It puzzles me and inteests me that people express shock and horror when they read boys were caned on the bare bottom in the 1950's. I would be interested to know why those that find it so shocking do so. Is it because we judge things from history in modern day eyes and not as they were at that point in time ? Was it because you feel it was adding extra embarrassment to the boy by having to bare his bottom? Was it because you feel that caning on the bare bottom must have been much more painful than on trousers and beyond a boys power of endurance.

George

George

As your post is obviously aimed at me, let me try to explain.

It was normal in the 17/18thC, right through to the mid-19thC, for boys to be birched on the bare buttocks. Then with the Victorian's excess prudery it was gradually phased out and, as it wasn't practical to birch across clothing - as it would rip the seat of the boy's britches to shreds if applied hard enough to be effective - the cane (across the trousered seat) was substituted in the vast majority of schools. A few of the top Public Schools and many smaller private schools retained birching right up until the mid 20C but it certainly wasn't widespread..

Around the 1920s/30s the birch quickly died out altogether and then - for the most serious offences - caning on the bare buttocks bacame the ultimate deterrent.

All this I presume you would agree with, George? It's factual and not fantasy.

Now the important point is, this was the ultimate deterrent in all schools! It wasn't, as you stated, the norm and certainly never to the extent where any headmaster would have talked about it in the casual way you do!
There were exceptions, I grant you, but so rare that I find it inconceivable that we just happen to have one on this forum who was practising that sort of chastisement in the 50s! I could understand there being a few boys who were punished in that way then but not an actual headmaster who administered it!

I can recall quite a few Court cases reported in the newspapers in the 50s/60s of schools where it had been found to be the practice and the fuss and shock then makes me doubt very much the authenticity of such an account as yours in today's society!

I think you have convinced yourself that you were there, George, because when someone is so interested in a subject, wishful thinking takes over. I could easily have said the same things you are saying because I am interested in CP and have widely read about it for a number of years. I think it was an effective punishment and I even believe a few bare bottom canings would do a lot of good these days. However, that is different from claiming it was a normal activity in the fairly recent past and that is my reasons for the 'shock/horror' I expressed at your casual reference to the subject.

You may be genuine, George, but then I may have a holiday on Mars before I die. I think both are unlikely!

You've actually got two, Danny. As much as it may strain your credulity (and I am used to people accusing me of being a fraud, so go right ahead if you feel the need, although I apparently even convinced Sarajane (are Sarajane and Lotta Nonsense the same person, is there a consensus on that?) that I was likely genuine, eventually), I am a teacher, and I did inflict such punishments, on very rare occasions, in the late 1960s and very early 1970s. I wasn't a Headmaster though - I was Deputy Boarding House Master, and then a Boarding House Master.

I certainly agree though that this is something that was done rarely in any school I have any personal knowledge of. I cannot categorically state that there might not have been a school somewhere where it was still routine practice as late as the 1950s, but it would surprise me. And I have probably had a better chance to know about such things than most people.

Considering my own experiences online, I am extremely reluctant to question another persons veracity, but I have to say that it is that aspect of what George has stated, the apparently routine nature of such punishments, that raise questions for me. I can say from my own experiences that while nobody would have likely questioned the motivations of a schoolmaster who occasionally administered such punishment, there would have been questions asked if it happened too often. The only exceptions I can see are in those schools which could clearly show a great deal of tradition behind their practices (which is why Eton could use the birch as late as 1970, when other schools would have been hounded if they'd tried to do it).

I do have one comment to make in George's defence, though. While a Headmaster in his early 30s was unusual, it is nowhere near beyond the bounds of possibility. My own Headmaster as a boy (though in his early fifties when I first knew him) had been appointed to his position (as head of one of Australia's most prominent public schools, at the time regarded as a mid-level public school in Britain as well) aged only thirty.

I refer you to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

Struth!!!!

LOTTA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are you????????

An answer without any substance whatsoever.

Is it any wonder that so many of the posts on this forum are completely off topic, when those who have real knowledge and understanding of this subject, have to put up with this type of nonsense all the time?

How many people have come to this forum and left without posting because they see the reception they are likely to get?

Was the point of a pants-down caning that it hurt even worse than a caning over clothes? Or was it the humiliation, embarassment, loss of face of having to remove your clothes which made it the "ultimate" punishment?

Dear Doc
Let me make myself clear, Yes, I do find it very strange that we have a man who is one of the very few men in this century who could possibly have experienced caning boys on the bare buttocks in a school! There are perhaps 60 different people who post here at all regularly and now you are telling me that we have TWO here! As that is around 3% of our contributers I find it absolutely amazing! If there were 1% of our forum who claimed to have been caned on the bare buttocks I could just about believe it - but not two who were administering it!
You, dear doctor, will probably tell me that George is the one who is telling porkies - and vice-versa. I personally think there are ten times as many guys who fantasise about it than actually had any experience at all of even having been caned!
I am going straight down to the travel agents tomorrow to book my rocket ship!

Hi Beanokid - and all others who feel my stance on this subject is inconsistent with the things I was always having a shot at Lotta about. I actually rarely disagreed with Lotta’s judgement but I hated the way she never explained why she thought a person was a fantasist! So I’ll try to explain my current stance here.
When I was at school in the 40’s/very early 50s caning on the bare buttocks had almost disappeared altogether. In my lifetime since I have read of a handful of guys who as schoolboys had been caned ‘pants down’.
One was Ludovic Kennedy, an early ITV presenter who would now be around George’s age if he were still alive. He went to Eton and in his autobiography said his housemaster was one of the very old-fashioned types who still caned his boys on the bare bottom. This was the 1930s and note he is saying this old man was very old fashioned even then! Another, also at Eton, was an African King’s son who said the Headmaster did likewise - this HM subsequently became Archbishop of Canterbury and, in fact, actually crowned our Queen Elizabeth in 1953 and would now be around 110.

So as there were very few boys going to private and Public schools at that time, it follows that there were very much fewer old guys who were caning pants-down at that time.

Now, 57 years on, on this little forum, we have two who were caning boys in that way! One was 33 years old in 1950 and I presume the other even younger - both unlikely to be particularly old-fashioned in their thinking at that age. They may both be telling the absolute truth, they say truth is stranger than fiction. The odds though are pretty steep against this but some folks win the Lottery so I can’t say it’s impossible. I just feel that in the absence of Lotta someone has to make sure we are not all taken as gullible fools.

Danny,

While I can understand your skepticism to a great extent, I really do feel I should point out what I consider to be some somewhat erroneous thinking on your part.

I read a forum devoted to Australia's military history. One of the sub forums concerns the Vietnam War.

Australia's most famous battle in that war was the Battle of Long Tan.

Now Australia sent approximately 50,000 troops to Vietnam, but only about 100 fought in that battle.

There are four veterans of the battle on the forum.

By your logic, that would seem exceptionally unlikely, and it would be exceptionally unlikely for 4 of a small group of 100 select people out of 50,000 of 20,000,000 to turn up in one place online - except for the phenomena of selection bias (in particular self-selected participant bias). Those with particular characteristics and/or experiences, are far more likely than the norm to turn up at a place where those particular characteristics or experiences are particularly relevant.

The same applies here. A forum devoted to school corporal punishment is far more likely to attract those with particular experiences of corporal punishment than some random forum. It would be exceedingly odd to find two people with experiences of having administered a particular, unusual, form of corporal punishment in schools on a forum devoted to motorcycle maintenance - but it is far less odd to find them on a forum devoted to school corporal punishment.

And when that forum has been around longer than most such forums (especially if we consider it to be the natural successor to the insidetheweb forum), it becomes even more likely.

As for the idea that I would tell you that George would tell you porkies - well, I've already expressed my views on that in an earlier message, in as much detail as I care to. But again, you seem to be operating on erroneous assumptions. Statistically speaking, once you have one person of a particular category as a member of a group, you become more likely to attract other members of that same category to the group - not less likely. Dice don't have memory, and membership of internet forums isn't random anyway. A forum that attracts one person with an unusual characteristic is likely to be more likely to attract people with those characteristics. Membership of one increases the odds of membership of two significantly. I think I'll leave it there, though - I'm a science teacher, not a maths teacher.

I see another message has appeared while I was replying, so I shall now reply to that one.

I am seventy years old and have been teaching since 1959 a little before my twenty second birthday. Was I 'old fashioned' then? In a lot of ways, no, but in some ways, yes, I was. I had been educated at one of Australia's most traditional schools (Geelong Grammar School), a school that, by the 1950s, was regarded by many people as rather frozen in time - the Headmaster (Doctor - later Sir - James Darling) had come to the school in 1930 (and would remain Headmaster until 1961) and it has been said by many that his school reflected the British education of the 1920s (oh, and just as a matter of record, Darling was educated at Repton during the Headmastership of Geoffrey Fisher, the man you've just mentioned as the Archbishop of Canterbury who crowned the Queen. So perhaps it could be said that I was educated by an old fashioned Headmaster who was educated by an old fashioned Headmaster, and they may have passed something on to me).

When I began teaching I was a modern thinker when it came to matters like curriculum, and hands on education, but I was - and am - a traditionalist on matters of discipline. The school that employed me was a very traditional school on such matters. But when I began teaching, while I used the cane (and I was expected to do so, if not actually required to do so) I certainly didn't cane boys on the bare buttocks. Besides any other factor, I wasn't allowed to. It wasn't until 1966 that I was appointed to a position where I had that power.

And to be frank, I didn't really want it. Yes, I'm a traditionalist - but not that much of a traditionalist. I agreed the cane had a place (and still do) but this went further than I thought was necessary. But while I was senior enough to have this authority, I wasn't yet senior enough to really argue against school policy. The policy of the school required such punishment to be administered in such places, and I'd accepted a position in the heirarchy (with, I confess, an eye on climbing further up that heirarchy) knowing about that policy, and for the sake of my career I had to enforce it. So I did. Once I became senior enough to argue against it, I did, and so did some other people, and the policy changed (more because of them, than I, I think, but I played my role).

It's not always about your own beliefs. I supported 95% of what the school stood for, and I went along with the other 5%.

Doc

It is just possible that you're both telling the Gospel Truth (but then I'm not someone who thinks that's any criterium to go by!). I wouldn't rush down to Ladbroke's and put my shirt on it but you make valid points.

The example you give of the Vietnam war isn't particularly relevent though because it is much nearer the present day than the subject in hand here. Obviously there would be more guys alive today who fought then than Heads who caned on the bare in 1950.

If we look at the number who could have been caning in that way then and calculate their average age - then say how many of them are into computers and the Internet, it must be very few who could be contributing here. If there were 50,000 members of this forum I might just think it not impossible but highly improbable. As there are far fewer than that number I feel we are getting into very long odds on either of you being genuine.

I may well be wrong and, if so, I apologise. As I said before, I could easily have told everyone here that I was a headmaster in 1950 who caned boys on the bare backside -and I'm sure that I would have sat back feeling a sense of importance in having done so. Equally, in this day and age, if I had actually been one of those guys at that time, I would be scared out of my life to admit to it with all the consequences of the Law likely to befall me!

So I say again that for every genuine post claiming such things there must be 100 who are fantasising - probably actually believing it themselves.

If I were you I would leave it at that. Only you know deep down whether you are playing pretend here and no one can prove it one way or another. If you are genuine then that is a very good thing for you, for I'd hate to be in your shoes if the boy you gave eight strokes to across the bare buttocks can prove it in Court!

Doc
I have only just read your last message so will repond later.

I do enjoy these exchanges! Wicked old me!

Are you really telling me that it was 'School policy' for the Head of a House to cane on the bare buttocks! This seems to me completely unbelievable! It may have been a tradition but you cannot tell me that any master who did not believe in it would be forced to do so! Please show me a copy of that school's disciplinary policy where such a rule was stated.

If you were not forced to do so then you did so for your own pleasure. Even Arnold changed all the old methods when he took over Rugby (yes, I know he flogged his boys but that was in the 1860s!)

I'm sorry but your last post, for me, proves my point.

My post was not aimed at you Danny or any one member of the group. What I was asking is why people hear find the punishment of bys on their bare bottoms in the 1950 era so shocking.It is nothing to do with if it was widespread or not,just views on this form of punishment at that point in time.

I must point out a few mistakes in the above posts. The 1950 era did in fact see a great increase in the number of private schools. When we think of private schools we must not think of just the top schools but the small private owned ones. These were the ones that used the caned on the bare bottom as a regular practice. These schools flourished as a new low middle class started to develope after the war. Parents were disatisfied with state schools and either sent their pupils to church run schools, or these new private schools. These new private schools can easily be traced by looking at schools history .They flourished in the 1950's and many still do, but are under charity status or a charity trust. The people who set these up were the ones that had made or kept their money during the war. Most of these had a reasonable education, mostly private schooled, and were at school around the 1920 era. They had little idea on how to discipline puplis other than what they had experienced. I think few can doubt the records that show caning in the private schools in the 1920 era was common and in a lot of cases administered on the bare buttocks. The owners of these schools merely copied how they were punished in their days at school.

Danny states that a number of teachers were taken to court in the 1950 era. This is true but not for the reasons implied. Some cases were for damage down to the fingers, but mostly for excessive punishment. Some cases were against teachers who did not have the powers to cane in the school, but it was mainly for excessive punishment. If the teacher was taken to court for punishing boys on the bare buttocks and had the right to cane and was not excessive would have no case to answer. I cannot recall a case of any head being charged with indecent assult. Even when we look at more recent cases, the case against the Dulwich College headmaster that smacked children on their bare bottom, was not that he did it bare but it was fondling.in no way can a cane applied tothe bare bottom, when the offender has pulled their clothing down themselves can be regarded as fondling or touching. The reason that this was not against the law was that the head had the same powers, and rights, as parents. Parents had the right to punish their children on the bare bottom, so this gave the head the right to do so. Their was no way in which this could result in a court case as it was not illegal.

