the ground that her bottom was covered in the wrong fabric. As we used to say on East 40th and Lexington "Get over yourself'.

Why not?

It should be borne in mind that when one of these schools expelled a student, they very rarely refunded the child's school fees. And if the school was a very successful and popular school, it could easily refill the expelled child's place - charging enrolment fees and another full set of school fees. Economically speaking, expelling a child made good sense - so the fact that the parents were spending a lot of money really wasn't a reason not to expel a child.

Going through school histories, and historical documents associated with schools, I've seen some really stupid reasons for expelling students. In most cases, they probably weren't the real reasons the child was expelled. They were - I suppose, they could be called excuses, but saying that they were the straw that broke the camels back is probably more accurate.

It is fairly unlikely that any school would have expelled a girl simply because she wore the wrong underwear. But if the girl was generally defiant, and disobedient, and the school was looking for an excuse to get rid of her, that could have changed things a bit.

The dumbest reason I ever saw for expelling a girl was one who was expelled for doing handstands.

 
 
Tinybibsofus

Re: The Camera Never Lies

November 2 2006, 12:52 PM 

"My camera never lies". True enough, but the one who guards the photos can.

In the second of two pictures depicting white triangles, the source of light and its direction is indicated by shadows that are clearly visible from the back row heads and the teachers' gown. Flash was not used on the camera. The main source of illumination is high and to the left of camera. The white (or light coloured) baseboard on the wall is seen both in the room light and the shadow of the teacher's gown. Note how dark the white board becomes when in the shadow.

The same was true of the white triangles in the original photo since they are in shadow too. (Whiter than white detergent may be magic, but it only improves reflection, it does not give clothes their own light source).

But what would be visible only to a discerning eye in a black and white photo as dark triangles was still there. It has been amplified certainly, but not falisified (when blown up to show each pixel as a square you can clearly see straight lines added by a "pencil" style of brush).

So the point being made in these and subsequent pictures, that Lotta's nonsense was indeed nonsense, is valid despite the "assistance" in interpretation afforded the viewer.


 
 
Tinybibsofus

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 2 2006, 1:22 PM 

People with the funds to send their children to expensive schools moved in the same social, business, diplomatic etc. circles. A school's reputation was thus an all important consideration, not just scholastically, but in terms of being acceptable and free of problems for the parents.

I am inclined to think that a minor and temporary economic gain would be greatly overshadowed by the need for impeccable ongoing PR.

If behaviour was a problem, not only would parents have to be well informed in advance, the eventual "excuse" would need to be dignified and plausible. I sincerely doubt that underwear qualified...


 
 
Tinybibsofus

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 2 2006, 2:43 PM 

PS If you think through the implications of doing handstands, they may have had a point...


 
 
Steve M

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 2 2006, 8:19 PM 

I wonder if anyone got expelled for conspiracy to do handstands, or malice aforethought in the thought of wanting to do them?

I wonder, too, if Ketta & Lotta wonder why so many of us blokes have suddenly become such experts on knickers-I'm sure I'm speaking for one and all-we aren't into wearing them a la Rod Stewart, honest!

We just think we know it all!


Steve

 
 

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 2 2006, 10:04 PM 

People with the funds to send their children to expensive schools moved in the same social, business, diplomatic etc. circles. A school's reputation was thus an all important consideration, not just scholastically, but in terms of being acceptable and free of problems for the parents.



Most people with the funds to send their children to these schools fitted this pattern - but by no means all of them. Virtually every school had a reasonably large minority population from less well off, and less socially privileged backgrounds. And the closer you get to the modern day, the larger this group becomes. In some schools, social prestige may well have protected some students - but when that happened, those that lacked their prestige didn't have it's protection.

And, yes, reputation was important. But what many parents were looking for was a strict environment, where their child would not be exposed to bad influences. It could, in fact, be good for a school's reputation to show that it was prepared to get rid of potential bad apples.


