Anyone been put in just vest and pants as punishment?
Anyone get spanked in just vest and pants?
Memories of wearing traditional y-fronts?

Man with most knowledge of PANTS is retired headmaster George who lives by a lake up north. But like me and highly valued Crostek he has RESIGNED. Yes please

When I went to school (mid 70's) most boys wore white y-fronts and a traditional vest. One or two (very ahead of the times) wore coloured briefs, and some still had the type of pants worn/favoured by our Dads !

When we changed for PE we obviously all had to undress and gradually over the weeks the number of lads wearing a vest dropped back to just a hard core.

For PE we were made to strip fully to the waist, bare feet etc and underwear had to be removed, no exceptions ever. From time to time checks were carried out and anyone caught with pants on had to strip both shorts and pants off in the gym in front of everyone, and put just the shorts back on. Also because you didn't ever have a top on, there was a very high risk that as you stretched or ran around the waistband of your pants would show above your shorts.

Punishment in the gym involved things like press ups, shuttle runs, hanging from wall bars etc (plus with one tecaher being made to return after school for a PE detention session), and also the usual frequent plimsoll across our backsides or hand across our bare backs.

Sometimes if you were caught messing about in the changing rooms or showers, punishment would be immediate and in whatever you were wearing at the time, which often was just pants or maybe even naked.


Stuart

What you must remember, that in the poorer homes boys as late as 1960 did not wear pants. some had patched trousers, often patched with leather. this remendered the cane ineffective. it was for this reason that heads did iit bare.

Y fronts were very popular but before these were trunks. these wewre like the modern boxer shorts. unlike the thin boxers today these were made of wool and cottom. These are ofnen worn today by skiers., these trunks provided a lot of protection and reduced the effects of the cane. these were often worn by the better off boys. Do not overlook that after y fronts we had slips/mini briefs. When the boy bent over these would ride up the crevice and in practice left the buttocks uncovered. It was just as if the boy had to take it without pants. This deversity is one reason that caning was not often caried out on pants. the choice the headfs tended to use was to do it on trousers or the bare bottom. Some prefered to do it bare in the name of fairness, but were afraid of unfounded accusations against them, and so caned the hands.


George..still here

Only fantasy headmasters did it bare - and certainly not in the name of fairness.

Some members are of the opinion that George is a man obsessed with boys’ pants. This is patently not true, as his message above shows that he just has a healthy interest in boys’ pants.

I think you are the one that really has fantasy feelings about corporal punishment. You say only fantasy headmasters administereded punishment bare. What you are in fact saying is that the histories published on this matter are all lies. You are saying bare bottom punishment never took place at Eton, Harrow, Christs Hospital (Blue Coat School) to name but three.

I think the fact is, that you know it took place and either do not want to admit it or are trying to wing people up.



George

Stuart's reminiscences have the unmistakable ring of truth and accordingly I do not doubt a single word he has said.

George, on the other hand, is still wrapped up in his own amazing fantasy world where little boys run around with bare bums all day long.

Of course there was bare-bum caning at some of the old public schools. We all know that. However, it was most certainly NOT the norm at any time at any state school in Britain.

When I was at school in the 50s, in Lincolnshire, from the age of eleven to sixteen, we did gym and football and cross country running in black cotton shorts and vests. We were not permitted to wear pants under the shorts for gym.

This was regarded as a strict rule by the PE master and was intended he said to promote plenty of fresh air around our bodies.

When one lad was noticed to be wearing underpants at the end of the gym session, as we undressed ready to shower, the PE master made him drop his shorts and pants, bend over and then he was beaten with one of his own plimsolls.

This is the only time I witnessed a bare bottom beating, but it was common belief that the headmaster would beat you on your bare bottom if you were sent to him. This was good enough reason never to upset the masters.

Stuart says "Sometimes if you were caught messing about in the changing rooms or showers, punishment would be immediate and in whatever you were wearing at the time, which often was just pants or maybe even naked."

Our PE master was very strict as outlined in my last post. His readiness to administer all sorts of punishments from press ups to a bare bottom whacking with your own plimsoll meant he rarely had any trouble.

With thirty or so naked youths to control perhaps he was right to keep discipline in this way. I know that on one occasion when I'd emerged from the showers and was reaching for my towel to cover an unfortunate involuntary sign of burgeoning manhood that my mate quickly warned me to cover up before Owen (the PE master) saw the source of my embarrasment. My fear that Owen would administer a dose of plimsoll meant that my underpants went on like lightening.

Wot about Jim Jams?Theres a whole website now devoted to CP on Jim Jams or more accurately without.
Derek the Pedagogue used to do it on gym shorts pulled up
PS what is a Pedogogue?