George

As I told the Doc, George, if either or both of you are genuine, then I apologise. That said I cannot agree with you that caning on the bare buttocks was an accepted thing in the 1950's, just the opposite in fact!
How is it that we haven't hundreds of guys, younger than me, who are telling us they were so punished? There must be far more punishees than punishers still around if your statement is correct! And yet we have two of those punishers here. Don't you consider that amazing?

As to your original question, I think it was the shame and the degradation to be ignorminiously told to undress and present your bare bottom for punishent. It certainly didn't need to be any more painful as a cane could be applied as softly or as harshly as the master decided - in either case of bare or clothed. I would imagine that unless the master was one of the brutal types it would have been fairly light when applied to the naked buttocks.

Danny,

I'm not entirely sure why you are talking about the 1950s as the relevant time period here. The six bare buttocks canings I administered were administered between 1966 and 1972, a period which corresponds quite well with the Vietnam War, not in the 1950s - I didn't start teaching until 1959. Such canings were presumably more common in the 1950s in the 1960s, becoming more and more common the further back we go, but in this country, at least, they didn't die out in the 1950s (and I don't believe they did in the UK, either, though I cannot say that with personal certainty.)

You're also focusing on the idea of 'Headmasters'. At the time I administered such punishments, I was not a Headmaster - I was a Deputy Boarding House Master, and then Boarding House Master. I have, in fact, never been a full Headmaster - I am a Deputy Headmaster, and have been an Acting Headmaster, and there has been some talk of declaring my acting Headmastership to have been a Headmastership as a retirement tribute - but I've never been a Headmaster in the full sense of the word.

But what really interests me is the idea that you think I should be afraid of the law. I've absolutely no reason to be afraid of the law. I cannot speak for my colleagues in the United Kingdom, but I know Australia's law on these matters quite well, and legally speaking I have nothing to worry about - except on one small issue.

Corporal punishment in schools was legal (and in this state, it still is, for that matter), and the 2003 Supreme Court case Paul Hogan versus the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church and Denis Fricot makes it clear that the courts will not intervene in cases where corporal punishment was properly administered (though if it wasn't, the consequences could be severe).

The Lepore decision by the High Court (also in 2003) clarified that punishment on the bare buttocks was not in itself a legal problem (and actually seems to suggest that it would still arguably be legal today, though I think any person who tried to do it would be asking for trouble.)

Legally, I know I have nothing to worry about.

I can't speak for my British colleagues, however.

Lucky you!

If Oz has different standards and laws then so be it. I still feel that if no one challengers such claims here we are going to be snowed under with them in the future!

In a way it is not that strange that many more people do not post here that have been caned on the bare buttocks. The reason for this is two fold.Firstly, when one joins the site one reads previous posts before making one. This site has a reputation of hounding and calling anybody that claims to heve been caned bare as a liar....i admit not so much now. Those that really have received the cane bare do not want all this aggrovation so do not post.

Danny are you saying that the act of taking the cane on the bare bottom made it more embarrassing for the boy?

George

On the basis that those in education pre 1980 were a law unto themselves. As pillars of society were beyond question.
I would therefore assume that lots of CP beyond reason were carried out behind closed doors shall we say.
There are few youngsters who would complain due to the likelyhod of further punishment at home.
To cane on the bare is dodgy in a scholastic setting to say the least.
It was however normal in my experience to receive bare smackings at junior school.
I also witnessed a bare bottom slippering of a 14 year old boy by the PE master at school.
On that basis if a public BB slippering could be caried out without any complaint it is logical to think that headmasters would have carried out BB canings in private.
To punish on the bare has sexual overtones in my opinion as it is quite unnecasary.

It's easier now if I quote the messages I am replying to, I am sure the threading on this forum used to work better and made it easier to be clear on this point.

Are you really telling me that it was 'School policy' for the Head of a House to cane on the bare buttocks! This seems to me completely unbelievable! It may have been a tradition but you cannot tell me that any master who did not believe in it would be forced to do so! Please show me a copy of that school's disciplinary policy where such a rule was stated.

I wasn't the Head of a House - I was Deputy Boarding House Master, and then Boarding House Master. At my school, neither of these positions were equivalent to being a House Master (what we call a Head of House) by the 1960s. By that stage, the school was predominantly a Day school with a minority of boys boarding in an attached Boarding House. The whole school population, day and boarders, had been divided into a number of Houses, which were used for internal sporting and other competitions, and had some welfare functions (more and more as time went on until it became their main function, but this was still a minor matter in the 1960s).

The Boarding House Master occupied a more senior position in the school heirarchy than the House Masters, but the Deputy Boarding House Master was a less senior position (though still a significant one for somebody who wasn't yet thirty when appointed). It was my job to do what I was told by the Boarding House Master, and to enforce his standards in the House.

The only times I ever had to administer such punishments as Deputy was when the Boarding House Master was absent. If he was present, he would take responsibility for the types of serious misbehaviour that lead to such punishments, but he wasn't always present. When he wasn't, if a very serious matter came up, I was expected to deal with it, and to deal with it, as he would have if he was present.

I had some discretion, but not an awful lot. I exercised it when I could - there were far more cases where I avoided such extreme measures than I used them. But there were occasions where the policies of the school called for such punishments, and though I could have refused to do it, I would have seriously damaged my career by doing so.

I accepted a promotion to a position where this was expected of me. I could have refused that promotion, and stayed in the position I was in, but it would have stalled my career for a few years, and I was quite ambitious. I accepted a position which I knew would entail me being expected to do some things I would have preferred not to do and I did it with my eyes open. In the circumstances, I limited my own options.

I'm not proud of the fact that I was that ambitious, and that I valued my career enough to compromise my principles. But that is what I did.

If you were not forced to do so then you did so for your own pleasure. Even Arnold changed all the old methods when he took over Rugby (yes, I know he flogged his boys but that was in the 1860s!)

I wasn't Arnold, and I hadn't taken over anything. I was the Deputy Boarding House Master, I didn't set policy. I followed it.

When I did finally get into positions that allowed me real influence over policy, I used it - after I became Boarding House Master, I made it very clear to my newly appointed Deputy that any decision to use such punishment should be referred to me, and I only administered one such punishment - to a boy who would have otherwise been expelled (and I might add that I had to accept partial responsibility personally for his misdeeds to avoid that happening). I also did what I could to have the practice stopped across the school.

Mimi
I agree with you that plenty of 'undercover' operations were performed in the recent past by schoolmasters and the sexual overtones go without saying. What I can't understand is that anyone so behaving in such a way broadcasts the fact here!
I was slippered on the BB myself by gym masters, they often waited until the boys were in a serious state of undress before thy marched into the communal changing rooms, slipper at the ready. That was different to actually making a boy take down his trousers ad his underpants in 'cold blood',as you could call it, and present his bottom for the cane.
I've no doubt it happened but those who actually employed such methods, in my opinion, would deny the fact today.

Your post is the reason that I asked the initial question. I am sure that you will agree that any punishment has to be fair to all that receive it. Not only fair on those that have got it together for the same offence but have had it in the past. Is it fair that one boy has it on thick tweed trousers and pants and another with thinner summer trousers and no pants. Is it fair that some boys are caned on their trousers where a patch of thin leather has been sewn inside as the trousers have worn thin. Such leather would result in hardly any sting being felt. Is it fair that a boy may get it on his trousers while wearing three pairs of pants yet another get it on just trousers that have worn thin. Punishment has to be fair in pain for all so a common way of administering it has to be found. Like it or not the only completely fair way was on the bare bottom. I agrre when we get to the end of the 1970 era most boys wore the same clothing in a school so theis reason declines in importance. May be that is why it was so rare after this date.

It comes to me as no surprise that you saw a Pe teacher slipper a boys bare bottom. Lets faceit at the time views on nudity and pupils rights were not the same as today. Then all boys had to shower. The punishment for skipping showers was to be made to have one and two of the slipper. In some schools that had swimming pools this was done in the nude. Those by the sea, such as schools at Brighton swam nude in the sea and photograhs from the 1950/60 period exist to prove this.Boys were not allowed to wear pants for PE or games. It is of little surprise with all this nudity common that some boys were slippered bare by PE staff


George

I am not proud of the fact that I caned on the bare bottom, nor am i ashamed of it. It was the accepted practice in those days and it has to be judged in the light of what was accetable at the time. It was NOT against the law as long as the person administering it was authorised to do so, it was justied, not excessive and not touching of private parts.The law cannot be enforced in retrospect. If it was not against the law at the time no charges can be made as no law was broken at the time. To put it in moderm day settings if you have an accident in a car while doing 30MPH in a 40 MPH area you cannot be charged a few years later for speeding if the limit is reduced five years later to 30MPH.

George

George, you old fantasy headmaster you! So BB caning was only for fairness to the boys? That's a pretty lame excuse. In my time, you were often told to change into your gym shorts - no pants allowed - for the cane. That was purely because it just wasn't done to cane on the bare as those wickedly old masters would have liked. Yes, they enjoyed it all right, George, and if you really are genuine, you enjoyed it too - Go on, admit it. You're in good company here.
Fairness! That's the best one yet!

In my defence I'll say this. If 100 guys here were saying they caned boys at school on the bare bottom, at least 95% of them would be fantasising. As there are only two, you don't need to be a mathamatician to work out the odds!

Leather sewn into ones lower garments, I have heard it all now.
I can appreciate that in the pre 50s clothing was usually quite thick shall we say. There was no such thing as iron underpants though so surely caning on them would have been sufficient.
The slippering I was writing about was given because the lad moved forward anticipating the whack, he then had his gym shorts lowered, cold bloodedly for a further whack. I was right behind him.
The point I have always tried to make is that CP had a place as long as it was done fairly and as a means to a quick end to any doscipline problem. Draconian punishments have resulted in a ban and near anarchy in schools.
A slippering at my schools was done in a fair non abusive way ( in general) No doubt the administrator enjoyed it, and why not as long as it was fairly done. The Headmasters canings though were OTT and abusive IMHO. Based on the results I saw but I must admit most were sensible enough to avoid it.

I do not think it was a weak reason. The key to any discipline has to be fairness. Of course their are many other reasons for doing it on the bare bottom.

I do know that some schools did make boys wear shorts for the cane but this many happened when boys had to report at a certain time for a caning. In the vast majority of canings the boy was sent to a person for it directly following the offence. He would not know for certain if he was going to be caned, and would have to wait until the head told him his punishment. Few heads would then send a boy to the changing rooms, often at the other end of the school, for boys to change into shorts and then come back to be caned. Two other problems prevented this being a widely used system, other than in boarding schools that had a "caning time." In most schools boys did not have PE every day and would not have them in school and games shorts were much thicker. Also around the end of the 1960's PE shorts were made of nylon. Well stretched nylon shorts would greatly reduce the sting of the cane.

As to your statement that I am a fantasy headmaster and that is your view to which you are entitled, but you are wrong.

George

I am sorry Mimi but you do not know very much about the way children were dressed in the 1950-1960 period if you do not believe boys had leather patches sewn on the seat of their trousers. Trousers were expensive and often "cut downs" from an older brother. I am not talking about thick leather. I am talking about the thin leather used on the elbows, often of teachers jackets, when the elbows wore out. A very effective barrier against the cane.


George

Danny
What possible reason would the Doc and George fantasise?.
I know you do get posts of pure fantasy, what these people
Get out of it is beyond me. I do think both the doc and george
Are being truthful though.
As for caning on the bare, I've never seen anyone receive C.P.
On the B B, Its a fact it did go on though. I can't see the
Reason, as the effect could be just as painful over clothes
In my humble opinion.

It's up to everyone to make up there own minds on this, Paul. You could say why does anyone fantasise about these things. Human beings are odd creatures - me probably more so than most! The two of them may well be telling the truth, who knows? I know that anything they have stated I could say exactly the same, it takes a lot of research to gather all the facts but quite easy to do. If you had another fifty guys come on here saying the same thing would you say they were all telling the absolute truth? No, because it would be extremely unlikely that they were who they were saying they were and highly probable that it is all imagination.
One has to judge these stories using your experience and knowledge of the world. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. I know what I think but you have to decide for yourself.

Nudity was common place in earlier times in community living and in many homes. School boys slept together in large rooms (dormitories) and brothers shared bedrooms and bathrooms. Gang showers were needed if a large number were to wash in a reasonable time. School boys often bared their buttocks in the course of normal living and would be seen by supervising teachers. Many have become much more prudish in recent times but not all.

Agreed! Most boys are happy to be seen naked among there peers although not in front of older or younger boys and never in front of girls. If we are discussing here a master walking into a changing room with slipper or cane and administering a whack or two here and there, I would have no argument with such a claim. What I have been talking about is a formal punishment when the boy stands before a master and is told to take down his trousers and his underpants and bend over. This was the humiliation and shameful type that everyone knew to be the 'Ultimate' chastisement.
This was very rare in the 50's and almost unknown in the 60s. Where it did happen I would say the Headmaster was of the 'old school' and probably at least 60. This would now make anyone who actually practised this method of punishing schoolboys around 100/110. For there to be two of them here and both at least 20 years younger seems to me highly improbable.

If George and the Doc are genuine and, of course, they are the only ones who know if that's so, I apologise unreservedly for casting a doubt over their stories.

I've enjoyed this encounter though, as much as I did my bouts with Headboy!

George, I don't really doubt your posts for the reason that I cannot see why anyone would want to lie about such things.
As for leather patches in shorts, I never saw such a thing or have indeed even heard of it.That does not of course mean that it did not happen.
Danny, I could see where Headboy was coming from as I find the tales of BB canings on this thread quite horrific. It is this sort of unnecesary abuse which led to the demise of fair and reasonable CP.
A whack with a slipper is one thing, a dozen on the bare with a cane is another thing altogether.