 
 
Ketta

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 3 2006, 8:16 AM 

Steve

Having moved from state school at 13 to the private, Money, social circles defiantly spoke volumes. The reputation of the school paramount, environment strict, oppressive. Definite culture shock.

I would have done handstands, cartwheels in pink lace knickers and ankle socks if I thought it would have got me expelled and found my escape . Unfortunately this forbidden activity would have got you a couple of sore hands and continued incarceration,

The fact my talents didn’t extend to handstands may have something to do with it. Still practising!!!

Steve I doubt so many of you have suddenly become experts on knickers I can only assume most acquired this expertise in earlier years, when school boys were blessed with xray vision and lusted forbidden fruit. Of course once tasted such garments were quickly abandoned the rest is history. Memories playing tricks with you all.

Why do you think us females have a facination with our kilt wearing friends across the borders

Ketta

 
 
Steve M

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 3 2006, 7:58 PM 

KETTA

I ought to take issue with you re knicker-tasting,but I'm sure I shouldn't take it literally.

I do now wonder if I missed something not being in Wales when those handstand failures were taking place! X-Ray vision is fine, but it didn't ever extend over 200 miles!!!

And I still can't do one either, so don't feel life's passed you by!


Steve

 
 


Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 4 2006, 12:37 AM 

I wonder, too, if Ketta & Lotta wonder why so many of us blokes have suddenly become such experts on knickers-I'm sure I'm speaking for one and all-we aren't into wearing them a la Rod Stewart, honest!

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on knickers, but I am prepared to state quite openly that I spent a lot of my time as a boy trying to see girls underwear and got to see quite a lot of it.

A friend and I used to sit on Glenferrie Station in the afternoon after school and try to see up the skirts of the Gen and MLC girls on the opposite platform. We thought we were subtle and successful until an MLC prefect made it very clear they knew what we were doing.

Didn't get to see much from the MLC girls - their dresses were too long unless they were really careless, but saw a bit from the Gen girls until we got caught out. It really wasn't that hard to see a lot of the time, if you could get the right angle.

(Yes, I know this was wrong of us and very disrespectful of the girls - though considering what they did to us, I don't think they could have said much - but at 14/15, I saw things a bit differently).

 
 
ketta

Re: xray vision

November 4 2006, 1:53 AM 

Steve / Dean

Schoolgirls mature and xray vision just gets better. No fighting lads









I see it's not only the girls who had problems!!! (airbrushed for modesty of course)




 
 
Tinybibsofus

Re: xray vision

November 4 2006, 2:32 AM 

That's spiffy, Ketta. Which one is you?


 
 
Steve M

Re: xray vision

November 4 2006, 1:45 PM 

KETTA

How remarkably unsexy it looks now!


Good job I've always had patience and a fertile imagination! I've had many pleasant surprises when the time comes to enter Knickerland that way!


Loved the kilted ones-did you ever clock that Chelsea FC team photo from 1971 or so in which Peter Osgood & co had a great laugh at the photographer's expense?



Steve

 
 
Jimny 462

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

November 6 2006, 11:44 AM 

As I have mentioned in previous threads I have seen genuine uniform lists for Fulneck Girls School in West Yorkshire. Knickers were worn with linings at least until the 1970's(efectively uniform knickers with briefs underneath). One of these documents clealy stated that Matron was responsible for measuring the the length of girl's skirts whilst the girl knelt on a chair. This may not have happened every day or every week but skirt length inspections did exist at some schools.

 
 
Midlander

Re: The rise and fall of the knickerleg

December 7 2006, 7:55 PM 

This may have been mentioned before, but at Bromsgrove High School, as at Fulneck, girls wore white cotton briefs underneath their navy blue knickers and there were knicker inspections at the end of assembly once a term, but no corporal punishment.