I don't think anyone's claimed to have applied a dozen, Mimi, if so I would greatly doubt that statement - in the 20thC, at least.
I don't think the severity is at question here, they certainly wouldn't need to be any more painful than three across the trousers. I did make the comment with Headboy that the queen rests a sword on the shoulder of a new knight and that same sword could cut his shoulder in half - it all depends on how it's applied. The same goes for schoolmasters.
The humiliation and degradation was the real deterrent, not the severity. Older boys as prefects were not allowed to cane BB but three strokes from a 15 stone 6' School rugby player were often far worse than six from an elderly headmaster!
Of course there were abuses - some maniacs drive at 90 mph in a 30 zone while some old ladies cruise at 20 mph in the same road. If a boy was seriously hurt his parents could take the school to Court so they had to be careful (usually).

The law was that teachers had the same rights to inflict "reasonable chastisement" as a parent. It was up to a court of law to decide what " reasonable chastisement" was if a complaint was made and they rarely were. Some teachers were punishing on the bare bottom long after the 1950's. Fifteen or more years ago I was in correspondance with a retired headmaster who had spanked junior boys on their bare bottoms in the 1970's and perhaps later. The fact that he had been a real headmaster was confirmed by a third party, non-spanking related source that he was unaware of. As regards nudity the school I attended had car wash type showers which children past through in a group. I say children because the girl's changing room was identical to the boys. I know this because the way the school time table worked out there were sometimes two classes of boys doing games/PE at the same time and one group had to use what was nominally the girl's changing room. See the film "Kes" if you want to know what these showers look like. A few years ago I was at the school one evening helping to prepare for a community event and I looked into the (empty) changing rooms. They were still substantially the same as 40 years before.

Beginning replies to a few messages. Once again, I will paste in what I am replying to, so it is clear.

How is it that we haven't hundreds of guys, younger than me, who are telling us they were so punished? There must be far more punishees than punishers still around if your statement is correct! And yet we have two of those punishers here. Don't you consider that amazing?

Personally, no, I don't.

For two interacting reasons.

First of all, I suspect the number of people who were punished in this way is actually quite small. Yes, it would logically be higher than the number of people who administered such punishments, but it's hard to say how much higher. Perhaps somebody like George administered a significant number of such punishments, but in my experience, most teachers who did administer these punishments did so very rarely. I administered six such canings in my career - and I have administered thousands of canings since 1959. The number where a boy was punished on the bare bottom were tiny in comparison.

But more significant, in my view, is the second point. I suspect the vast majority of canings of this type were administered for offences, most people would not want to admit having committed.

I'm now far enough removed from the events of my schooldays to be willing to mention why I was flogged in my final year of school - but it was over thirty years before I was willing to do so. And my crime wasn't incredibly humiliating - just as a science master, it was rather shameful to admit you were caught cheating in a national science competition.

Boys I punished in this way - one had almost caused the suicide of another boy by bullying him. Another had deliberately set up another boy for a severe caning in order to divert attention away from his own crimes. Both of those boys are fairly well known people today, and neither would want to be associated with those behaviours.

At some schools, such punishments were most commonly inflicted for offences that were seen as indecent (and in some cases, would still be seen as such today by many people).

I said earlier that I think the idea that such punishments were humiliating is often overstated - and I do - but if a person does have such feelings associated with their punishments, they'd be far less likely to talk about them.

And, besides anything else, on this forum, the person would probably have to put up with other people calling them a liar.

I agree with you that plenty of 'undercover' operations were performed in the recent past by schoolmasters and the sexual overtones go without saying. What I can't understand is that anyone so behaving in such a way broadcasts the fact here!
I was slippered on the BB myself by gym masters, they often waited until the boys were in a serious state of undress before thy marched into the communal changing rooms, slipper at the ready. That was different to actually making a boy take down his trousers ad his underpants in 'cold blood',as you could call it, and present his bottom for the cane.
I've no doubt it happened but those who actually employed such methods, in my opinion, would deny the fact today.

I find this difficult to understand, Danny.

For the most part, I am not ashamed or embarrassed about the corporal punishment I have administered over the years. I was going to say I wasn't proud of it either, but on reflection, I must admit that that isn't entirely true. While I think it's fair to say, I take no pride in the actual methods I've used, I am proud of the fact that I have helped to guide a great many boys towards life as decent men, and there are plenty of cases where I think the cane helped me to do that.

Given that I am not ashamed of most of what I've done, and given that I know I have nothing to fear in terms of the law, why would I go around denying it? Especially given the fact that I also have reasonable anonymity here.

There are a few incidents where I do feel regret, perhaps even some degree of shame, for what I did. I don't believe I ever crossed the line into abuse - but I leaned right over it once, and I wish I hadn't done that. There have been cases where I caned boys I later discovered were innocent - and I greatly regret those cases.

There are things I would probably prefer not to talk about. But I'm neither a coward, nor a hypocrite. I was taught as a boy, and I have taught many, many boys, that when you make a mistake, when you get something wrong, a man owns up to his mistakes. He owns his faults.

I'm ashamed of some things I've done - but there's no shame in admitting a mistake, only in making it.

I don't fear the law, because I know the law. But even if the law was something I needed to fear, I hope that I wouldn't fear it enough to deny what I've done in my life. I've spent nearly half a century teaching and telling boys that when you've done the wrong thing, you have to be willing to pay the penalty. As far as I can see, there's no penalty for me to pay, but if there was, I hope I'd be man enough to face it, and to take it. If not, I've been a hypocrite all my life - and that would be something I would truly be ashamed of.

What I have been talking about is a formal punishment when the boy stands before a master and is told to take down his trousers and his underpants and bend over. This was the humiliation and shameful type that everyone knew to be the 'Ultimate' chastisement.

I wonder what you would make of this.

At the moment, in this country, we have a situation where complete strangers can enter a school and order pupils to either strip completely, or completely expose the entire middle section of their body (from about their knees to their lower chest) and then watch them (in fact, they are mandated to watch) them as they urinate.

This is something I would find incredibly difficult to believe if I didn't have first hand knowledge of it happening. But it is happening.

Our schools are currently trying to develop protocols to deal with it - and the protocols require a member of staff to be present for the protection of the pupil, which just adds to the number of people watching.

As a boy, I'd have rather taken six on the bare backside from a master I knew and trusted to have my best interests at heart than been put in this situation, I assure you.

Doc

I find it odd that you think the boys who were punished on the bare backside 30/40 years ago are reluctant to come forward and admit a perfectly normal boyish offence such as cheating in a school exam, when two masters actually claim to have applied a cane to many boys' bare backsides do come forward and boast - yes, to go into detail about your 'conquests' is a form of boasting, Doc - especially when, as you admit, there must be at least six times as many of them around! And they would have the same anonymity as you and George, of course!
I also find it strange that someone who is allowed to administer such a punishment - and certainly isn't forced to do so, therefore must think it either effective or pleasurable to himself - only does so six times in a very long career.
Your peculiar "stranger who comes in and examines the boys' middles" is obviously a doctor and all the boys have to participate. This is vastly different from the case of a chastisement, Doc. The shame and humiliation is because it is given for very serious offences (I would hope, anyway) and not for some mundane reason. Humans are funny creatures, medals are useless adornments but are held in high esteem by their meaning; small children will work hard to have a star put on a wall in their name. In other words, the context of the chastisement matters and a caning itself is shameful but when the boy has to undress as well and expose to the master a portion of his anatomy he rightly feels is private and personal to him alone - moreso in the teenage years - it is the ignominiousness and humiliation that is paramount.
I am not nearly as worried about being seen naked by a doctor in hospital than I would be about being naked in front of my boss at work! Would you?

You really do see things through an odd lens, Danny. It is fascinating to read your take on these things.

I have to say that even after over 50 years, the incident I mentioned - when I was severely punished for cheating in a science competition - is one I recall with a great deal of shame - and it was thirty years before I was even able to talk about it. I acknowledge that my reaction was somewhat extreme, but that was because there were a lot of other things tied up with the incident - letting a teacher I greatly admired down, letting my school down, the knowledge that if I hadn't cheated, I'd probably have won a prize fair and square, the shame of, at seventeen years of age, being sent out into the street still bawling less than a minute after I was caned. It's not an incident I was prepared to discuss for a long time. And it was far less serious and likely to shame than most incidents I am aware of where such punishments were administered.

Boasting? There's some element of that, in what I've made public, I suppose. As I said in an earlier message, I'd like to be able to pretend I don't take pride in this aspect of my teaching - and in a direct sense I don't - but I do take pride in things that are connected to it. Am I actually proud of caning boys on the bare buttocks? No, I really don't think I am. But in most of the cases I did it, I can say I am very proud of the way those boys turned out and I do believe I had some influence on them, and so I have a right to feel proud of the fact that they left my sphere of influence, better than they came into it.

But most of the reason I have found myself talking about such punishments over the years is the insistence by some people that these things didn't happen. I'm not a fan of rewriting history. I'm not in favour of false views being allowed to be perpetuated. And so when I know better, I'll share the knowledge.

As I have tried to make clear to you - and I don't know how I can make it any clearer - my choices at the times I administered such punishment were very limited. No, I was not actually forced to administer these punishments, in that anybody held a gun to my head, but failing to do so would have damaged my career. I had accepted a position where it was expected I would do this if necessary, and so I did it when it was necessary. Where I could possibly find a reason, acceptable to my superiors, not to do it, I didn't, and most of the time I succeeded. But there were a few occasions, when I couldn't, honestly, find an alternative.

In those cases, if I had imposed a less severe punishment, there's a good chance, that those superior to me would have decided the boy hadn't been punished enough and added to it, which would have been worse for him, and would have also put a black mark next to my name in terms of future career advancement.

In most of the cases where I administered such punishment, the boy would have stood a good chance of expulsion if he hadn't already been severely punished. In two, at least, he could have faced criminal charges.

And, for the record, the strangers I describe are not doctors. We'd have far less problems if they were. They are from the sports doping authority, and they are collecting urine samples from some of our students who they have decided are elite athletes. While I can understand why it's being done, it is a significant problem for it to be occurring within the context of a school, especially as these people generally don't even have the working with children police checks that we even require our cleaners to have.

Doc

I am swiftly beginning to believe you really are genuine. (I'll wait a second to let you recover from that statement) I'll continue : I have always known that we in the United Kingdom have very prudent ideas (our beloved new leader is always emphasising the point to us, anyway!) but I have always felt that Oz had similar standards and ways of thinking. I am not so sure now. You make strong and convincing cases for your words, and I like that, but it shows me that we two nations have vastly different principles.
I cannot imagine any 'Drugs Police Force' going around our schools doing what you say they do over there. Likewise, caning on the bare buttocks has always been a taboo in the UK and only practised in the top schools, and then only up to the late 60s! Obviously, by your account, it isn't the case where you come from. I suppose this is a problem with the Internet being so global because a teacher in Tokyo, Singapore, Helsinki or Dallas would all think our ideas – yours and mine – of 'Political Correctness' in schools completely misguided.
Also, I suppose I am sensitive on this particular issue because of something I have always tried – until comparatively recently – to put to the back of my mind. Maybe I'll share it with you some time but for now I am just going to apologise to you for questioning the truthfulness of your story. At the same time, if no one did so, we would have scores of outrageous claims being banded about here, wouldn't we!

Sorry Doc!

Danny, what you have to realise is that those in Acedemia are on a different planet to the rest of us.
For a start they never really left school and went into the outside world.
They became adult extensions of their pupil selves.
They spend most of their time being superior to those that are not able to know any difference.
They are cushioned by Monthly income for the rest of their lives wether they work or not.
They are used to being right in all things because there is no one quallified below them to correct them.
They enjoy being bossy and mitigate this control nonsense by saying its for their pupils own good.
They impose subjects that they find fascinating on those that have no interest in the subject thus limiting the potential of their charges in their own prefered career.
As my teacher friend tells me that when she set French homework ( in a rural area where it was of no benifit) and was told they allready had English homework her comment was " tough".
Fine she enjoyed burying her head in books but the majority of ther pupils had farmwork as a priority.
It is however great fun when she is bossy for me to put her in her place.
I am sure you can guess where that place is:-)
So Danny its no good trying to reason with thenm as they know it all and sincerely believe that they are correct.
As far as BB canings at school go these seem to have been prevelent in Public schools where homosexual practises were and are still rife. Why else would any male worth their salt wish to be presented with a childs bare bottom. Its so obvious that if it had teeth it would bite.

Hello Danny,

I'm coming back to this after a few days, a delay for which I apologise. I have been unable to access this forum and assumed it was down. I only realised today that somehow I (or somebody else with administrator access, though it was probably me) had added it to the list of sites blocked by our schools filter system. I've now corrected that.

Doc

I am swiftly beginning to believe you really are genuine. (I'll wait a second to let you recover from that statement) I'll continue : I have always known that we in the United Kingdom have very prudent ideas (our beloved new leader is always emphasising the point to us, anyway!) but I have always felt that Oz had similar standards and ways of thinking. I am not so sure now. You make strong and convincing cases for your words, and I like that, but it shows me that we two nations have vastly different principles.

In fairness to others, I feel I must state that it would be unwise to view my attitudes, or the practices at my school, as, in any way, indicative of general attitudes in Australia, and certainly as indicative of general practices in Australian schools. I don't think my own views are all that unusual, when viewed as a whole, but when it comes specifically to education, a lot of my views are probably fairly unusual simply because my experiences are fairly unusual. As a boy I attended elite Australian schools based on the Australian perspective of what British Public Schools were like. And I have spent virtually my entire career teaching in such a school. These are not typical Australian schools by any measure - they comprise less than 5% of all Australian schools (and the truly traditional ones comprise less than 2% of all Australian schools) and educate a number of children in rough proportion to their numbers. They have some similarities to the typical Australian school, but they also have many differences, and they typically have policies and practices that would never be contemplated in a 'typical school'. They are not typical schools, and they don't act like them. But they are still a part of our educational landscape and I think Australian society tolerates - yes, tolerates is probably the right word, in many cases - practices within them that would not be tolerated in our schools in general.

And it's always been that way.

In the periods we've been talking about - the period when I administered a small number of canings on the bare buttocks (the late 1960s and early 1970s) and more generally the period where such punishments were a feature of some schools discipline policies here (which I think probably ends in the mid-1970s at the latest, but presumably dates back into the 19th century), the routine use of such punishment would not have been acceptable in the vast majority of schools here. In fact, in my state of Victoria, while corporal punishment was permitted in all schools, in state schools (which comprised the majority of schools, and educated the significant majority of the children) corporal punishment wasn't even supposed to be administered on the bottom at all - the Education Department regulations made it very clear that corporal punishment was only supposed to be administered with a strap, and only on the palm of the hands, and only to boys. Catholic schools (which was most of the rest of our schools) generally speaking followed Education Department policy, although they were probably more tolerant of unofficial punishments. These guidelines and rules were not perfectly, and for the most part, I think teachers could have generally expected to get away with some punishments that differed from what was officially allowed - but it is incredibly unlikely that any state school or Catholic school could have got away with routinely punishing children on the bare bottom, especially with any sort of implement. That would have been seen as stretching the bounds of what was acceptable to breaking point, as very suspicious, as unacceptable.

But that wasn't the case when it came to the elite schools - the Public Schools of Victoria. Less than a dozen schools, with another dozen or so which were close enough to be good enough. At the period we are talking about, this small number of schools had produced ninety percent of all Victorian males deemed worthy to be inclusion in Who's Who In Australia. The story was similar in other states. A very small number of schools, but schools which have produced a very large number of prominent people. Very successful schools by many measures.

And because of this, these schools could have policies and practices in place that would have never been tolerated in most schools. To a great extent, schools like mine were beyond reproach - if anybody questioned the way we did things, we could just point to our record. And the fact that parents were paying significant amounts of money to send their sons to us quieted even more of any potential criticism, because most people, I think, would have felt it was the parents place to raise any concerns, not theirs - and if the parents didn't care, why would anybody else object?

I could go on and on about this. But the basic point I am making is that we are not typical schools, and we never have been. Things we did should not be seen as typical or illustrative of education in Australia in general.

Anymore than practices at Eton or Harrow could be seen as illustrative of education in England, in general.

Over time, since the 1970s, things have changed slightly. Our schools are subject to a bit more scrutiny than they used to be, and people are more ready to criticise - and overall, that's probably a very good thing. And we no longer produce 90% of the men in Who's Who - it's around 50%. Still very high for such a small number of schools, but things are evening out a bit.

I cannot imagine any 'Drugs Police Force' going around our schools doing what you say they do over there.

Well, on this point, it's an easy matter to provide evidence of what's been happening, because it's attracted some media attention this year. Not with our Victorian schools, but with our Sydney brethren.

School students stripped naked for drug tests
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21502257-2,00.html

Drug tests cramp young stars
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,21499345-5001031,00.html

Drug testers forced schoolboys to drop pants
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/04/04/1889175.htm

Likewise, caning on the bare buttocks has always been a taboo in the UK and only practised in the top schools, and then only up to the late 60s! Obviously, by your account, it isn't the case where you come from.

Actually, it's not that different.

The schools I am talking about in Australia occupy a similar position in Australia to schools like Eton or Harrow in the UK. We are the 'top schools' and our reputation (good and bad) here is pretty comparable to the reputation of those schools in the UK. And the practice would have more or less died out here by the mid 1970s at the very latest - I'm not saying there might not have been very isolated cases after that, but they'd have been very unusual. To all intents and purposes, it was gone by 1975, not that different from the late 60s date you talk about with the UK.

Without wishing to make any statement about any specific schools practices, I'm talking about schools like Scotch College, Xavier College, and Geelong Grammar in Victoria, the Kings School, Sydney Grammar, and Shore in New South Wales, Brisbane Grammar and Terrace in Queensland, etc. These are the 'elite schools' of Australia, the Great Public Schools of Australia. They're not typical schools or normal schools. In fact, through most of their history, they were probably far more similar to the British Public Schools, than any Australian schools - and, indeed, most of them were members of the British Headmasters' Conference and considered themselves to be British Public Schools. Geographical location was a minor concern.

I suppose this is a problem with the Internet being so global because a teacher in Tokyo, Singapore, Helsinki or Dallas would all think our ideas - yours and mine - of 'Political Correctness' in schools completely misguided.

Things do differ from place to place - but some of us are not typical even of the locations where we live. Schools like mine pay as little attention to the forces of political correctness as we can get away with.

Also, I suppose I am sensitive on this particular issue because of something I have always tried - until comparatively recently - to put to the back of my mind. Maybe I'll share it with you some time but for now I am just going to apologise to you for questioning the truthfulness of your story. At the same time, if no one did so, we would have scores of outrageous claims being banded about here, wouldn't we!

I understand why people are skeptical, and I don't actually object to it. A certain amount of skepticism is both understandable, and indeed, desirable, because as you say, if nobody questioned these things, it would make things much easier for fantasists, and they'd be even more common than they are. I run my own group and I know how many of them are out there.

But while I don't want fantasists to be able to cloud the reality, by the same token, I think that in fighting them we sometimes create an environment where it's very hard for unconventional truths to be posted.

I don't have a solution to this. I just see the problem.

Apology accepted as it's been offered - but please don't feel you shouldn't question the veracity of any post including mine. I know I am telling the truth, but nobody else can, and the fact is questioning me gives me the chance to convince people - one way or the other. It's not unreasonable for those of us who claim unusual events occurred to be expected to stand up to a degree of scrutiny as to our claims.

And then people can make up their own minds.

And, under the circumstances, I am obliged to end my post with:

We are Geelong, the greatest team of all
We are Geelong, we're always on the ball...

I find myself agreeing with the Doc. I started this thread and feel it has been one of the more useful ones in the last few months. It has given people a chance to express views, but for once it has not resulted in members insulting each other. It is when this happens I just cease writing, as when this happens it is clear that the person has already made up their mind and are not going to listern to your points.

I fully agree with the Doc, that my situation was not one that prevailed in most English schools. I have stressed this time and time again. Just because it does not follow the norm does not mean it is not true. Of course people have a right to question my posts, and it is then up to each member to make up their own minds. It is almost impossible to provide proof, but I have in some posts a long time ago provided details of schools in the West Country that caned on the bare bottom. I provided details of the Public Record Office that held that schools Punishment Book after closure where the entries clearly state they were done on the bare bottom.

I NEVER object to people asking me questions or doubting my posts. What i object to is when people have already made up their mind and can do nothing more than be insulting.


George

GEORGE

This book




was written by someone who went to one of the Enfield Grammars from c 1958 onward.

Somewhere in it is an account of 3 3rd formers being beaten with trousers down at a specially-convened assembly in front of the whole school. The offence was systematic shoplifting on a school trip/holiday somewhere in deepest Leicestershire(I think!) & even the French assistante got a view of walloped y-fronts!

Not quite in your League, but I remember from one of your previous posts that you reckoned London schools had a big rethink re CP in 1960-ish?

If memory serves,this guy was in the 2nd form, so this was a 1959 event.

The book's on Amazon at 1p-no wonder I can't find my copy!!


Steve M

I agree with George that it is nice that this forum at last is allowing differences of opinion without personal insults.
I am going to ask the question that everyone is avoiding.
Did George and/or the Doc enjoy giving BB canings and were they in any way turned on by it?

As you might have guessed my reply is a very loud NO...but it happens to be true. Rather than being a turn on it was often the complete opposite. Most canings were done at break just before or after I have had a cup of tea or worse still just before or after lunch. I can assure you their is nothing stimulating about a boy bending over waiting to have his bare bottom cane, nor with the actual application of the cane. Indeed the opposite is very much the case. On the bare bottom you can clearly see what the cane is doing, and I do not care how many times one does it, seeing those red marks always makes one have a ense of regret, but deep down knowing it has to be done and everybody expects you to do it without hesitation. Also, without being rude, the inside of a boys pants was not always the most pleasant sight, certainly around meal times.

One also has to remember that I would often see these boys in the showers nude after games, so it was not hardly a new sight to see a boys bare bottom. I think it was fairly true to say it was no more for me to see, or the boy to show, his bottom than his arm.

I do however recall the first time I caned on the bare bottom a certain amount of relief in having done it. I was not sure if i could bring myself to cane bare, but in no way could it be regarded as a stimulation or pleasant experience.

I can just comprehend how some people may get some pleasure from fantasy about caning a boys bare bottom. I can imagine sexual pleasure being gained from smacking with the hand on the bare bottom (something I never did). What I cannot imagine is how anybody can get any kind of pleasure from hitting a boy with a cane and hurting him, be it on clothing or the bare bottom



George

Did George and/or the Doc enjoy giving BB canings and were they in any way turned on by it?

No. Simply and categorically. Far from enjoying it, it was an extremely unpleasant experience on a number of levels. And certainly not remotely arousing.

It is a fact is I have always disliked using the cane. I've used it because I believe it does have a positive impact on behaviour in many cases, that outweighs any negatives associated with it, including the fact that I dislike doing it, but it's never been something I could describe as having enjoyed.

Occasionally, there has been some degree of satisfaction associated with its use. I will admit to times, especially when dealing with a boy who has committed some act of malice - bullying most commonly, that there can be a feeling of satisfaction in punishing him, but even then, it's not anywhere near the level of being enjoyable. It's still an unpleasant experience, it's just there's also some feeling of satisfaction as well. But none of the cases where I punished a boy on the bare bottom fell into that category. One might have done, I think, if I hadn't waited to punish the boy until my raging fury has subsided to something more controllable.

Unlike George, I can certainly conceive of the real possibility of a person being aroused by the use of a cane. On the very small number of occasions where I had cause to cane a girl (and I did this even less than I caned boys on the bare bottom, and the girls were most definitely fully clothed at the time) I found myself disturbed by some of the feelings I had associated with that. I can't say with absolute certainty that I was aroused by the experience, and if I was, it was a far less intense feeling than the negative feelings I had about the whole incident, but I can say that there were different feelings involved, and the easiest way to explain them is to assume they were associated with some degree of sexual arousal. It was very rare, and I certainly didn't act in anyway inappropriately. But, if anything, I think those experiences make me even more convinced that there was nothing at all pleasant or arousing about the bare bottom canings I inflicted, even on an unconscious level, because I think I would have known what that felt like.

Doc and George

I hate to admit this but I believe now that I was wrong in my thinking that such practices died out many many years ago. I still think it an unnecessary and cruel thing to make a boy expose his backside for the cane. It may not have been unusual for a master to see boys' bare bottoms in the shower rooms etc but that was an entirely different thing to ordering him - in cold blood, so to speak - to denude the most personal and private part of his anatomy (to a young boy, at least) in such a way.
Over sixty-three years ago now I was evacuated to Bala in mid-Wales and was lodged with a lay preacher - a man of about 56/60 - for over two and a half years. He had the same thinking as the two of you as regards those old fashioned ways of discipline. I was never caned but I still feel the humiliation I felt then when I was going to be punished - which was pretty regularly and for no good reason most times.
I know you say you didn't enjoy the experience but I'm sure this specimen did so. I hope you both now feel it was wrong. Do you?

Wrong is a very strong word, and without knowing precisely what is meant by the word when you use it, I'm unsure if I can agree that such punishments were wrong.

To me, if I said something was wrong, I would be saying it was morally wrong. And I don't believe that the bare bottom punishments I inflicted were morally wrong because there was no immorality involved in administering them. I had no immoral thoughts or intentions, no sense of immorality associated with the canings. In fact, quite the opposite - part of my motivation was what I would consider to be a very moral position - the best interests of the child. I genuinely was trying to encourage the boy to be a better boy. In some cases, I was doing it, as well, because if I hadn't, he'd have faced a real possibility of worse consequences - expulsion, criminal prosecution, etc. I can't say it was morally wrong, because the only moral considerations were ones that I believe were good ones. They weren't the only reason I did it, but in as far as morality was involved, it was a positive thing.

So I can't say it was wrong. However, by the same token, even though my intentions were fairly pure, and positive, I won't say it was good either.

And right or wrong, good or bad... I certainly wish I hadn't done it. I wish I hadn't found myself in a situation where this was something I was expected to do, and I wish I'd been better at finding excuses not to do it. I think a 'normal' caning - one administered over the seat of a boys trousers - would have been just as likely to have the positive effects I believe such punishments had - so it was unnecessary in terms of the boys own welfare. And while I don't have any reason to believe any of the boys I punished in this way were harmed by being punished in this way, and indeed, I believe it's unlikely they were harmed, it was certainly more risky than a normal punishment, had more of a chance of causing problems.

So I wish I hadn't done it. And if I found myself back in time, forty years or so back in the past, I would think much more carefully before accepting the position I did where administering much punishments was expected. And if I did accept it, I'd have tried even harder to avoid it - not that I'm sure I could have. I think I explored all the options I really had and chose the best of what, even then, I saw as a pretty poor set of choices.

I should say, though, that I, as a boy, when I was punished in this way - it really didn't worry me to be exposed in this way. I had a reasonable sense of bodily modesty, but this didn't worry me at all. It was just something that a schoolmaster occasionally asked a boy to do, if he deserved it. I hated it, because I knew it was really going to hurt - but the pain is what I was afraid of, not the exposure.

When an aunt expected it of me - then I was worried about such exposure, because by the age of 16, it didn't seem normal for an aunt to force a boy to present himself in that way. I obeyed her, but that did embarrass me greatly. My mother would have embarrassed me almost as much. One of my teachers - well, it just didn't worry me, except that it added to the fear of the imminent punishment.

Doc

I still think it was wrong, in this sense, there was no need in respect to how painful it would make the punishment - if you were going to cane the boy as hard as possible across the bare buttocks that would have been a criminal act, even in those days - if not then you only had to increase the impact of each stroke with the boy fully clothed.
I have never argued against giving a misbehaving schoolboy a few whacks with a stick where it will, hopefully, improve his behaviour. In fact, I have advocated it on this forum many times. On the other hand, I do not think any child should be humiliated, that should be unthinkable - unthinkable, unless of course, it was for the motive of giving the punisher a certain kick!
I do not accept your assertion that when you were punished in that way you only thought of the pain that would result. If so, you were a very different child to the one I was!
I can't think of anyone I have ever really hated - other than the guy I told you about. Perhaps it was only that I sensed he was doing it for his good and not mine, I don't know. I only remember the utter shame I felt, especially the first time when he was almost a total stranger to me.
Maybe I was over sensitive. It was a weird experience being sent away at an early age to be alone with one old guy - other than a housekeeper who came in for a few hours each day - and be under his power every evening and every weekend.
The experience left me with an interest in the subject which I still have to this day. I am still trying to fathom out what motivates people to do such things to a child. If you are both adults and play at pretending one is in the power of the other then I cannot object but when one is a child and is genuinely in the power of the elder other, humiliation should never ever play a part in the thing!

Hello Danny,

I still think it was wrong, in this sense, there was no need in respect to how painful it would make the punishment - if you were going to cane the boy as hard as possible across the bare buttocks that would have been a criminal act, even in those days - if not then you only had to increase the impact of each stroke with the boy fully clothed.

Believe me when I say that, as a teacher, I have always been very aware of the legalities surrounding the use of corporal punishment - ever since on my very first day as a student teacher, I was instructed to use corporal punishment in a way that was completely contrary to the regulations that applied, and if I had done so, I could have conceivably aborted my teaching career before it had begun.

It probably wouldn't have been a criminal act to cane a boy as hard as possible over the bare buttocks. What determined the legality of corporal punishment in those days almost entirely came down to the level of injury caused and a few strokes of the cane would not have reached the grievous bodily harm standard that was required to render a caning unlawful. It is shocking to say it, but actual bodily harm was legal - and there actually still hasn't been a clear statement in Australia that changes that, although most lawyers who've looked at this say that would change rapidly if a borderline case today reached court. The most severe caning I ever handed out involved nine strokes across the bare bottom, and on that occasion, I came close to what I believe would have broken the law (and I aborted the caning at nine strokes, instead of the twelve I had initially intended because I realised I was risking going too far, if I hadn't already done so), but six strokes - and they were hard strokes - did not.

Please note, I do feel I went too far on that occasion - but even so, I was not in breach of the law. After that I limited myself to six strokes.

I should say though that you can't assume that canings across the bare bottom necessarily, or even commonly, involved strokes delivered with the greatest possible force. There's a few reasons I say that.

The first is that it's actually very hard to deliver a cane stroke with the maximum possible force. If you swing as hard as you can, you lose a great deal of accuracy. The simplest analogy I can draw that most people can understand is to using a hammer - most people are aware that when hammering a nail, you need to find the balance between the maximum force you can control, and accurately hitting the target. It's much the same with a cane. You don't hit as hard as you can - even if you want to inflict the maximum possible pain.

And a lot of the time, a caner doesn't want to inflict the maximum possible pain. I wasn't aware of it as a boy, or even as a young teacher, but talking to more experienced colleagues around the time I started to gain seniority, it was impressed on me, how much of these punishments involved bluff. The man who had given me my worst ever caning - eight strokes on the bare buttocks - told me that the strokes he delivered on that occasion were less severe than he would have given with a normal six of the best. They weren't soft strokes, but they were just normal ones. He could have caned harder. Part of the reason he had had me lower my clothing on that occasion was so he didn't have to do that. He was extremely angry at me, and I needed to be sent a very clear message that my behaviour was completely unacceptable, but he didn't particularly want to hurt me - and not just out of any sense of kindness, but because he knew I had an exeat to go home and he didn't want a complaint from my mother - he'd have been much less inclined to leniency if I'd been returning to my Boarding House. The fundamental point is he had me lower my clothing so he could make me feel like I'd been more severely punished that usual, without any particular need to inflict a greater degree of physical penalty on me.

It cannot be assumed that a punishment on the bare bottom was intended to be more physically severe than one over clothing. It certainly might have been - and might have been intended to be so - but it doesn't automatically follow.

I certainly remember that punishment as a very painful one - but how much of that was psychological, and how much was physical, I can't say.

I have never argued against giving a misbehaving schoolboy a few whacks with a stick where it will, hopefully, improve his behaviour. In fact, I have advocated it on this forum many times. On the other hand, I do not think any child should be humiliated, that should be unthinkable - unthinkable, unless of course, it was for the motive of giving the punisher a certain kick!
I do not accept your assertion that when you were punished in that way you only thought of the pain that would result. If so, you were a very different child to the one I was!

I agree that no child should be humiliated - but unfortunately, it isn't unthinkable. It happens even today - in fact, I suspect it happens far more often today that it used to, given the widespread abolition of corporal punishment. Teachers in many places where corporal punishment have been banned, are often still permitted to use psychologically based measures of punishment that can involve humiliating the child.

I should say, there's a difference between embarrassing a child and humiliating one, in my opinion. I do think there are occasions, where it is appropriate for a teacher to cause a child a degree of embarrassment - as long as it is done carefully, and isn't taken to extremes. Unfortunately, sometimes it is.

No, a child should not be humiliated - but that is quite separate from the issue of corporal punishment in my view. Certainly, having agreed that a child should not be humiliated, I agree corporal punishment should not be applied in a way that would humiliate the child, I just don't think we can assume that such punishments are seen as humiliating. Some children would see them that way, others would not. And while there is a need to be careful about causing a child humiliation, we also have to be careful not to tell a child who isn't humiliated that they should be.

Was I a different child than you? Self evidently. But that's the point I would make. I don't think there was anything wrong with a child being the way you were, and feeling the way you did about these things. But by the same token, I don't think there was everything wrong with me as a child not feeling this way. I think both sets of feelings are valid, and should be treated as valid.

I think a lot of it - though not all of it - comes down to the way you were raised. By the time I was exposed to punishments of this sort, I'd been attending exclusive independent schools for five years, and been at boarding school for two years. I had five years experience, from the age of nine, of dealing with the idea that adults saw me naked apparently at will, and in a school context it didn't worry me at all. And five years experience (arguably seven if you date it to my first strapping in primary school) of the idea that I could expect to be physically punished by teachers. It was routine and normal. I was used to it. All my school friends around me were used to it.

Shortly after the first time I was caned on the bare buttocks, I was on school holidays and I mentioned to one of my friends from home that it had happened. He attended a local private school as a day boy, where while corporal punishment was used, they didn't punish on the bare backside. He was horrified and outraged that I'd been punished in that way. His attitude surprised me, and mine surprised him. He couldn't come to terms with the fact that I simply saw what had happened as a well deserved punishment - he agreed that I deserved to be punished, and his school would have whacked him too - but the idea of it being on the bare bottom was something that to him, I think, was a serious violation. To me, it wasn't.

And I think most of that came down to differing experiences.

Even today - my school takes in First Formers/Year Sevens, from state, Catholic, and independent school backgrounds.

The boys from state schools and Catholic primary schools are generally rather surprised and somewhat disturbed by the fact that they are expected to shower together (under some degree of supervision - we try to respect boys privacy as much as we can, consistent with the need to make sure that things like bullying aren't happening, and that basic hygiene is being addressed), while the boys from private school backgrounds simply accept it without comment. It's different expectations up until that point. It moulds the way they feel about things.

I can't think of anyone I have ever really hated - other than the guy I told you about. Perhaps it was only that I sensed he was doing it for his good and not mine, I don't know. I only remember the utter shame I felt, especially the first time when he was almost a total stranger to me.

Well, I think if it had been a near total stranger, I'd have felt differently. But these punishments weren't at the hands of near total strangers. They were from men, I knew reasonably well, and who I honestly believed (and still believe) had my best interests at heart.

Maybe I was over sensitive. It was a weird experience being sent away at an early age to be alone with one old guy - other than a housekeeper who came in for a few hours each day - and be under his power every evening and every weekend.

Over sensitive? It doesn't sound like it to me. Just because I would have reacted differently doesn't mean you were over sensitive, or for that matter, that I was under sensitive. These things are on a continuum - and the circumstances were also quite different.

The experience left me with an interest in the subject which I still have to this day. I am still trying to fathom out what motivates people to do such things to a child. If you are both adults and play at pretending one is in the power of the other then I cannot object but when one is a child and is genuinely in the power of the elder other, humiliation should never ever play a part in the thing!

I agree that it shouldn't. But I don't believe I ever humiliated a boy I caned in this way.

Unfortunately, I can think of a couple of occasions, where I probably did unintentionally do something to a boy that might have been humiliating to him, and I really wish I hadn't - but they had nothing to do with corporal punishment. In fact, in one case, it was my desire to avoid punishing him physically that lead to me seriously embarassing him.

Interesting, Doc. I can see that there is another side to this question and I suppose we are both right in our different ways.
My shock/horror is rather over the top when you explain things the way you see - or saw - them. That does not mean I will ever feel anything other than hatred for the particular individual who started it all off for me. I believe his actions and motives should be unacceptable to anyone with a reasonable sense of right and wrong.
Thanks, anyway, for your patience with me on this.

Danny

When people say "humiliation" don't they just mean "loss of face" or "public disgrace"? I'm sure part of the point of C.P is that it makes the boy lose face; and I'm sure that pulling the trousers down makes that worse.

Isn't it more ridiculous to be seen with your trousers down (partly undressed) than to be seen naked? Clowns always get a laugh when their trousers fall down: I don't think it would be funny if one of them walked on stage naked, or in his underwear.

It's much worse to be naked when everyone else is clothed than to be naked in a group. I quite like skinny dipping, but I'd die of embarassment if my trunks came off by accident in a swimming pool where everyone else is wearing them. Having to undress in an office or study, when the witness or witnesses are presumably wearing suits or formal uniforms, would be much worse -- like the nightmare of "turning up to work with no clothes on".

When a boy was caned on the bare behind, where any steps taken to make it less embarassing for him? e.g Would the teacher turn his back while the boy was undressing and dressing and getting into position? Would the boy turn his back to the teacher so as not to expose his penis? Would you have considered letting him undress behind a screen, as for a medical examination?

I read about a public school headmaster in the UK who offered boys a choice between a bare bottom belting and a clothed caning; the boys agreed that the belt hurt less, so it was a choice between "more pain or more embarassment"? Has anyone ever been offered that kind of choice? What would they have chosen?

You are right in the point you make about being 'naked' when others are fully clothed. I think that is the part that makes it so humiliating, Beanokid.

The "I'm on my own here" syndrome applies. It's the same difference between singing in a choir and singing solo. I know I could never stand up in front of a crowd and make a speech or sing. Even in class I used to dread being asked to stand up and read from a textbook or an essay I'd written!

I doubt very much that any schoolmaster would have offered a screen for the boy to change behind but I think it was often the case that the master would walk away to a cabinet to test and select a cane - that was often the case when a boy was going to be whacked fully clothed, anyway.

If I had been given the choice of a belting bare or a normal caning I know I wouldn't have hesitated in choosing the latter! I was very shy about being seen undressed and even when changing for games etc I always made sure I hid myself. I know there are - and were in my schooldays - boys who never care who sees them naked but I was never one of them myself.

When a boy was caned on the bare behind, where any steps taken to make it less embarassing for him? e.g Would the teacher turn his back while the boy was undressing and dressing and getting into position? Would the boy turn his back to the teacher so as not to expose his penis? Would you have considered letting him undress behind a screen, as for a medical examination?

When I handed out such punishments, while I didn't go out of my way to give the boy any special privacy - I wouldn't have wanted to give the boy the impression there was any reason he should feel concerned or embarrassed by being in a state of undress in my presence, because I don't think there really wasn't any reason for him to be, for reasons I've stated previously - I believe I respected his privacy in as far as I could. I really cannot recall any signs of the boys involved being at all worried about this, but I wasn't going out of my way to look at them either. If they turned away, it wouldn't have worried me as long as they were complying with my instructions. I didn't set out to look - I never have, even though I don't think there is anything wrong with a teacher seeing a boy without clothes and back then, there was even less likely to be concern about the idea, that didn't mean you went out of your way to see anything. That would have been viewed as somewhat odd, even then. And a bit suspicious.

It never happened, but if a boy had been shy enough that he wanted as much privacy as I could give him, and he'd made that clear to me either by saying so, or by his behaviour, I think I'd have been inclined to do it. To turn away until he was in position. To let him lower his trousers behind a chair - I didn't have a screen and wouldn't have gone that far. Obviously given the nature of the punishment I had to see his naked bottom, but I had no need to see anything else and I think I'd have respected any desire for privacy he had consistent with me being able to administer the punishment I'd set out to administer.

But as I say, I can't recall any of the boys showing any sign of concern.

Thinking about this - I believe I had the boy stand in front of the armchair he bent over before I told him to lower his trousers - so from behind all I could have seen was his bottom, and from the front, the chair would have blocked any view.

I can recall seeing a boys bare front after I'd caned him - he turned to me after the punishment and took a few moments before he pulled up his trousers. I was mostly looking at his face, though. He was talking to me. What I recall is - well, basically realising how immature this boy was, and wishing anew that I'd been able to find an excuse to cane him in this way, and that if the teacher who'd insisted on it could have seen him, she'd have probably felt the same way.

Once again I find myself agreeing with the doc. I think the whole concept of boys being caned on the bare bottom is misunderstood.

Firstly, I never made boys strip naked. The pictures that are often seen of boys nude from head to toe waiting to be caned belong to the story books not real life. When i caned bare the boy was required to remove his jacket ( this was even when done on clothing) and trousers (pants if they were worn) were requied to be pulled down below the kneees. The shirts in those days were so long that they came down close to the knees so modesty was preserved. The boy was then told to bend over the chair or desk. It was at this point and only at this time, the so called private areas were exposed, and then only his bottom. In the bending over position his front could not be seen. His bottom was only expoed long enough to be caned, and on standing up the shirt would again cover the private areas. I certainly did not find it stimulating to see his bottom and boys were never made to bend over, or remain bending over showing their bottoms any longer than was needed to administer the caning.

I do feel that boys in private schools and state schools do have differing views on nudity. I also think in the private schools, certainly in boarding schools, the head was much more part of school life, where as in state schools he was a much more remote person. Indeed a person a boy only saw if in trouble and at assembly. I dont think boys were really embarrassed about having to pull their trousers pants down for the caning as they knew they would still have a degree of modesty. Indeed, I think boys have little problem about anybody seeing their bottom, even today, its only showing their penis that causes intense embarrassment.Of course boys rather keep clothing on, but I honestly believe they were not embarrassed, but the feelings were that once told to pull down their trousers and pants their was no chance of a last minute reprieve, and they were going to be caned. Added to this, they knew that on the bare bottom they would feel the full sting of the cane. The cases of boys wearing combination underwear was a differant matter, which I will deal with if requested.

I do feel the word "wrong" if not the right word to use. As the doc says it implies that it was somehow against the law. It was not, and indeed the boys peers and parents expected it to be done bare. I have no doubts at all that I did not break the law, which is why I am prepared to discuss it here. Indeed, i am not aware of a single case, relating to incidents before 1980 where teachers have been charged with indecent assut because they administered punishment on the boys bare bottom. They may have been charged ith other things, such as excessive punishment, but not indecent assult from the point of view of making the boy expose his bottom for a whacking. I do think that having to cane, or indeed punish any child, is regrettable, but something that needs to be done. Dare i say for the good of the child and the community as a whole. In a few cases I do regret having to have caned a boys bare bottom, more because I was forced into a position where i had to do it, ( i will expand this if requested) but not because I felt it was wrong.

When I did feel it was wrong to make boys remove their pants, I did stop doing this. This was for a short period of time in a private school where the boys one summer were allowed to wear the new summer nylon shirts. I am sure the sites older members recall these. They were short and worn outside the trousers coming down to the top of the trousers only. Many also remember. no doubt, that the nylon use to rub and make the nipples sore. Of course when boys were told to pull their trousers and pAnts down they showed everything. I did feel that this was not right as some were clearly embarrassed having to stand showing their private parts. To overcome this, for a short period of time, as these were only summer shirts, I did allow pants to be kept on, as by this time nearly all boys wore pants. The sight of the boy standing in front of me did not sexually stimulate me or bother me, but i could tell that it did worry some boys, and it was more than the thought that it would sting more bare. It was at that point that, while still not against the law, I felt it was not acceptable.


George

George

This is the point I cannot understand - why make them take down their trousers at all? As I said to the Doc, it cannot be purely to increase the pain, that could be done by increasing the force of the whacks. The only reason I can see for it was to increase - tenfold - the humiliation.

Now you may say that humiliation is a part of the punishment, I agree in as much as simply having to bend over before someone and present your bottom to them for punishment is humiliating, but the nudity side of it (if only the buttocks) is certainly not necessay to that degree.

I know I am biassed here and probably in the minority too but the experiences I went through as a youngster were, I believe, not only unnecessary but were for the sexual pleasure of someone put in complete charge of a child. Today, he would be locked away where he, even then, belonged. I feel the same way about headmasters or housemasters who had that same power over their young charges - and abused that power in my opinion. It may have been the custom at a few boarding schools but it all changed because there were men who refused to carry on with such out-dated methods.

I am not saying you or Doc should be jailed but I think you should admit to us and yourselves that what you did was wrong. It may have been legal but so was bear-baiting and cock-fighting legal at one time - it desn't follow that they were not bad practices, does it?

I have often here defended corporal punishment in schools as being a good and useful practice and I still think that - even though it's illegal now. Will you both say you actually think it was a good thing to cane young schoolboys on the bare bottom? Either that or admit to us you feel it was wrong!

It cannot speak for the doc but will say that AT THAT POINT IN TIME it was not wrong.The reason it was done on the bare bottom was two fold. It was not merely to shame the boy but to make the punishment fair and effective. I cannot recall what period in time you were are school, and do agree that the need to apply it on the bare bottom after about 1975 deminished.

For any punishment to be effective it has to be deemed fair, by the boy receiving it, his peers and parents. If a boy can find ways of reducing the pain/shame it reduces one of its main aims of detering others. It sounds as if your punishments were not deserved, and that is another matter.

If the punishment does not have the same effect on all boys, from the point of view of how much it stings, them the teacher looses respect and the shame of the punishment is reduced. It becomes very much a challange, even status position, for boys to take the cane and get as little pain from it as possible. Boys would boast about it not hurting or the way they had taken certain measures to reduce the sting.

In the 1950's a lot of junior boys wore cut downs from their older brothers, this included trousers that were often held up by cord. The seat of these trousers were often patched on the inside with thick material as the original material was almost threadbare. Sometimes they were patched with thin leather, like leather used on the elbows of jackets. Even the hardest strokes of the cane, if the boy had a leather patch would not be felt. WOuld it be fair or right if two boys were to be punished if one got it on trousers that were patched and he did not feel it, while the other boys trousers were so worn you couLd see his bottom when he be nt over. You may say that BOYS COULD BE MADE TO TAKE THEIR TROUSERS DOWN BUT KEEP PANTS ON.As already stated many boys did not wear pants. would it be fair on asking the boys to lower their trousers one was then caned on is bare bottom while the other wore, what were often very thick pants. One can imagine the boy with pants teasing the other that it did not hurt him and the boy who had it bare complaining it was unfair. This woukd cause resentment to the teacher, and inspite of both canings may be hurting the same, the boys would regard it as unfair. Not only unfair by the two boys concerned but by the rest in school. Yes, i do believe in the 1950 era, in these situations it was right to cane on the bare bottom.

In the 1960 era in private schools uniform was very thick, often made of tweed. By this time the old thick Victorian canes were no longer in use, being replaced by much thinner ones.These thick trousers greatly reduced the sting, almost to the point of it being useless. This is why some private prep schools made boys report for caning wearing only pe shorts with no pants. I do conceed that this may have been better on reflection than caning bare but with day pupils many would not have pe kit in school everyday. Also where such system were used were mainly boarding schools where caning was carried out at a certain time of day, often at the end of lessons. With day pupils this could mean that parents had to wait outside the school while their son was caned to be greeted right after the caning by a sobbing boy. This could cause for emotional reations from parents.

I agree that as we moved into 1970 the need to bare bottoms for caning was greatly reduced as trousers became thinner and the vast majority of boys wore pants. IT was now a lot fairer to cane on trousers. However, a lot of boys did still have thick underwear and this, with trousers did provide a lot of protection. Many heads did feel it was wrong to bare the bottom, but te onlt alternative was to cane on the hands. Many regarded this as a dangerious practice and a trend did develope where most state schools caned on the hands while private schools caned on the bottom.

I myself, caned on trousers for a while. The reason it stopped was some boys wore two pairs of pants which, unlike the tales (untrue) of books down trousers, could not be detected. Caning became ineffective, and was regarded as "getting one over" on the head. It is true that modesty could be provided by allowing boys to wear pants, and maybe on reflection more could have been done this way than on a bare bottom. However, two problems existed about caning on pants. Firstly, some boys had really thick trunks, certainly in winter, and greatly reduced the sting, while others had little briefs that left the cheeks bare when they bent over. Even if the force of the caning was adjust so it hurt both boys the same amount parents and boys would regard this as unfair. The key in any punishment is fairness. The other reason why it was bare was tradition. Maybe I could have made a stand about 1972 and refused to cane on the bare bottom.This woud not solve the problem. The governors woud have appointed somebody else in my place who would do it. Parents clearly wanted it done and the view of the vast majority was "their is no better way of correcting than a few sharp strokes of the cane on the bare backside. It never did me any harm." The other viiew being "on the bare bottom they get what they deserve, cannot avoid it, and is the same for everybody."

It is not the same as bear baiting or cock fighting. Caning is a measured respones to a given situation. The outcome is certain, and the effects when done bare is the same on all.Also, the boys have a choice, if they behaved they would not be caned. Do remember we are talking about caning for fairly serious offences, a caning that has been clearly deserved. I am not talking about teaches who abused their powers and caned for no reason, or one/two stroke canings for some minor offence.



GEorge

I don't recognise your statement that in the 50s boys wore cut downs held up by string and patched with thick material. This may have ben the case in the 20s or in some very poor families since then but it certainly didn't apply to me - and I left school in the very early 50s! I was brought up in a very working class area on a council estate and was always adequately dressed and wore underpants too. So I can't imagine a Public or boarding school where they caned on the bare bottom having any pupils in such dire straits! I think it is bogus to give that as a reason for making a boy take down his trousers, George!

So the parents of day boys had to wait for their sobbing boy to come out of school after a caning ... causing them emotional problems. What, the same parents who insisted on their sons being punished in that way? It doesn't exactly line up as a good reason to carry on that tradition, George!

If you were worried about your position if you refused to cane on the BB then you must have thought it was wrong in those days - yet now you say it was not wrong!

I think these are excuses. I have accepted you are not lying when you say it was the practice in your school at that time but to still defend it today I think is entirely wrong!

I think you have misunderstood my posts as to where i refer.It is my mistake for thinking you knew my complete history. I do mean boys wore cut downs in the 1950,s and pants were very much a rarity. This indeed was backed by another member in this topic. Do not forget that this period of time was shortly after the war and rationing had not fully ended. I was head in a state school in the Midlands/North of England at this time, not a private school. Pupils came from long rows of terrace houses where the toilet was in the baxk garden and the bath was a copper one in front of the stove in the kitchen. Conditions of working classes varied a lot in England at that time.

The staement about mums being upset meeting their sons from school who were still sobbing from just being caned refered to my days in prate education and after 1970. It ius right that parents still supported bare bottom caning. To be more precise it was the fathers who supported it, many having attended the school themselves, which was an all boys school. Mothers at this time had become much softer, and could count on sympathy from mum if whacked by dad or at school. However , it was still dads that paid the school fees and ran the family. Women had very little say in the matter.

You stated that I must have thought it was wrong to cane on the bare bottom in te 1970 era as I only did so out of tradition and fear of my own position. I did not think it wrong to make a boy take a caning on his bare bottom.The only time i felt it was wrong was those few weeks when boys wore summer shirts and the lowering of pants resulted in them showing everything from the navel to the knees.I did feel this was wrong and did refuse to do it. Once the long shirts came back, and only the bottom was seen, and then only when the boy was bent over, did not then or now struck me as wrong. My point was that at this time their was movement against caning of any form, be it on hands or bottom, bare or clothed. What I was saying even if i thought it was wrong to bare a boys bottom for caning, it would not have changed things. Tradition of bare bottom caning was very strong
in that school, and had I refused to carry it out, many others would have done so. While I say it was not wrong in the early 1970 period I do admit that the reasons for doing it on the bare bottom had more to do with tradition than to make the punishment fair or effective.

I do wonder Danny if your objections are against caning as a whole or just against the use on the bare bottom. I do wonder if you feel that way because you feel you were unjustly caned at school. I am talking about canings that boys fully expected for te offences for which they were being caned. If you were caned by some nutcase that liked seeing little boys bare bottoms and caning them for no reason other than his own pleasure, i can fully understand your views.


George

I have a question for you.
We will say the year is 1950. We will say you and another boy had been seen on the school roof getting balls down. You were not aware anybody had seen you, but knew this was against school rules and was punished by three of the cane.

The head comes into your PE class and tells you to go to his study right away. You only have thin pe shorts on and no pants.On getting to the study you see the other boy. He has got school uniform on, and as well as trousers would undoubtedly have a thick pair of pants. You both know you are certain to be caned.

The head invites you both into his study and after a long lecture informs you as he gets the cane from the cupboard that you will each get three strokes on the bottom. The other boy bens over and takes three on his trousers and pants. You then take three on your thin shorts and in your view they hurt more. Would you be glad that the other boys punishment was less painful than yours, or be annoyed you got a more painful caning ? Do you not think it would have been fairer if the head had made you both take it on your bare bottoms?


George

No, George, I don't. In the case you mention it would have been fairer to wait until the next day or when I had changed into my trousers.

Your explanation of the ragamuffins at a junior school in the 50s also doesn't make sense to me. If it was a working class area at that time I'm pretty sure there would have been no BB caning. I can accept the case of expensive boarding schools around that time but not the type you are talking about! Definitely not!

I was caned at school but mostly slippered and mostly justifiably and have no grouse about that. The experience I mentioned was when I was evacuated during WW2 at between 9-11. I was not caned by the 'gentleman' I was lodged with but I was spanked on the bare bottom whenever he found the merest excuse. That I would not complain about either if it had been carried out in a less self-gratifying way.

I'm sorry to take it out on you, George, perhaps you were sincere in thinking you were being cruel to be kind. I still think it would be nice to hear you say you should have been braver and not carried on a tradition that was outdated and unnecessary for fear of your career. There were certainly a great many schools at that time who would have found your reason for leaving that particular institution commendable.

A lot of people find it strange that in a working class area bare bottom caning took place and I can understand that, but it is because they do not understand the type of area. Firstly I lived in the better part of the town, as my father owned one of the factories and i had somebody running it for me. A lot of the mothers of boys at the school worked in the factory. I grew up with a lot of the people who were now parents sending boys to the school. Remember it was a church controlled school. Here, it was very much spare the rod spoil the child attitude. As I lived in the area I use to walk or cycle to school, and we use to shop in the town. Unlike so many heads i did not live miles away or drive to school in a car.I was often found having a pint in the local with the fathers of the boys I taught. You may find it strange that often on my way home parents would invite me in for a cup of tea of cake. It was very much more of a family atmosphere, and these people were certainly more friendly and sincere than the people who lived in the better houses much closer. Friday night was bath night and it was common for me to be invited in to find Fred (made up name) one of my pupils in the bath in the kitchen. He did not batter an eyelid if I saw him nude in the bath, unlike kids of today. At home the belt or strap was used by dad, and this was applied to the bare bottom. Such punishment was often carried out in the front room, the best room, and being terraced houses with no front garden people could see into these rooms. It was not uncommon to see a boy stretched over the table having a belt applied to his bare backside by his father, or the sound of it being carried out. Unlike better areas, or later in time no secret was made of this fact. Nobody hid the fact, nobody commented on it, nobody thought it was wrong, nobody turned an second glance if they saw a boy being whacked. Boys were seen in the lake swimming nude, they were seen nude at home by neighbours. Nobody viewed the sight of a nude boy with shock like they do today and boys were not embarrassed about being seen nude.It would have been looked upon as being "out of keeping" and "very soft" if I had not caned on the bare bottom. Of course if I had been on of those heads who were completely remote from the area it would have been very much the opposite. These heads were looked upon as outsiders and really only just tolerated at they were looked upon as Middle Class and this was a class thing. I did often discus this with parents and told them that really I was Middle Class but was always told "but you are not scared to get your hands dirty and are one of us." My days at St Peters must be viewed in this light and not the standard type picture people have.That is what makes my headship so differant from the norm.

I cannot understand how you would prefer to wait to be caned the next day, so you coukd put trousers on, unless you were planning something. Boys often stated the worse part of the caning was the wait, even if it was only a few hours. Can you imagine what it woud be like that night trying to get to sleep knowing next day you were going to get three of the cane. I would say, that would be more worrying than having to show your bottom. Can you imagine the feelings you would have walking to school that morning. Would that mental pain not be far worse
than the embarrassment of having to bare your bottom and get it over with quickly ?. Would you not be tempted not to go to school that day and so get into trouble. I wonder how many boys knowing they are going to get three strokes on their backside over trousers the net day would not wear, or at least be tempted, to wear extra pants. The temptation being greater if they knew they would not have to take their trousers down, and the detection with the boy only pretending it was hurting. It would make the head look silly if he got away with it.

It may have been commendable to have left the prep school in 1970 rather than cane on the bare bottom. However, you over look two things. However commendable a thing may seem it does not pay the bills. Secondly, the tide was not turning much against corporal punishment at this time in the private prep schools. It was in state schools, but certainly in private prep boarding schools the cane was stiil being frequently used, and often bare. Rather than being commended by heads in prep schools for my actions refusing to cane on the bare bottom woukd be frowned
upon. It was one thing not caning on the bare bottom where it had not been the tradition but to actually refuse to do it, where it was tradition to do so, was another matter. That is why some prep schools carried on caning long after it ended in state schools. In fact it took place in some right up until it was made illegal in 2000. I do in fact know, of real cases in prep schools, where boys as late as 1998 were given the choice of so many strokes on their pants of a lesser amount on the bare bottom.

The whole issue of caning has been clouded by so many false posts and starements. The facts however are clear. In some schools caning was the norm. It varied from school to school, even with in a small area. It varied within differing time periods. It varieed within both as to the use on the bare bottom. The only thing that is clear is that it was very rare in state schools, but did exist. In private prep schools it was certainly a lot more common and boys views on nudity were differant from state to private school.


George

I believe Doc's story and I was according you the same belief. However, I now take it back. I just cannot think how you expect me to believe what you're saying when I am old enough to know the working classes have never believed in anyone other than the father (or occassionally the mother) being allowed to punish a boy's bare bottom. I'm sorry but I will leave it there, George.

With respect Danny, you only know the working clases from where you lived. You do not know te wirking classes from all over England. As i said this was a special thing, it was not widespread....one area was not the same as another.

George

George

I know that right from Victorian times the working classes have had this view - not just from the London area but all over England!
You constantly tell me that wherever you lived or taught, rich or poor, in the 50s through to the 70s, a practice went on which has been taboo for the lower classes here for 150 years and for the Bozo-like crowd for a good 40/50 years!
Your stories are just not plausible, George! Anyone could come up with this sort of fantasy and a great many do - I'm certain now that you are one of those who like to believe it's true and that you were there! I think you must be younger than me from the naive way you propound these exaggerated claims - anyone older would know they are all complete make-believe! There may have been a few outlandish, old fashioned institutions around England but very very few! To say you were always at one of them and that all other schools would have looked down on you for not wanting to teach at one, seems to me totally ludicrous! If that had been the case there would have been very few schools with teachers in them!
At the risk of being ostracised from this forum by our beloved leader, I dismiss all your claims now! I would rather be banned form the forum than have to swallow such tripe!

I am going to reply to some points Danny raised in at least two messages (possibly more as I go on) in just this one message. I will quote him so people can see what I am replying to.

This is the point I cannot understand - why make them take down their trousers at all? As I said to the Doc, it cannot be purely to increase the pain, that could be done by increasing the force of the whacks. The only reason I can see for it was to increase - tenfold - the humiliation.

Danny, looking back on my messages, I'm not sure if I've made the reason I punished in this way very occasionally clear. What it comes down to, is that I caned in this way, because it was expected of me. It's really that simple. In the school I was teaching in, in the position I held, there was an expectation - though not an actual iron clad requirement - that in certain circumstances, when dealing with offences that were seen as very serious offences - I would cane in this way.

I don't know how that expectation came about. I don't know where it started. I presume it stemmed from a decision taken by one of the previous Headmasters of the school, and I don't know why he took it. There's all sorts of possible reasons, some that may be defensible, some that are not, and I don't know why it was taken. But it didn't really matter to me why it had been taken. It was an expectation, and I did what was expected of me. I, personally, was not in favour of such punishment, but I was prepared to administer it when the school expected me to do so.

Expectation is a powerful factor when it comes to corporal punishment - I'm not sure if you've ever read it, but back in the early 1970s, an American called Mercurio wrote quite a detailed sociological study of caning in a New Zealand school, he had spent considerable time observing. He came up with two fundamental principles that he felt explained a lot about caning in that school - the CIA/CIE perspectives. "Caning is Accepted, Caning is Expected." I've always felt, ever since I read his study that he had identified something very real. Corporal punishment works, in my view, in an environment where it is accepted by most, and where it meets the expectations of most.

In my school, in the mid 1960s, it was accepted and expected that in certain cases, certain staff members would administer the cane to a boy's bare buttocks. Accepted and expected by the school heirarchy, and, probably more importantly, by the boys themselves. And I accepted it and expected it, as well. I didn't like it - but I accepted it and expected it, and when I was promoted into one of the positions where a master was expected to hand out such punishments, I met the expectation when I had to.

When I was further promoted into a position where I had the power to challenge expectations with a reasonable chance of changing them, I did that as well. And we did change the practice and the expectation. But that came a little bit later.

Today, in my school, we operate under different expectations. The use of the cane is both accepted and expected by most. But the idea that boys could be caned on the bare bottom is not accepted, and certainly would not be expected. If I, or another staff member, tried to hand out such a punishment, that would be the reason why it was most resisted. It's no longer part of the culture of the school. Thankfully.

I know I am biassed here and probably in the minority too but the experiences I went through as a youngster were, I believe, not only unnecessary but were for the sexual pleasure of someone put in complete charge of a child. Today, he would be locked away where he, even then, belonged. I feel the same way about headmasters or housemasters who had that same power over their young charges - and abused that power in my opinion. It may have been the custom at a few boarding schools but it all changed because there were men who refused to carry on with such out-dated methods.

I believe those who take sexual advantage of children - and that would include those who do something with a child that might be considered normal in most circumstances, for their own sexual gratification - are evil. If they are teachers or others specifically charged with a special duty to care for children, doubly so. But I am not one of them. I've never acted in such a way. So it doesn't effect my view of the things I've done.

And, as it happens, I was one of the men who changed the policy at my school that allowed for this type of punishment. As soon as I was in a position to do so. If I'd refused to cane boys on the bare bottom, as deputy boarding house master, it would have stopped a small number of boys being caned in that way - but it would not have stopped the practice. I was not in a position to influence policy in that way, at that stage of my career. And, frankly, at that stage of my career, I didn't think that policy was ever likely to change. I can even remember thoughts of "Man's walked on the moon, and we're still doing this." I didn't think it would change.

By the early 1970s, though, attitudes were changing, and I was finally senior enough to make my voice heard, and so I did. Now I was, at that stage, for want of a better term, the most junior member of the senior staff - and the youngest - so my voice wasn't the most important one. But I played my role. When I could.

I didn't waste my time arguing with policy, when I couldn't have changed it. I wanted to gain seniority, because there were things about the school I wanted to change - although to begin with, this wasn't one of the things I expected to be able to help change, and to gain seniority, I had to toe the line. So I did.

I am not saying you or Doc should be jailed but I think you should admit to us and yourselves that what you did was wrong. It may have been legal but so was bear-baiting and cock-fighting legal at one time - it desn't follow that they were not bad practices, does it?

I have often here defended corporal punishment in schools as being a good and useful practice and I still think that - even though it's illegal now. Will you both say you actually think it was a good thing to cane young schoolboys on the bare bottom? Either that or admit to us you feel it was wrong!

I feel I've already answered this as clearly as I can, but I'll try again.

There's a great deal of middle ground between something being a 'good thing' and something being 'wrong'.

No, I don't think it was a 'good thing' to cane in this way. But I also don't think it was 'wrong'. It's somewhere in between those two extremes.

I didn't support bare bottom caning in the 1960s, because I didn't see it as necessary. Six of the best across the seat of a boys trousers was severe enough punishment that if corporal punishment was going to work, that was going to work. I didn't think it was wrong. I just didn't see it as useful or necessary as a punishment.

Considering that using such punishment allowed me to save boys who would have otherwise been expelled, or possibly even been charged, tried, and sent to Turana, I have to say I find it even harder to say it was wrong. It was a great deal better than some of the alternatives.

It wasn't a good thing, or a bad thing. It wasn't right, and it wasn't wrong. At least I can't classify it in those terms.

I just want to comment on this from another message - I know it was addressed to George, but there's something I want to say about it too.

I still think it would be nice to hear you say you should have been braver and not carried on a tradition that was outdated and unnecessary for fear of your career. There were certainly a great many schools at that time who would have found your reason for leaving that particular institution commendable.

Danny, I could have sought a job at another school, and got one reasonably easily. Trained science teachers were in great demand here in the 1960s, with the Commonwealth government providing a lot of funding to schools to build proper science laboratories and set up proper science programs. I could have easily obtained a job in a state High School, where the only corporal punishment I might have been expected to hand out (the only corporal punishment allowable under state government regulations) would have been with a strap on the hand. And my wages probably would have been higher. And, given my background, my prospects of career advancement would have been higher.

But the thing is I didn't want to teach in a school like that. I had no desire to teach in a state High School - well, there's one school I wouldn't have minded teaching in, but teachers were rarely hired straight into that school, and I had no desire to spend a minimum of ten years in a school I didn't want to teach in, for the chance to get a job in a school I wouldn't have minded teaching in.

I wanted to teach in one of the 'elite independent schools'. The type of school I attended as a boy. And I was very lucky to be offered a position in one straight out of training, especially seeing I attended the wrong training college.

I wanted to teach in this type of school. And to do that, I was willing to accept some aspects of the school I didn't like.

When you agree with 95% of what a school does, do you change schools to one where you agree with about 50% of what they do? Even if the 5% includes something you really don't like, I'd rather deal with 5% of my working life horrifying me, than 50% of it annoying me. And, frankly, most state schools back then had things that horrified me far more than caning a boys bare bottom.

I'm posting the same message again - the moderators may want to erase the first instance. The formatting was lost on that post however, and as that makes it very confusing to read, I feel I should repost.

I am going to reply to some points Danny raised in at least two messages (possibly more as I go on) in just this one message. I will quote him so people can see what I am replying to.

This is the point I cannot understand - why make them take down their trousers at all? As I said to the Doc, it cannot be purely to increase the pain, that could be done by increasing the force of the whacks. The only reason I can see for it was to increase - tenfold - the humiliation.

Danny, looking back on my messages, I'm not sure if I've made the reason I punished in this way very occasionally clear. What it comes down to, is that I caned in this way, because it was expected of me. It's really that simple. In the school I was teaching in, in the position I held, there was an expectation - though not an actual iron clad requirement - that in certain circumstances, when dealing with offences that were seen as very serious offences - I would cane in this way.

I don't know how that expectation came about. I don't know where it started. I presume it stemmed from a decision taken by one of the previous Headmasters of the school, and I don't know why he took it. There's all sorts of possible reasons, some that may be defensible, some that are not, and I don't know why it was taken. But it didn't really matter to me why it had been taken. It was an expectation, and I did what was expected of me. I, personally, was not in favour of such punishment, but I was prepared to administer it when the school expected me to do so.

Expectation is a powerful factor when it comes to corporal punishment - I'm not sure if you've ever read it, but back in the early 1970s, an American called Mercurio wrote quite a detailed sociological study of caning in a New Zealand school, he had spent considerable time observing. He came up with two fundamental principles that he felt explained a lot about caning in that school - the CIA/CIE perspectives. "Caning is Accepted, Caning is Expected." I've always felt, ever since I read his study that he had identified something very real. Corporal punishment works, in my view, in an environment where it is accepted by most, and where it meets the expectations of most.

In my school, in the mid 1960s, it was accepted and expected that in certain cases, certain staff members would administer the cane to a boy's bare buttocks. Accepted and expected by the school heirarchy, and, probably more importantly, by the boys themselves. And I accepted it and expected it, as well. I didn't like it - but I accepted it and expected it, and when I was promoted into one of the positions where a master was expected to hand out such punishments, I met the expectation when I had to.

When I was further promoted into a position where I had the power to challenge expectations with a reasonable chance of changing them, I did that as well. And we did change the practice and the expectation. But that came a little bit later.

Today, in my school, we operate under different expectations. The use of the cane is both accepted and expected by most. But the idea that boys could be caned on the bare bottom is not accepted, and certainly would not be expected. If I, or another staff member, tried to hand out such a punishment, that would be the reason why it was most resisted. It's no longer part of the culture of the school. Thankfully.