 
 

Skirt lefting

December 22 2006, 1:17 PM 

I was caned at school. I attended a RC school and every time I was told to lift my skirt (or given the option of removing it) to receive my punishment. I always removed my skirt as my mum knew if my skirt was ceased in a certain why, I had being caned and I would have got it again at home. My knickers were always on. as for uniform, it was white top, blue tie amd black skirt.

 
 
Subscriptions Manager

Re: Skirt lefting

December 22 2006, 1:35 PM 

Welcome to our new member, samantha. He is very closely related to another new member, David, who has been furiously contributing today.


 
 

Re: Skirt lefting

December 25 2006, 6:54 PM 

Because we are related.

 
 

Skirt Lifting

January 19 2007, 3:31 PM 

In response to the raising of skirts in order to administer corporal punishment. I was caned twice at my school in the 1970s The first time was in my 3rd year when I was given 1 stroke for being caught out of school at lunch time and again in my 5th year when I recieved 2 strokes for skipping lessons to meet a boyfriend. Each time I was ordered to lift my skirt and bend over the desk The headmistress never once touched my clothing

 
 
Subscriptions Manager

Re: Skirt Lifting

January 19 2007, 4:00 PM 

It was very unusual for girls in the fifth year to be caned. Please tell us the name of the school.

 
 
Lotta Nonsense

Re: Skirt Lifting

January 19 2007, 4:43 PM 

The school was The Eddie Izzard Academy for Transvestites and Sundry Female Impersonators.

 
 
Paul b

Re: Skirt Lifting.

March 8 2008, 2:05 AM 

When a girl received the cane or slipper at school, I've always wondered
why their skirt was sometimes lifted?
I can understand on very rare occasions when a male administered the
punishment, the reason he would lift up a teenage girls skirt but not
a female teacher.
I once asked my wife the reason, as she was slippered at school by her
headmistress and she lifted up my wifes skirt, all my wife could come
up with was "She didn't want to mess up the uniform". But what I came
to the conclusion of in my wifes case was the headmistress used it as
an excuse to grope her bottom.
But in other cases was it done to make the punishment more painful?

 
 
Gas Mask Wearer

Re: Skirt lifting

March 8 2008, 5:27 PM 

A typical school uniform skirt is made of quite thick material and would have to be raised for the caning or slippering to be effective. Fran of Wembley wrote of the "one layer rule", but I think she made that up.

There are some women teachers who just like to see girls' knickers.

 
 
Ketta

Re: Skirt lifting

March 10 2008, 6:53 PM 

Paul B

I guess raising skirts was more to do with the fashion of uniforms than making the punishment more painful or sexual reasons.

Skirts/gym tunics in the 50/60s were loose fitting, a recipient bent over, the contour of the bottom was not outlined as with trousers or tighter fitting skirts. More a precaution, against causing injury when using an implement.

Ketta


 
 
Paul b

Re: Skirt Lifting.

March 11 2008, 1:10 AM 

Ketta
That makes sense,that's one reason I had never thought of.
My wife's skirt from 67 was a pleated wrap over, similar to
a hockey or netball skirt, that she wore quite short,or as
short as she could get away with. So really there wasn't a
reason for her headmistress to lift up her skirt for the slipper,
there would have been the lower part of her knickers on view.

 
 
Disciplinarian

Skirt Lifting

March 14 2008, 9:46 PM 

I see the need to lift the skirt or dress of a girl so attired as a purely practical preparation for corporal punishment. The cane or paddle is simply not effective when applied to the bottom of a bent over girl in a skirt. The skirt will invariably hang some distance away from the bottom, and absorb all the impact.

I know that some of the stricter christian private schools in the southern USA lift the skirt, and apply the paddle directly to the seat of the panties/knickers. This is the only way to effectively paddle or cane a girl wearing a skirt or dress. Providing the girl is wearing decently fitting panties/knickers, I see nothing sexual or indecent about it. It's purely practical.

 
 
Yee Ling

Re: Skirt lifting

March 15 2008, 12:27 AM 

Got caned before,Still very painful even wearing skirt & pantyhose.

 
 
Sill Lee Asso

Re: Skirt lifting

March 15 2008, 8:55 AM 

E Ling - you ever caned on cycle short? Tell, yes please.

 
 
bsp

School Skirts

March 15 2008, 9:43 AM 

I am rather an expert on school skirts through the years mainly dues to my sad existence at a boys only school.

This period is from the early 60's (my sister) up to well now.
My sisters uniforms at an all girls school was nave blue skirt with underskirt tights and knickers of her choosing.
The skirt was the length of the time as I recall.
Moving on a few years the skirts became that bit shorter and pleated with still the underskirts.

Skirts were A line but quite short of the more traditional pleated. The French pleat was not as popular which was plain at the front but with pleats at the back.
The pleated skirt mean the girls were more relaxed sitting down as there was more material to avoid knickers on display.
In fact since they wore underskirts until the 80's you were more likely to see the hem of the underskirt.

My wifes uniform was a plain very short blue skirt with blue blouse and tie - very nice. Her hockey skirt is pleated (which she still has) but is divided ( like shorts really). Again the underskirt was worn with tights and knicks of her choosing.

I will post more if this is of any interest.
bobspank54@hotmail.com

 
 
Paul b

Re: Skirt Lifting.

March 15 2008, 9:38 PM 

bsp
My wifes school skirt was a wrap over style, with a plain front
and small pleats at the sides and back.
Is this what you described as a French Pleat?
She did't wear a under-skirt or slip.

 
 
bsp

French Pleated skirt

March 16 2008, 7:30 PM 

Yes the French pleated skirt would be plain at the front with kick pleated at the back
Girls would have worn slips underneath till about 1980. After that it became much rarer.

The A line skirt was and is still quite popular.
The Rara skirt became fashionable a few years ago. No underskirt under that.


 
 
JIsha

SKIRT LIFTING

October 14 2008, 9:01 AM 

hi i studied in India.i remember once when i was 14 years old my teacher punished the whole class consisting of girls only. we had to lift our skirt to receive the punishment. it was not that much bad as all had to do that. but once two or three girls got the same punishment and it was very bad to be thus caned in front of others.

 
 
Pieman

Knicker photos

April 1 2012, 10:56 PM 

Some of the class photos seen here make me disappointed that none of the girls in my classes at school were ever so careless with their legs and skirts. Even back then as a shy youngster I would always look for the slightest flash, but was forever frustrated. Clearly none of the girls I knew were so daring!

It still happens from time to time though - I remember a photo from the front of a local paper a few years ago where some visitor to a school had been photographed with some of the pupils sitting in the background - clearly the editor hadn't checked the pic before publishing it, as at least two of the girls were sitting similar to Heather in that pic above with their knickers clearly on display.

 
 

Brian ONC

Re: Knicker photos

April 2 2012, 7:16 AM 

Hi Pieman,

It is very seldom that I note two possible new contributors in the same 24 hour period, but I can't find a mention of your pseudonym here either, except in one of my own posts referring to an Australian poet. So if the two recent posts are indeed your first contributions may I say a personal welcome to this estimable Forum. I hope that you will find many more threads to which you can contribute.

You remark on the photograph of 'Heather' above, and the rather conspicuous display of, errm, knickers. Now I have to sound a note of caution here. The contributor who posted the 'Heather' picture and also these pictures is my old friend and regular protagonist JformerlyJethro. Well, I hope he won't mind my calling him a friend - after all I did construct his avatar! happy.gif

JformerlyJethro is a noted photo faker, one of the best in this estimable Forum. Trust me, I know about these things. It takes one to know one, and as my alter ego Another_Lurker I think I have a reasonable claim to contest the title with him! wink.gif Other examples of JformerlyJethro's work may be seen here, here and here. He has also done a series (well, two anyway happy.gif) of 'portraits' of Honorary Life Members of this estimable Forum. I note with a certain sadness that the undoubted best of these, a most scurrilous and totally unjustified wink.gif caricature of myself in my Another_Lurker capacity has now been taken down, though I have a copy, and its 'ghost' still lingers on Google! (But thinks - perhaps I ought to stop shopping him every time and generally persecuting him for it now happy.gifwink.gifhappy.gif)

I cannot of course be certain that the pictures linked above were, ahem, 'Photo Shopped', but let's just say that there is at least a sporting chance!