I know I am biassed here and probably in the minority too but the experiences I went through as a youngster were, I believe, not only unnecessary but were for the sexual pleasure of someone put in complete charge of a child. Today, he would be locked away where he, even then, belonged. I feel the same way about headmasters or housemasters who had that same power over their young charges - and abused that power in my opinion. It may have been the custom at a few boarding schools but it all changed because there were men who refused to carry on with such out-dated methods.

I believe those who take sexual advantage of children - and that would include those who do something with a child that might be considered normal in most circumstances, for their own sexual gratification - are evil. If they are teachers or others specifically charged with a special duty to care for children, doubly so. But I am not one of them. I've never acted in such a way. So it doesn't effect my view of the things I've done.

And, as it happens, I was one of the men who changed the policy at my school that allowed for this type of punishment. As soon as I was in a position to do so. If I'd refused to cane boys on the bare bottom, as deputy boarding house master, it would have stopped a small number of boys being caned in that way - but it would not have stopped the practice. I was not in a position to influence policy in that way, at that stage of my career. And, frankly, at that stage of my career, I didn't think that policy was ever likely to change. I can even remember thoughts of "Man's walked on the moon, and we're still doing this." I didn't think it would change.

By the early 1970s, though, attitudes were changing, and I was finally senior enough to make my voice heard, and so I did. Now I was, at that stage, for want of a better term, the most junior member of the senior staff - and the youngest - so my voice wasn't the most important one. But I played my role. When I could.

I didn't waste my time arguing with policy, when I couldn't have changed it. I wanted to gain seniority, because there were things about the school I wanted to change - although to begin with, this wasn't one of the things I expected to be able to help change, and to gain seniority, I had to toe the line. So I did.

I am not saying you or Doc should be jailed but I think you should admit to us and yourselves that what you did was wrong. It may have been legal but so was bear-baiting and cock-fighting legal at one time - it desn't follow that they were not bad practices, does it?

I have often here defended corporal punishment in schools as being a good and useful practice and I still think that - even though it's illegal now. Will you both say you actually think it was a good thing to cane young schoolboys on the bare bottom? Either that or admit to us you feel it was wrong!

I feel I've already answered this as clearly as I can, but I'll try again.

There's a great deal of middle ground between something being a 'good thing' and something being 'wrong'.

No, I don't think it was a 'good thing' to cane in this way. But I also don't think it was 'wrong'. It's somewhere in between those two extremes.

I didn't support bare bottom caning in the 1960s, because I didn't see it as necessary. Six of the best across the seat of a boys trousers was severe enough punishment that if corporal punishment was going to work, that was going to work. I didn't think it was wrong. I just didn't see it as useful or necessary as a punishment.

Considering that using such punishment allowed me to save boys who would have otherwise been expelled, or possibly even been charged, tried, and sent to Turana, I have to say I find it even harder to say it was wrong. It was a great deal better than some of the alternatives.

It wasn't a good thing, or a bad thing. It wasn't right, and it wasn't wrong. At least I can't classify it in those terms.

I just want to comment on this from another message - I know it was addressed to George, but there's something I want to say about it too.

I still think it would be nice to hear you say you should have been braver and not carried on a tradition that was outdated and unnecessary for fear of your career. There were certainly a great many schools at that time who would have found your reason for leaving that particular institution commendable.

Danny, I could have sought a job at another school, and got one reasonably easily. Trained science teachers were in great demand here in the 1960s, with the Commonwealth government providing a lot of funding to schools to build proper science laboratories and set up proper science programs. I could have easily obtained a job in a state High School, where the only corporal punishment I might have been expected to hand out (the only corporal punishment allowable under state government regulations) would have been with a strap on the hand. And my wages probably would have been higher. And, given my background, my prospects of career advancement would have been higher.

But the thing is I didn't want to teach in a school like that. I had no desire to teach in a state High School - well, there's one school I wouldn't have minded teaching in, but teachers were rarely hired straight into that school, and I had no desire to spend a minimum of ten years in a school I didn't want to teach in, for the chance to get a job in a school I wouldn't have minded teaching in.

I wanted to teach in one of the 'elite independent schools'. The type of school I attended as a boy. And I was very lucky to be offered a position in one straight out of training, especially seeing I attended the wrong training college.

I wanted to teach in this type of school. And to do that, I was willing to accept some aspects of the school I didn't like.

When you agree with 95% of what a school does, do you change schools to one where you agree with about 50% of what they do? Even if the 5% includes something you really don't like, I'd rather deal with 5% of my working life horrifying me, than 50% of it annoying me. And, frankly, most state schools back then had things that horrified me far more than caning a boys bare bottom.

I can see exactly what you mean, Doc and, although - probably because of my my particular prejudice against this type of punishment - I still believe it was wrong.
As I said to George, I believe caning and slippering misbehaving schoolboys was a good and useful practice which is now illegal and, in my opinion, shouldn't be so - are you pepared to say that BB caning was equally a 'good and useful practice' back in the 60s and should be reintroduced? We all know it won't be, this is just a hyperthetical qustion, but I want to know if you think it was wrong or it was right.
Unlike my stance with George, I believe what you are saying, it makes sense. That doesn't mean because I believe you caned boys BB I agree with your attitude towards it. Again, I know I'm a solitary voice here and perhaps I was over sensitive to nudity as a child but even if 10% of kids felt the same way as I did then it was cruel and unnecessary.
I never felt that way about getting the cane or the slipper, as you say it was expected at the three schools I was at. But if I had been told to take down my trousers it would have been a thousand times worse for me!
Maybe the experience I had been through and the hatred I felt (and still feel) for the perpetrator makes my case an exception to the rule but I don't think so.
I would like to hear other opinions other than just us three, Doc, as I always seem to be almost a lone voice in these arguments.
Is there anyone else out there who feels as I do?

I am a strong believer that corporal punishment in schools is a positive thing, and I believe it is very useful at times.

But, no, I definitely do not believe that bare bottom caning is good, nor do I believe it is particularly useful. I think it had some use as an ultimate deterrent in a school where normal caning was too common to serve that role, so I can't say it was totally useless - but there are plenty of other things that can serve that role. Useless or useful, I believe it is unnecessary.

And, no, I don't think it should be reintroduced, and I would support its abolition in the extremely unlikely event it was ever an option in any school.

I cannot let your last comment about the working class pass without comment. You claim to know how the working classes reacted and lived in all parts of England. With the media just starting to kick off information was not that great. I am sorry but if you think the working classes in the Midlands had the same views as those in Liverpool, as those in East London as those in Newcastle you are wrong. In some areas, where the teachers lived a long way from the area they taught they were mistrusted. However, in some areas where they lived where they worked they were very much trusted and respected members of the community and treated almost as family. Their advice, other than on schooling matters was often sort. One only has to look at local history to find working class ideas differ in a mill area to a mining area to a dock area.

I am sorry Danny if you do not believe me but that is your right. What I do ask before you dismiss what I am saying find some local history books where the working class are studied. Select ones that worked in differant industries, in differant part of the country, and you will find what I am saying is true. General histories do not give a true picture as they only state what was the norm. This can be very misleading.


George

Danny, your not alone in your opinions, regarding caning on the bare.
I think it was morally wrong and totally unnecessary, also degrading
For a boy to remove his clothing for C.P. It probably was more of a
Tradition in private schools, where there would have been some masters
That got great pleasure from seeing and beating a boy on the bare.
But I'm not suggesting the Doc or George were one of these as they say
They got no enjoyment from it.
I too believe CP should be reinstated in our schools, the behaviour of
Some pupils are appalling to say the least, knives or in some cases guns
brought into the school. Girls can be just as bad as boys, in their bad
Behaviour, but only a female should be able to punish a girl.
So Danny your not a lone voice, there probably are a lot more people
With the same opinions.

Paul b wrote:

I think it was morally wrong and totally unnecessary, also degrading for a boy to remove his clothing for C.P.

Not every society or every boy is quite as prudish as this. What is acceptable in one time and place may or may not be acceptable at another time and place.

On a lighter note George's reference to thick pants a day or two back reminds me of a line in a hymn that occasionally caused a giggle in assembly
"As if this earth in short thick pants were breathing...". Can anyone remember the hymn?

etc.

But O, that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail:
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reach'd the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!

etc.

I admit I was very sensitive as a child - too sensitive I suppose. Of course if a boy is brought up where the parents and his siblings are open about nudity it is a different scenario. Today, when nudity is pushed into the face of everyone, children as well as adults, perhaps it would be less of a traumatic experience, I'm not sure. All I know is that, as a child, nudity was a no-no in my circle - family and friends. It therefore meant a lot more to me than it perhaps meant to others.

I believe in punishment and I think it should always hurt but never EVER damage. My experience at the hands of a total stranger damaged me, pschologically, and I'm sure that kids who were at boarding school with the disposition I had then - and there must have been thousands of them in that prudish late 19th and early 20th centuries when such practices were a common occurence - were damaged also.

I will leave this argument now as I think it's overrun its course but I will just answer George's point about things being different in different working class areas. If you read any sort of social history you'll find that the attitude in working class areas to others punishing their children - especially if it meant any sort of nudity - was pretty universal in the UK. Certainly for someone to say they worked in various schools and classes and found a general willingness by the pupils fathers for their offspring to be chastised like that by the local schoolmaster stretches my powers of belief far too far!

As the doc said, only he knows if he's telling the truth - likewise George. You can believe one or the other or both, it's entirely your choice. I have made up my mind about it but I could be wrong. If I am I apologise now. If I'm not, it doesn't really matter because these tales are interesting to read - just as Corrie is interesting to watch.

Like you I feel that this ppst has about run its distance but some interesting points have been raised. However, I must correct you on one point. You make it sound as if I taught in countless schools. I did in fact only teach in four. The first one, where I was just a teacher, corporal punishment was hardly ever used and then on the hands. I was not given power to use it. I then when this school merged with, what was regarded as a very rough school, became head at St Peters. This was a church controlled school. I only basicy got this position for three reasons. Firstly. I knew some of the Governors. Secondly, I lived within walking distance of it and was known locally and thirdly nobody else wanted the job due to the area in which it was situated. My third job was in a small privately own prep boarding school abut 20 miles from St Peters. I left after a year following many rows with the owner who interfered constantly in the running of the school, in spite of him stating he was retired. We clashed many times over corporal punishment. You may find it hard to believe but I objected to the constant requests of staff to cane boys for very minor offences and notes such as "give this boy six of the best." After I refused many such requests teachers use to send boys to the owner of the school who still used an office at the school, claiming it was for running the finances of the school. He would carry out these requests, and I did see the marks of some of these canings, which I found to be too severe and could not be justified. He caned on pants but I know at times it was on the bare bottom. About three years after I left a scandle broke out about these beatings and while no charges were ever filed, the school was sold. On leaving this school I became head of a well known private boardng school only about 30 miles from St PETERS. Here,like St Peters, I did use the cane, and it was mainly on the bare bottom, right up until I retired. Itonly at this school and St Peters that I caned on the bare bottom, so please do not think I did this in countless schools.

George

Okay, George, let's agree to disagree.

Cheers!

I would just like to add a postscript here. On reading through my previous posts on this thread I feel I have been a little unfair to the person with whom I lodged during WW2.
Although I'll never forgive him for the way he administered the punishments he gave me or the frequency and regularity of them, he did make me careful with my lessons (knowing what I would get for the slightest mistake)and that put me way ahead of my peers when I returned to Dagenham at the end of the war. It enabled me to pass the 11+ exam and go on to a grammar school. He taught me history, geography, maths and English and I always did well in those subjects. I suppose I am indebted to him for the standard of life I have had since - and even now - so although his motives were very wrong, the result of my time with him was more than fruitful.
I just thought I should give credit where credit is due.
And thanks, Paul B, for your support of my argument here.

Danny the person you lodged with during WW2, who educated you, enabling
you to get ahead of your Peers, wasn't that his motive to give you an edge
over others, or was his methods to achieve this wrong?

I'll never know that, Paul, but I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt as he's proably been dead for 40+ years and can never defend himself now.

boys should be punished hard, should be caned on their bare buttocks...they must learn discipline. they must learn how to respect girls. my school master and uncle used to beat me by pulling my cock and beating me on my bare buttocks. i refused to undergo such punishments; but now i know how important they are in a boy's life. boys should wear tight shorts at least till the age of 15 while they are at home. at home they can be with no undergarments so they can be caned easily without removing the whole dress

Delta I know the very establishment your schoolmaster, Uncle and yourself
would be very happy in, its called Rampton.

tee hee

This has been an interesting thread to read, and the various opinions are clearly keenly and genuinely felt.

Having said that, I do feel that we need to be careful not to inflict 21st Century views on past happenings. There are always incidents in the past which defy all logic and cultures of their own period ["The Holocaust" for example], but many, many happenings over time were perfectly natural for their time and we clerly should not condemn them just because OUR values may have changed.

Corporal Punishment on the bare backside is one of them. During the mid 20th century, bare backside punishment is a well documented fact at various institutions throughout the British Commonwealth. I understand Danny's concerns and sympathise to a certain degree, but 21st century values are rather different from those of the 1950's!

Ian

Ian, thanks for your input but I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm looking at this from a 21stC viewpoint. I left school in the very early 50's and I can assure you that BB punishment was pretty well taboo at that time. There were probably a few Public Schools which still used it but they were fast becoming out of fashion even then. As there couldn't have been more than a 100 masters and headmasters who were caning then (55 years ago) there can be very few alive today. George says he's 91 so would have been around 30 then - very young to have had that responsibility. I therefore find it very difficult to think we have one of those actual masters here with us and much less difficulty in thinking we have someone who has been talking and thinking about this subject for so long that he has convinced himself that he was 'One of them'. In other words, wishful thinking.
What really swung it for me was when he said he gave a young junior school boy ten strokes! Absolutely unheard of in 1930 let alone 1960!
As I told him, I may be wrong - just as I may be wrong thinking I'm going to win the Lottery this week. I think the odds are about the same - even though I won't be buying a ticket!

I should have said there were probably no more than a hundred masters caning BB in 1952.