 
 
Pieman

Re: Knicker photos

April 2 2012, 5:06 PM 

Thankyou for the welcome Brian - I stumbled across this page while looking for something else, and I admit I am more of a fan of upskirts than punishment - but hey, I'm up for getting into anything, and I am quite a fan of traditional school wear such as gymslips and classic gym knickers.

Bit of a disappointment if those pictures are doctored - though with the Heather one I can kind of see why, she would be more likely to sit with her skirt pulled back more I would think, probably more comfortable than with it taut across her knees. Or maybe it was intentional!

I can't see what I'm supposed to be looking for in the photo that Ketta posted further up though - any pointers?

 
 
Declan

Re: Skirt lifting

April 2 2012, 6:08 PM 

The pictures bring back a few memories. I remember a girl in a very short skirt bending over and giving just a glimpse of a knicker. Another girl came over and gave her a really hard smack on her thigh. Not her bottom sadly .

 
 
Pieman

Re: Skirt lifting

April 3 2012, 12:33 AM 

Declan - that reminds me of something that happened in our school once. A girl named Jeanette came in after lunch wearing the shortest skirt I have ever seen and appeared to be deliberately showing off her legs to everyone - at one point she bent over a table to talk to someone and I'm positive I glimpsed her knickers under the hem of her skirt. If only I hadn't been so shy at the time (still am in some ways) I might have given her a cheeky tap on the thigh or maybe flicked her skirt higher, regardless of the consequences!

 
 
Declan

Re: Skirt lifting

April 3 2012, 11:41 AM 

There were a few bottom smacking incidents at my school , some by myself , once I had plucked up the courage to do it. Quite a few girl on girl ones as well. One girl wore a very short and very tight black skirt ( most girls wore grey)and had the habit of bending over fully , not as most girls did by bending their knees.The advantage of wearing a tight skirt was that it didn't reveal the knickers when bending over. I did slap this girl's bottom once much to her delight I may say . I wish I had done it more often !

 
 

Another_Lurker

Re: Skirt lifting

April 3 2012, 9:53 PM 

Hi Pieman,

You asked above:

I can't see what I'm supposed to be looking for in the photo that Ketta posted further up though - any pointers?

Despite zooming the picture I have to confess that I can't either. I suspect that Ketta was making a point in favour of the Steve M/Lotta Nonsense alliance to debunk the claims of the opposing side, but I wasn't around at the time! happy.gif




Hi Declan,

You said above:

There were a few bottom smacking incidents at my school , some by myself , once I had plucked up the courage to do it.

Your modesty does you credit, but if I recall correctly you didn't stop at bottom smacking! Didn't you once slipper one of your female fellow pupils? happy.gifwink.gifhappy.gif

 
 
Pieman

Re: Skirt lifting

April 4 2012, 10:16 PM 

Ah I see - mention of "the second row" meaning that any careless girl in that row would be obscured from the camera by the more sensible girls in the front row? Oh well, close but no cigar...

My high school never had any rules on knickers - and I admit I would attempt to get a sneaky look up any girl's skirt whenever the opportunity arose. Most would be wearing simple everyday white cotton knickers, but only once did I glimpse a girl with nothing under her skirt (I think so anyway - I only got a split second's view as her skirt was lifted up by someone else). Sadly my shyness meant I never plucked up the courage to ask any of the girls for a flash of their knickers.

 
 
Current Topic - Skirt lifting  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on SchoolsCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement