Hi!

I've read some forums which say that there are still some schools requiring boys being shirtless for P.E.Some of them don't allow underwear under gym shorts.
What is/was your P.E. kit at school?

Back in 70's in our school in Humberside we were never allowed underwear under our pe kit . if you got caught with your pants under your shorts , you got sent to changing room to remove your undepants , then when u came back to lesson , you got three with the plimsoll across the backside

if we played team games in the gym , one teah had to remove their shirts , so the teams were shirts v skins

I think in some schools they even had compulsary showers after PE. This would have been very embarassing for the shy boys, especially if they were gang showers. Did anyone here have this rule at their school?
At my school, which was a very conservative one, we only did PE in white t-shirt and shorts, shirtless would have been frowned upon.
We also did have showers at the gym in secondary but I don't remember anyone ever using them.

We were required to shower after PE, Rugby running, and any form of 'games' activity , whether during 'class' hours or extra curricula. Moreover, we had a swimming bath which was designed with showers and foot baths required in both directions ( in and out). All showers were communal. We had boarding and day pupils, but it was no place to be shy!

Anyone 'missing ' a shower was in grave danger of getting the slipper on the bare where you stood. therefore it was never advisable to dry off too quickly and completely. mind you you didn't want to be last either.......

The main showers ( for everything except the swimming bath) were by the main changing rooms. these opened up to the 'old' gym . this gym was long abandoned when I was at the school , with a new gym and attached sports hall at the other end of the so called 'new' cloisters ( which linked the old gym , new gym/sports hall , changing rooms and the 'main block'). If you were at all timid the absolutely WORST time to be in ths chaging rooms was afternoon 'recess' on Tuesdays. Why?

Well when I started at the school there were certain set tariff punishments. One that was rather out of line with 'natural justice' ( to my mind) was that if you skipped Saturday detention ( 3 hours) you were 'rewarded' with two strokes of the cane. Noe certainly for day boys, a three hour detention, plus getting to and from the school , was often seen as far worse than two strokes of the cane. Thus there were a lot of 'skippers'

On Tuesdays the list of names of those who had missed Saturday detention was posted, and they had to meet the Deputy Head in the gym at recess.They were 'lined up' outside and dealt with one at a time.the gym was used for convenience and it contained a old vaulting horse, over which you would be expected to bend.

Anyone in the changing rooms could see the queue, hear as each went in . the sound of the cane strokes were such that you thought they were being given in the same room , plus any accompanying sound effects from the victims.....

The numbers taking this penalty declined rapidly when I reached the upper fifth. That was the year our deputy head was taken ill and replaced by Miss F, who saw the problem and rectified it by the simple expedient of changing the tariff from TWO strokes to FOUR. numbers of 'volunteers' declined , because four was severe compared to two and also she caned much harder and more accurately than the old male deputy.

As to the underwear issue , we always removed it for games, PE or swimming. Obvious really if you are forced to shower......

As I say not really a school for shrinking violets

Prof N,

Were 4 strokes twice as severe is 2? I have heard various claims. Some said their bums went sort of numb after a stroke or three so that they hardly noticed the last strokes of a set. Others, some with great experience, claimed goodie goodies who had only suffered a stroke or two were in for a real shock if they were to receive a real caning. Was the experience different for different boys? Some certainly got very adept at taking 4 or 6 with apparent nonchalance.

Hi KK

You ask a question her on which I'm happy to give my views , but I'm sure Dr. Dominum has far more more experience and might be more appropriate to comment

As you may know I have posted elsewhere that during my school career I was caned twice , four strokes and six of the best respectively.I did once get a Saturday detention for laziness ( failing an 'individually set test score') from Miss F, and, as it was her , I did pluck up the nerve to ask her if she would cane me instead, I was told that whilst she accepted that my offence was pure laziness , so on those grounds she would have no objection, the school had a policy of no caning for 'academic' failure' so therefore she could not do it.

If of course I didn't turn up on Saturday then I would get cane, but she didn't think I was that 'sort of student' - whatever that might have meant!.However she let me do an essay instead of lines ( which used to derive me crackers)so we both compromised!

As to your direct question. I think there are a number of variables. Some caners are 'harder' than others. Miss F had a 'hard' reputation ; her predecessor was the opposite. Four was certainly enough for me on the first occasion, six of the best on the second was as bad pain as I could imagine.

I found the pain of the cane cumulative. Now as to 'numbing' I have again written that this effect I found when paddled, in that the last few 'licks' ( out of ten ) seemed to be somewhat numbed, . but the pain is qualitatively different. so I felt , rightly or wrongly that two strokes for a detention was a reasonable deal. Frankly, as i wasn't a 'regular' if I thought that it was actually probably pretty good! ( This took place before the change in tariff I mentioned).

Obviously tariffs vary from time to time, and four strokes were seen as normal in the 70's but I think if my memory is correct, Dr. Dominum has referred to then as severe in today's terms. so I would settle for 'quite severe'. Certainly I was relieved it was over. the final 'gating' stroke was really bad , but she told me that was just to make sure I didn't come back! However that was from a hard caner who was very accurate ( three stripes a inch or less apart and one 'gating' cut across them).Incidentally , she put the accuracy down to being an excellent squash player...just as some golfers put accuracy down to their game!

As to 'easy' caner , I had no personal experience, but it was noticeable that those who had been 'nonchalant' to canings of several strokes by some, were far less so even with a couple from the Deputy Head or the Head.

I;m sure Dr. Dominmum could answer more precisely, and it would be interesting to know if his boys have an unofficial classification of hard and easy caners, and what deal he would see appropriate for a three hour detention!Any views Doctor?

I've waffled . but possibly not fully answered what you wanted to know.

I think in some schools they even had compulsary showers after PE. This would have been very embarassing for the shy boys, especially if they were gang showers. Did anyone here have this rule at their school?

We still do. It's not particularly uncommon either - I'd say it's still the norm in most schools where sport is taken seriously.

Some of our new boys do find it difficult to get used to, but it is an expectation.

You ask a question her on which I'm happy to give my views , but I'm sure Dr. Dominum has far more more experience and might be more appropriate to comment

Boys genuinely express the view that the pain from a caning becomes much worse the more strokes you get - and it's a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one.

The sixth stroke of six of the best hurts far, far more than the first stroke, stroke for stroke. So getting six of the best isn't six times worse than getting one stroke - it's many many times worse.

My own experience, back in the days where dinosaurs roamed the earth, was somewhat similar.

It's something that is probably impossible to quantify - but even if each stroke of the cane was only 50% more painful than the stroke that came before it, stroke number 6 would be nearly 8 times as severe as stroke number 1, and overall, 6 strokes would equivalent in total pain to over 20 single stroke canings. On that scale, a 4 stroke caning would be more than 3 times more painful than a 2 stroke.

Most boys who I have discussed it with tend to believe that the pain doubles or triples with every stroke. If that's the case, 6 strokes would be 60 times worse than 1 alone, and 4 strokes would carry 5 times the pain of 2. Personally, I think that's probably in the ball park of being right, given what I recall of being caned (I would have taken 3 every day for a week to escape 6 once) and boys reactions. (This would mean the one time I got 8 of the best, was like 250 single strokes - probably more seeing there was nothing between my flesh and the cane - all I know is if I'd been offered the choice between a bullet in the brain, or a ninth stroke, I'd have taken the bullet).

Obviously tariffs vary from time to time, and four strokes were seen as normal in the 70's but I think if my memory is correct, Dr. Dominum has referred to then as severe in today's terms. so I would settle for 'quite severe'.

Yes, nowadays we (in my view rightly) regard four strokes as a severe caning. When I was a boy and when I began teaching it was an absolutely typical one - most canings were four or six. Less than four might be given as a serious warning, or to a younger boy, more than six was rare but within the bounds of possibility.

I;m sure Dr. Dominmum could answer more precisely, and it would be interesting to know if his boys have an unofficial classification of hard and easy caners, and what deal he would see appropriate for a three hour detention!Any views Doctor?

On the first point, the latest issues of the boys' own internal magazine (produced by the boys, and censored very lightly by the staff) has included discussion of the cane. As part of gathering material for their article, the writers asked some question on the schools internal discussion forums where boys could give their views. One of these discussions evolved into a 'rank the caners' forum.

Caners were assessed out of 10 on 3 criteria.

Fairness (F), Severity (S), and Distracibility (D). The first two are fairly self explanatory - Distractibility was defined as: "How easy is it to get them to decide not to do what you deserve." Basically, can you talk your way into a different punishment, or get away all together. Calls for a fourth criterium - Scariness - was vetoed on the grounds that there was already an S.

After their discussions, they decided that they'd be able to assess 10 caners satisfactorally - not all the staff who cane, but some do it so rarely they didn't think they could get numbers (there was a degree of bafflement as to why they couldn't get decent figures for the Sportsmaster. It appears to me that the boys have failed to become aware that our current Sportsmaster does not cane!)

Of the ten staff assessed, the highest score (28/30) was shared by myself and two other staff members. I scored F10, S10, D8. The Fifth Form Master scored F8, S10, D10, and the Second Form Mistress scored F9, S9, D10. The lowest score was 24/30 shared between two staff members - the Deputy Fourth Form Master (F7, S7, D10), and the Sixth Form Master (F9, S8, D7).

Interestingly, in view of some discussions here, the two female staff members on the list of 10, come in at third and fourth (Second Form Mistress is ranked third below the Fifth Form Master and myself with an identical total score because the boys decided that if there was a tie, there'd be a 'count back' based on how many tens you got) scoring 28 and 26 - providing a data point that the female of the species does know what she is doing in this area.

Prof.n, how did Miss F cane the boys, was it over gym shorts, trousers, underpants, or (shuddering) bare?
She obviously enjoyed the practice since she made them four instead of two, and carried them out herself.
Of course one could argue the opposite if she did it to make sure that at least some of the boys never returned for a repeat caning. In fact this is what actually happened in your account.
I think this would make a good thread, probably already has since I have only seen a few, how many teachers actually caned because they enjoyed it, or just to teach a lesson so there won't be a repeat?

Thanks Doctor Dominum for a very interesting and informative post.

I had never thought of geometric progression in terms of pain from caning strokes, but from my limited experience I think it is a really expressive notion. To me there is no numbing on caning , just the reverse. As to the sixth stoke from six of the best , well if properly done I would suggest it is pretty unforgetable.

For some reason the paddle does numb after a while , that's why in olden days paddlers had different techniques to ratchet up the effect from the pain. Luckily I escaped with ten 'plain vanilla' licks! , but there were , in those days things called 'bulls eyes' and two handed shots , which , well I'm glad she was well trained, and I'm thankful for small mercies.

I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for the difference?

The other interesting thing was how closely your boys rankings seemed to mirror those we had in the 70's. Ours admittedly only covered two elements not three, but the results were similar, as they seem to be with Jenny too.

Finally, one thing your school assessment confirms is never judge a rose by its colour. When I was first caned I thought to myself, well I know her very well and we get on, she hasn't really been what I would call angry, ( she could explode!), and she's even made an attempt to lighten the atmosphere, four won't be too bad.....Bad judgment! But next time , oh well six of the best is only two more than last time,( big error!), and I'm in the sixth form so I won't feel it as bad......Wow even worse call!

Yes Doc. have to agree its an excellent deterrent!

On the other topic PE you know to do PE or games and not shower ..well I wouldn't have wanted to teach the next class of boys engaging in that ! Even in a lab with the fans on at full! Its downright unhealthy!

Dr D,

Thanks for an interesting reply.

Presumably, you are not put out by being highly rated for fairness but what about severity and distractability?

Is there enough data to test for correlations? Does fairness correlate with distractability, for example?

It is interesting that scariness was equated with severity rather than inversely with fairness. Random / arbitary punishment seems not to be an issue.

DOC

Oh, we could have done with you at school sports days, mate!

Every year, the Natural History Society had an exhibition in the Biology Lab that parents, governors & pupils could look at & the Mathematical Society also had one, but can't remember where. Your survey results would have had everyone by-passing the cardboard models of dodecahedrons!! Plus a few parents asking for a demonstration, so they could vote!!!

On the subject of my one & only caning, I only remember a mild sting off the 3rd stroke & the 4th & final WAS painful-it stung overall for 10 mins afterwards. This was from a 6 ft 4, 16 stone ex-Tank Corps Major.

I still am angry about the fact that I was reported by a praefect on a written note & he didn't even the guts or courtesy to be present. I am also still angry I "coughed" it-had I denied it(on the bus home from school & I can assure you said praefect wouldn't have known which of the three of us were smoking-he was right up the front & never turned his head once!

Yes, that was the worst bit-he only reported me & not the other 2. Not that I'd have volunteered the other's names if asked, of course.

But, as they say in prison, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The best bit was, I went to the toilets to compose myself for 5 minutes before returning to class.

And what did I do to settle myself-yeh, lit up another fag! Talk about HMS Defiance!!


Steve

Doctor Dominum, in your post at 10:06 AM on October 16 2009 in this thread you made some very interesting observations about the relative pain involved in receiving different numbers of cane strokes. You concluded that the pain increased in geometric progression as the number of strokes increased, possibly even doubling or tripling with each additional stroke.

It is well known on this estimable Forum that I have never been caned. My interest can therefore only be a theoretical one, I have no practical comparison to draw on. I would be interested though to know if you think the timing of the strokes has any influence on this progressive build up of pain?

I have just timed your two excellent caning animated graphics posted at 9:06 AM on August 25 2009 in the 'WRITING CP POLICY USA SCHOOL HANDBOOK' thread to be found here. My system is heavily overloaded at this time of night, so the animations may not have run as fast as you intended, but I note that in the 'six of the best' animation the interval between the strokes was double that between the strokes in the 'three strokes - normal caning'. In the case of my timings, 10 seconds and 5 seconds respectively.

Nothing if not thorough I have tracked down and downloaded what I once saw described as one of the most realistic 'Adult' caning videos, purporting to show a caning by the South African police. In that the interval between the strokes was about 8 seconds, not dissimilar from your 'six of the best'. It certainly looked realistic.

My esteemed fellow contributor Jenny seems to me remarkably unimpressed by her school canings, which surprised me a little. If the timing of the strokes is relative to the build up of the pain, I wonder if her view of the proceedings might have been influenced by the fact that in the caning she described here she says that the strokes were at one or two second intervals. At least, that was for the first person caned, I assume the Headmistress did not vary the procedure greatly for the rest of the party.

I have to confess that I cannot see why the timing of the strokes would significantly affect the build up of pain, unless we postulate that the pain of each stroke builds over a period. A subsequent stroke then cuts off the buid up of pain for the previous stroke, but inherits and adds on to whatever pain has already built up from that previous stroke.

As I say, I have nothing practical to go on. I would be most interested in your thoughts, Doctor Dominum, and indeed the thoughts of anyone else with experience at either end of the cane.

Another_Lurker said:
My esteemed fellow contributor Jenny seems to me remarkably unimpressed by her school canings, which surprised me a little. If the timing of the strokes is relative to the build up of the pain, I wonder if her view of the proceedings might have been influenced by the fact that in the caning she described here she says that the strokes were at one or two second intervals. At least, that was for the first person caned, I assume the Headmistress did not vary the procedure greatly for the rest of the party.

As far as I remember, whenever I got the cane the strokes were at 1 - 2 second intervals. I didn't use a stopwatch to verify this though.

It's possible that leaving longer gaps between stroke would have made the process more painful but I don't really know.

As for my being unimpressed by it, I think you may have misunderstood me. The cane damn well hurt - well, it stung more than hurt if you can accept the two sensations are different. It was definitely something to be avoided but, if avoiding it meant wasting an evening or weekend writing lines or sitting in detention, the cane was the better option.

Very quick thought as I'm no expert.The local secondary modern school, near ours grand old pile caned 'ten to the dozen' compared to us . Nobody ever appeared very upset by it, more like the slipper in our place. Indeed in the street or in town it was a bit of a joke to many of them . they all said it stung 'a bit' for a few minutes but was 'over ' in seconds.We could never understand this.

Our school caned infrequently compared to them. But I don't know of anyone who took it 'lightly'. Certainly I was told on both occasions by the staff concerned , and I have no reason to disbelieve them, that I had 'taken it well' or equivalent.But each time I had been determined not to break in front of them , and found that hard. Certainly it wasn't nothing.

To compare Doctor Dominum's canings with ours , I would say his boys respond rather as we did , with the proviso that we were taught 'stiff upper lip ' was an essential part of manhood, so you hid any tears till you were alone.

Therefore there must be clearly a difference....nature of stroke, dimensions of cane, speed of delivery, the final flick of the wrist, ( my friend said that was essential if you wanted to leave an impression!)...goodness knows what.

Or else we were just a bunch of pansies, and they really were the bash street kids..........and given many included in the former category include future England rugby captains reduced to a heap .....I don't think that is the answer.

For the record I would say our six of the best were about ten second intervals, and the stroke was about the maximum anyone could reach without damaging themselves!The four i got , well three were quicker but the last , the horror was I was told again one of the 'best'.

Doctor, any ideas?

Hi Jenny. Another simultaneous post tonight at 01:25. Sooner or later we may even post simultaneously in the same thread!

You say:

As far as I remember, whenever I got the cane the strokes were at 1 - 2 second intervals. I didn't use a stopwatch to verify this though.

You didn't use a stopwatch! That was remarkably careless of you. Surely in those days every schoolgirl carried a stopwatch for timing cane strokes?

I hope you will forgive me for quoting your account. I have seen this question of timing of the strokes referred to somewhere, with I think, longer = more painful being the conclusion, but I can't think where. It may even have been here. I am sure there are other accounts here quoting approximate timings for school canings. Yours just happened to be fresh in my mind.

And you say:

As for my being unimpressed by it, I think you may have misunderstood me. The cane damn well hurt

Yes, sorry, that was a bit of literary licence on my part. But I did say elsewhere that I was surprised that both you and Ketta seemed to say that you'd rather have been caned than do lines, be gated etc. That indicated to me that you hadn't been particularly frightened of the cane, hence the 'unimpressed' remark.

Hi Another_Lurker

You said:
You didn't use a stopwatch! That was remarkably careless of you. Surely in those days every schoolgirl carried a stopwatch for timing cane strokes?

I had my stopwatch with me but, if I open my bag to get it out, the Headmistress might have seen the bottle of vodka and I thought I was in enough trouble already.

I hope you will forgive me for quoting your account.

Nothing to forgive.


Yes, sorry, that was a bit of literary licence on my part. But I did say elsewhere that I was surprised that both you and Ketta seemed to say that you'd rather have been caned than do lines, be gated etc. That indicated to me that you hadn't been particularly frightened of the cane, hence the 'unimpressed' remark.

We girls are tougher that you give us credit for. It's possible, even likely, that the canings we got were not as severe as they could have been. They definitely stung but we weren't left in agony for days. Prof.n mentioned that, at his school, many boys thought 2 strokes of the cane preferable to a Saturday detention. Detentions at my school were 30 minutes or 1 hour after school but it seems our canings weren't as severe as at Prof.n's school, so it was probably about the same equivalence. The fact is, the actual caning is over in seconds. The soreness lasts quite a while longer but isn't disabling. A friend told me that she got 300 lines when she was at school. She said they took her about 6 hours to do one Saturday. Her wrist was starting to ache well before she'd finished, built up as time went on and remained painful quite some time afterward. Overall, she probably suffered the same amount of pain as a couple of strokes of the cane but, not only was the pain prolonged, she lost half her weekend too.

Does that explain why Ketta and I (amongst a lot of others) would prefer the cane to lines etc?

Hi Willy,

Apologies I missed your post this morning.

I don't know what you've read elsewhere, but if you have seen my other posts you will be aware that this isn't an easy question .

A) Because I knew Miss F well 'out of school' as my girlfriend's mother , and also i played guitar in her Country rock band.She had taught me country guitar.

B) But for illness of our deputy head in our school she would have stayed as a deputy head at our sister school

C) I am still in contact as good friends today.

D) she did a lot for me both in and out of school,in developing me as a person and as a leader, and thus I owed her a lot

So it is difficult to be objective about her role as a teacher. This much I can tell you

She didn't enjoy caning, actually the reverse. She has told me , and I believe her, that she dislikes having to hurt anyone. Nevertheless it often works and can be preferable to many other forms of drawn out 'mental' punishment. As a PhD in adolescent psychology , she also believed that there was a sound theoretical basis for corporal punishment, and so it is a necessary evil. For example she was frank with me that despite the school putting me on a no cane list, she felt she could 'read me like a book' and I was the 'right' type of student to benefit from it , some were not , it depended on your psychological make up and other factors.

She was in charge of student progress and discipline by virtue of her position and she believed if any job is worth doing it is worth doing well.

Nevertheless, she found it was often an effective deterrent. There lies the rub. She believed that for a boy ( or girl) to return was a sign of failure , either the punishment wasn't the correct one for that student or there was some other problem.

She ran a consequence based system, so there was no point in trying to talk your way out anything, unless you really were innocent.

She caned over trousers, as normal in the school.She only used the gym if a number of boys had to be caned. This was because it was quicker and possibly safer with a horse to stretch over.The downside was the public nature of the venue, and she hated humiliation of any sort. She was a 'holy terror' on bullies for example. .

I believe she put the tariff up simply because so many boys were skipping the Saturday detention. Although , as I said, once she took over caning for this , even with two strokes the numbers went down. But there still were returners , hence the adjustment to four strokes.

Does that help?

prof.n, very interesting to read your posts. If you don't mind, can you say roughly how old this lady was when she caned you. Was she short/tall, slim,larger?

Hi 'Hooked on cp'


A few details to put things in context

The lady in question was in her mid thirties,( which was very young for a senior post in our school), about 5' 8" , slim to slightly medium build. her most outstanding feature were piercing blue eyes, and a magnificent head of red/auburn hair which when 'down' was both long ( well below shoulders), and thick. She maintained this 'mane' for 'stage' performances of the country Rock band , and , of course during school hours kept it 'up' off her shoulders , I believe the phrase is 'big hair ' in Texas.In school she normally wore trouser suits, which caused something of a stir in those days, particularly in our sister school which was uncompromisingly 'stuffy'. One fact which sticks in everyone's mind, when she caned she took off her jacket and kicked off her shoes- apparently you can't cane properly in heels!

Unlike many of the male caners was physically fit playing squash , judo and dodgeball, I was 'conscripted' to play in the latter as a blocker /anchor. She ran a local area mixed team with an expat American football coach . Believe me, that game is as vicious as its reputation!

She had obtained the position at this relatively young age .As I recall she had qualified Summa cum laude at Vassar in social science , then taken an MA followed by PhD in adolescent psychology. . This explains her abiding insistence in everything that only your best will do. not a popular maxim. With a teaching diploma , she went 'back home' in the South , and moved into the pubic ( state ) High Schools.

She taught and was promoted rapidly in both state and independent schools , and then, unexpectedly, following a messy divorce, she took a tough VP post in the Bronx ( amongst the 'projects') .

However she became unhappy following the effects of the draft. In particular the fact that the decision makers protected their own sons from service, whilst conscripting those without power or influence, made her incandescent, and she joined the induction center protests, alongside Alan Ginsberg and Doctor Spock! Truly an unholy alliance! Daresay the judo came in useful!


She then retreated to take furlough in the UK.

Of course, she returned in due course to her beloved 'Deep South'

'listen for the whistle of the Delta Queen , spicy gumbo, sugar cane,..........sitting in the evening sippin' hurricanes'. In the end the Mississippi and those other rebel rivers always call their own home!

With a teaching diploma , she went 'back home' in the South , and moved into the pubic ( state ) High Schools.

I've heard a few stories from the Deep South but I didn't think even they had schools like that.

Jenny

Well spotted ! As I have said over and over again I can't type for toffee!!! But I'm surprised that one has got passed Larry 1951...I thought he might have saved my embarrassment by correcting it !!!!

Mea culpa, no, mea maxima culpa.......!

I think many of the difficulties associated with boys being introduced to compulsory showers and communal living arise because it often happens around the time of puberty. Bodies are changing and boys are self conscious and at different stages of development. Teasing of late developers is a potential problem especially in an unsupervised school situation. Strict segregation by age can compound the problem as it may leave boys unaware of the changes ahead and the normal diversity of bodies.

Boys who have not had to share bedrooms or bathrooms with other male family members are disadvantaged when first confronted by communal living. I have heard it suggested the some mothers (in the absences of fathers?) set up their sons for later trauma by an excessive emphasis on modesty.

While most boys are adaptable creatures and soon get comfortable with locker and shower rooms a few don't. Activities that might otherwise be enjoyable can be a cruel torment for the excessively bashful because of the need to change clothes or shower. What can be done to help them?

Presumably, you are not put out by being highly rated for fairness but what about severity and distractability?

I think their figures are fair.

I am a severe caner. My 'doctrine' on this is that a caning has to hurt. You are punishing a boy through the infliction of pain, and if you're not willing to make it truly painful, you're better off not doing it. This is a punishment that should be genuinely feared and dreaded by the person facing it. Otherwise it's not going to work.

As for distractibility, I am reasonably 'distractible' but that's partly because I can afford to be. With my reputation, I can get away with letting boys off, or giving them alternative punishments without it harming my credibility. A teacher who is still developing their reputation is less free to do that,

Is there enough data to test for correlations? Does fairness correlate with distractability, for example?

The sample size is too small to get decent correlations, but there don't look to be strong ones.

It is interesting that scariness was equated with severity rather than inversely with fairness. Random / arbitary punishment seems not to be an issue.

I sincerely hope it isn't, and our appeals and other processes should guard against that.

It is well known on this estimable Forum that I have never been caned. My interest can therefore only be a theoretical one, I have no practical comparison to draw on. I would be interested though to know if you think the timing of the strokes has any influence on this progressive build up of pain?

Yes, I do.

I have just timed your two excellent caning animated graphics posted at 9:06 AM on August 25 2009 in the 'WRITING CP POLICY USA SCHOOL HANDBOOK' thread to be found here. My system is heavily overloaded at this time of night, so the animations may not have run as fast as you intended, but I note that in the 'six of the best' animation the interval between the strokes was double that between the strokes in the 'three strokes - normal caning'. In the case of my timings, 10 seconds and 5 seconds respectively.

Yes, one of the features of a 'best' caning when I do it is an increased pause between each stroke. And I do aim for about a ten second pause.

My esteemed fellow contributor Jenny seems to me remarkably unimpressed by her school canings, which surprised me a little. If the timing of the strokes is relative to the build up of the pain, I wonder if her view of the proceedings might have been influenced by the fact that in the caning she described here she says that the strokes were at one or two second intervals. At least, that was for the first person caned, I assume the Headmistress did not vary the procedure greatly for the rest of the party.

I have to confess that I cannot see why the timing of the strokes would significantly affect the build up of pain, unless we postulate that the pain of each stroke builds over a period. A subsequent stroke then cuts off the buid up of pain for the previous stroke, but inherits and adds on to whatever pain has already built up from that previous stroke.

The physiology of pain is a little outside of my area of expertise, but I do understand the basics of it, and I think I can explain it well enough for these purposes.

Pain is detected (that is transferred to the brain) by sensory receptors called nociceptors. When it comes to a caning, the important nociceptors are those referred to as the mechanical nociceptors (some of these are also thermal nociceptors, which is why the pain of a caning often involves a burning sensation) as part of it.

Not all nociceptors are identical. Some have different thresholds before they activate. Some activate faster than others. When a cane stroke lands, some will fire off instantly, some a second or two later. Some a few seconds after that. The pain of a stroke does build.

Nociceptors also need to 'recharge' after discharging - literally, these are electrical impulses like all nerve messages. So as well as a longer pause meaning more nociceptors have discharged, increasing the build up of pain, that pause also give the nociceptors that discharged early on in the process a few seconds to recharge so when the next stroke lands they go off again. Also, if a painful stimulus keeps occurring 'silent' nociceptors that don't normally go off and 'brought into service' as the body tries to work out what is going on (remember - from a biological perspective, pain is a warning system so the body can try and avoid injury - with a caning you are severely limited in what you are permitted to do to try and escape it, but it doesn't stop the body reacting). So as the caning continues, more and more nociceptors are available to respond.

But there's also the psychological factor to consider - part of the reason I take longer with six of the best is because I want the boy to have time to think about what he's done, and what he can do to avoid being in this situation in the future. Six of the best is close to a minute of extreme pain. That's a long time. A boy can make a lot of new decisions in that time.

I think many of the difficulties associated with boys being introduced to compulsory showers and communal living arise because it often happens around the time of puberty. Bodies are changing and boys are self conscious and at different stages of development. Teasing of late developers is a potential problem especially in an unsupervised school situation. Strict segregation by age can compound the problem as it may leave boys unaware of the changes ahead and the normal diversity of bodies.

Boys who have not had to share bedrooms or bathrooms with other male family members are disadvantaged when first confronted by communal living. I have heard it suggested the some mothers (in the absences of fathers?) set up their sons for later trauma by an excessive emphasis on modesty.

While most boys are adaptable creatures and soon get comfortable with locker and shower rooms a few don't. Activities that might otherwise be enjoyable can be a cruel torment for the excessively bashful because of the need to change clothes or shower. What can be done to help them?

Honestly, we do not find this to be a significant problem. Yes, some boys are shy when they first encounter the concept of the group shower, but they adapt quickly. I can't say it's universal - there may be exceptions - but in decades of being involved in running a school, I've never seen a boy who didn't adapt to this is a few weeks. Maybe it's because we simply don't give them a choice, or more importantly, there's no sign of any choice. If you gave them the impression there was some way they could avoid this situation, maybe they wouldn't adapt. But we don't give them that impression and they do.

Too many problems are caused in my view because 'modern' children believe everything is potentially negotiable. So many kids are now raised in an environment where if they don't want to eat something, they don't have to. If they don't want to do something, they don't have to. Even when parents genuinely try to enforce compliance with their rules, you still get kids with the attitude "You can't make me do it." When I was a child, I knew very well that my mother could make me do anything she wanted me to. So could my teachers. Maybe sometimes they gave me choices, maybe sometimes there was some leeway - but I never doubted for a moment that if there was a choice, if there was leeway, it was because they had decided to give that to me. It wasn't a right. It was a privilege.

Boys come to this school, they are told, this is the way it is. These are the rules, you will follow them. Some of them may be negotiable within a particular structure (our boarders, for example, are allowed a limited control over their diet) but only within that structure. When it comes to showers after PE, they are told they are taking them.

I think, if we ever had a boy who really seemed phobic about this and couldn't adapt, we'd look for a solution. But so many problems are created by people assuming there are going to be problems.

We don't have unsupervised situations in the showers - boys aren't watched every second but they certainly don't have enough expectation of privacy to make teasing a bullying a wise choice to make - any boy who winds up in front of me having teased another boy over something like this is going to pay a high enough price that it's very unlikely to be repeated.

Doctor Dominum, thank you for a very comprehensive and interesting response to my query regarding the influence of timing on the pain of cane strokes. I thought that the intervals incorporated into your two animated gifs were probably not accidental!

Doctor Dominum, I find your posts very detailed and comprehensive, and they certainly say a lot about the psychology of boys and their behaviour, from someone who works with them.
However, since I, and maybe other new acquaintances to this interesting forum, have not followed you from the beginning, or read all your posts, could you please be so gentle as to answer a few simple questions, which will not take more than one paragraph or two, so as to acquaint us more with your school?
Firstly, is it a boys only or a mixed school?
Are the canings carried out just by the headmaster or any other personnel appointed by him, or are teachers also allowed to cane or give some other form of punishments?
What ages are the boys at the school, and how many pupils are there in it?
Are there any female teachers, and if so are they allowed to cane or be present when a boy is being caned?
Are the canings carried out on trousers or pants down?
About your last post, mentioning that boys have to be monitored and watched while showering, is this ever done by female personnel like teachers or maybe the matron? I have seen some posts on other forums where due to a lack of male teachers available the boys sometimes had to be watched over by female teachers while showering or in the changing room.
I look forward to your answers at your convenience. Thank you.

Doctor Dominum, I find your posts very detailed and comprehensive, and they certainly say a lot about the psychology of boys and their behaviour, from someone who works with them.
However, since I, and maybe other new acquaintances to this interesting forum, have not followed you from the beginning, or read all your posts, could you please be so gentle as to answer a few simple questions, which will not take more than one paragraph or two, so as to acquaint us more with your school?

That's a perfectly reasonable request. It would hardly be reasonable to expect people to have read every message ever posted on this forum.

Firstly, is it a boys only or a mixed school?

A boys school.

Are the canings carried out just by the headmaster or any other personnel appointed by him, or are teachers also allowed to cane or give some other form of punishments?

The Headmaster actually doesn't cane. I am the Deputy Headmaster and I have primary responsibility for the discipline of the school. I use the cane and there are a number of other senior staff who are also authorised to do so.

What ages are the boys at the school, and how many pupils are there in it?

Secondary level, 12-17, roughly (there is a primary section, as well, but that's virtually a separate school). We have somewhere over 1000 students at secondary level - I am not too precise on that as it's information that could make it fairly easy to identify the school.

Are there any female teachers, and if so are they allowed to cane or be present when a boy is being caned?

There are a fair number of female teachers, and there a few of them who are authorised to cane.

Are the canings carried out on trousers or pants down?

Over trousers - across a boy's normal clothing. Decades ago, we occasionally caned on the bare bottom, but that was a long time ago now.

About your last post, mentioning that boys have to be monitored and watched while showering, is this ever done by female personnel like teachers or maybe the matron? I have seen some posts on other forums where due to a lack of male teachers available the boys sometimes had to be watched over by female teachers while showering or in the changing room.

The school's Matron (or another member of the nursing staff) does sometimes monitor boys showering in the boarding house. In the school as a whole, in any situation where we anticipate it is likely that boys will have to be supervised while naked, we will endeavour to have a male member of staff available to do that (and normally that would not be difficult) but a female member of staff may supervise students if they are of the opinion such supervision is needed, and if getting a male staff member to do it is for some reason, not practical. If boys are only partially changing (down to underwear for example) we don't generally worry.

Thank you Doctor Dominum for your clear amswers.
While on this subject, are teachers allowed to give minor punishments for minor misbehaviours which do not merit a caning? Like in this instance of a teacher overseeing boys in the changing room or showers? I have seen teachers smacking boys on their legs and bottoms or pulling their ears where caning was not allowed.
So would a boy who was misbehaving in a shower be called out by the teacher, whether male or female, and be smacked on his bare bottom, or maybe just pulling his ears?

Been away again and there is just so much to catch up on . I don't know where to start. Purely on the subject of this thread, yes we did have to do PE in just shorts and no underpants, and therefore a slippering was very painful.

I have been to Scotland to meet up with up with my schoolteacher friend from Aberdeen and also to see a cousin.

The lady from Aberdeen is a much more different character than I had thought from her ramblings on the internet, in a good way. I thought she was just interested in showbiz and TV programmes but she is a very bright and perky young lady ( is 40 young! it is to me ). And yes I did mention the subject of this forum to her.

She said that she was given the tag, or tawse , numerous times at school, mainly at junior school but she said she deserved it and wished she could use in today on some of her charges.

I did not get to visit the many hills around Aberdeen as in thanks for her hospitality I helped her move furniture around the flats she lets out. We did have a nice run down the beach though.

Just for the benefit of A_L, I went to a pub in the city centre last night and there were a group of girls at the next table. One of them kept on getting up and brushing her buttocks against my shoulder, quite enjoyable. She was from Bulwell or Bu'ell as they pronounce it, and I heard her saying that her bedroom is downstairs as her dad doesn't like her falling over as she tries to climb the stairs when she is drunk. Such is today's society.

I will try to catch up and comment on other threads shortly.

Thank you Doctor Dominum for your clear amswers.
While on this subject, are teachers allowed to give minor punishments for minor misbehaviours which do not merit a caning? Like in this instance of a teacher overseeing boys in the changing room or showers? I have seen teachers smacking boys on their legs and bottoms or pulling their ears where caning was not allowed.
So would a boy who was misbehaving in a shower be called out by the teacher, whether male or female, and be smacked on his bare bottom, or maybe just pulling his ears?

Certain staff working with junior boys (Form I and II) are authorised to administer mild corporal punishment in the form of a smack or two to the bottom by way of instant correction, or a more formalised spanking. (This is also permitted in the primary section of the school, but as I've mentioned previously, I have little connection with that). It's a recent development to allow this in the senior school (well, in a sense it's a restoration of old practice) and I still consider it to be fairly experimental.

Such punishment, by policy, is to be administered over a boy's normal clothing - which is defined as whatever he could be reasonably expected to be wearing at the time such punishment is administered. Technically this probably means that if a teacher felt instant correction was needed in the showers, they could smack a boy on the bare bottom. But that is definitely a technicality. If a teacher did that, I would expect them to be able to provide an extremely comprehensive and convincing explanation as to why instant correction was needed in that case. Just as I would if a teacher restrained a naked child. Are there situations where they could do so? Maybe in an extreme case where a boy was out of control and at risk of harming himself or another - but that's the type of standard that would need to be met. And I can't see it being met.

Matron is somewhat a different case. I have known her to deliver a smack to a boarder in the showers, but her relationship with the boarders is different than a teachers. And even she's done it rarely.

I wouldn't do it. And if I wouldn't do it, I'm hard pressed to see any situation where it would be appropriate for any other teacher to do it.

A boy who is misbehaving in the showers would be told to stop or risk punishment. If he didn't comply, I would expect him to be given some normal punishment. This might include corporal punishment, but it would take place after he'd left the shower and was dressed.

As for ear pulling - I notice you've asked about that elsewhere. I'll answer it there. I think it's best to try and keep issues in roughly the right threads.

Hi Declan. Good to see you back and I'm pleased your Scottish trip was a success. I need to get up there myself. Far too long an absence I'm afraid! You've certainly got some catching up to do. Activity in this estimable Forum has been quite frenetic recently!

You say of your Aberdeen friend:

is 40 young! it is to me

Scarcely out of primary school to me!

As regards the young lady in the pub, all is explained by the fact that she came from Bulwell. A friend once asked me for directions to an address there. I gave them, saying be careful, that's bandit country. He doesn't approve of my sense of humour, and consequently gave me a rather old fashioned look. Not so the next time I saw him, his first words were 'yes, I see what you mean'!

And the on-topic bit. For the record, at the boys only secondary school I attended from 1954 to 1960 the rule was PT shorts only for PT. I don't think this was unusual at the time. Age related translation: PT is what schoolchildren did for exercise before PE was invented. Pretty much the same thing, but if PTIs (PT instructors) accidently killed or seriously injured the odd incompetent nobody asked too many questions. Human rights hadn't been invented either!

A.Lurker, you are right on both points. There were certainly no human rights, both at home and at school, as far as children were concerned when I was in primay school. You could be beaten to an inch of your life without it being illegal at the whim of your parents or teachers. As long as it didn't involve murder it was perfectly legal, or at least the authorities turned a blind eye.
I think that when the Human Rights Convention was drawn it didn't involve children because they were still considered as the property of parents, or teachers while at school. I could be wrong on this, but there was certainly nothing to show it if it was otherwise. In fact the Children's Rights Convention came much later and is fairly recent.
On your other point of PT, I think that that was we called it when I was at school if I remember well. I think it stood for Physical Training.
Another anomaly or difference I remember is that at our Boys school in secondary we used to call our different lessons as Periods while at the Girls they called them Lessons, which is understandable.

I have been away for a few days and I have only just caught up with some interesting comments in this thread. The topic probably deserves a new thread of its own, but here is a brief response for the time being.

Dr Dominum wrote:
Boys genuinely express the view that the pain from a caning becomes much worse the more strokes you get - and it's a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one.

The sixth stroke of six of the best hurts far, far more than the first stroke, stroke for stroke. So getting six of the best isn't six times worse than getting one stroke - it's many many times worse.

In general, I agree with your analysis. However, with caning, I believe that pain tolerance is also an important factor. A well delivered cane stroke will exceed anybody's pain threshold, but individuals have different levels of pain tolerance.

The classic test of pain tolerance (which is easy to try at home) is to put your hand into a bucket of ice. Although you might expect your hand to go numb, the pain does not decline, it continues to build until a point where you have to take your hand out of the ice. Most people can manage to immerse their hand for a minute, few can manage two minutes and hardly any can tolerate the pain for longer.

With longer canings, it is the duration of the intense pain that makes it more difficult to bear. A cane stroke causes pain that builds over time, reaching a peak after five to seven seconds. This maximum pain continues steadily for a period depending on the force of the stroke, but typically a further twenty to sixty seconds before there is any noticeable easing. A reduced, but still significant, intensity of pain may last for several minutes.

If the second stroke is applied after the plateau has been reached, not only is a new episode of increasing pain started, but the relief from the pain of the first stroke no longer occurs. The result is that the strokes do not merge, each one is felt separately and the duration of maximum pain is prolonged as each new stroke is applied.

It doesn't need much arithmetic to see that six strokes can take the duration of peak pain to around two minutes with significant pain continuing for rather longer.

Hi Another-Lurker.Thank you for your answering.

And were you allowed to wear shorts only when P.T. lessons were held outside?Even in winter?

Hi Willy. You say:

A.Lurker, you are right on both points. There were certainly no human rights, both at home and at school, as far as children were concerned when I was in primay school. You could be beaten to an inch of your life without it being illegal at the whim of your parents or teachers. As long as it didn't involve murder it was perfectly legal, or at least the authorities turned a blind eye.

Yes, things were certainly different then!

Hi Jim84. You ask:

And were you allowed to wear shorts only when P.T. lessons were held outside?Even in winter?

PT lessons at my secondary school were never held outside. The sadists who conducted them liked to make full use of the fixed and moveable gym apparatus to maximise suffering, and that apparatus wouldn't have been available outside.

At my junior school (mixed) boys also did PT in shorts. As PT there was rather more rudimentary than at secondary school, just arm swinging, stretching etc., with no gym apparatus involved, it was sometimes done outside, but only in fine weather, of which we had a great deal more in those days than we do now!

Surprised that there has not been mention of a well known educational establishment that used the semi-naked principle as a matter of course.

Back in the days when Prince Charles was to be introduced to his fathers old Public School, Gordonstoun in Scotland, there was a lot of information in the press about the school and it's method's. At the time this school had the ethos of an outward bound centre, but with caning on its sanctions list. I had thought that Fettes was the only Scottish school to use the cane, but press reports indicated otherwise at the time. PC of course was not unused to the cane, we knew all about his prep school at Ascot.

What drew the attention in the press at the time was regime of early morning runs which were always carried out with boys only wearing shorts and pumps. The school were adamant that even in the depths of a Highlands winter the two mile cross country run by boys naked above the waist was "good for them". The school also said that there were never any exceptions other than genuine illness! The run was apparently accompanied by a "cold water shower", to reduce the chances of hotaches no doubt.

A couple of years later PC's sister, P/Anne also attended Gordonstoun, this time the press reported the school stating that girls would also be required to do the before breakfast run, but would be allowed the use of a full track suit and the run would terminate in a "warm water shower". I suppose they thought the poor things couldn't cope with the boy's regime. (Sorry Jenny!)

On a similar theme I also remember in the early seventies a Sunday newspaper supplement with a story about a prep school that insisted that the boys have swimming lessons totally naked. The reason for the story was the unusual nature of the regime and not any suggestion of abuse (as you would expect given the time). What drew my attention was the revelation that the swimming instructors were two young women. Its a long time ago so I cannot remember what the justification was, my attention was grabbed by the basic story in that it involved the requirement of boys to be naked in front of females.

Sunday supplements were often used for these types of stories. Some years earlier the Court Lees Approved school affair was aired in the Sunday Times supplement by publication of colour photo's of heavily bruised bottoms after being caned. That story of course did raise eyebrows and ended in an official enquiry which eventually led to a change in policy nationally in 1969.

Oliver S

Are there any links which show that boys swam nude in any English schools, especially with female instructors?
The only ones I know of, and which are well documented, are the famous Summerhill school and Manchester Grammar. But one was on a purely voluntary level and the other was with male teachers only though required nude.
The only country I know of this practice was America in many, if not most, YMCA's where boys up to age ten or so took beginner's swimming lessons in the nude with female instructors. It was official policy in most YMCA's that males of all ages were required to use the pool only in the nude. Of course with adult males it was always males only and never women present. So I wouldn't be surprised if this was also the case in some schools there with boys under ten or eleven having female instructors. But as I said, I never heard about it in England, though it could be possible.
Oliver, how old would the boys you mentioned be at that school where this used to take place?

Willy
I have no links that would point you to this item. Like many I have a long memory and some things from press reports stick in the mind. I couldn't even tell you which Sunday paper it was in. I was serving in the forces at the time so had little ability to achive or store information.

As for ages involved, this was a normal prep school so up to age 13 before common entrance to Public School was normal.

I mentioned it as an indicator of how times change. My memory tells me that there were no suggestions of abuse or that it was inappropriate, just unusual.

Oliver S

We swam naked at school. By the time I started teaching, it wasn't happening here and I don't know if it ever did, but it continued at the school I attended as a boy until about 1970 and only ended then because of the beginnings of co-education.

Honestly, when I was a boy nobody thought anything of little boys being naked. Once you hit puberty, you were expected to wear clothing at all times, but until then, you swam naked a lot of the time, and in a lady happened to see you without clothing it wasn't a big deal. They were an adult, you were a child - nobody cared if children were naked (boy children anyway).

Before I went to boarding school I lived very near one of Melbourne's beaches. Boys swam nude in the creeks and on the beach. You had to wear a costume if you used the sea-baths, but we didn't use those very often.

In a true example of sexism, girls were expected to be clothed (although some, including my sister, used to try and get away with it in particularly isolated spots).

Oliver_S

A couple of years later PC's sister, P/Anne also attended Gordonstoun, this time the press reported the school stating that girls would also be required to do the before breakfast run, but would be allowed the use of a full track suit and the run would terminate in a "warm water shower". I suppose they thought the poor things couldn't cope with the boy's regime. (Sorry Jenny!)

No need for you to apologize. I think you're absolutely correct in your inference and I hope you can see why I find giving special consideration to my sex so offensive.

On a similar theme I also remember in the early seventies a Sunday newspaper supplement with a story about a prep school that insisted that the boys have swimming lessons totally naked. The reason for the story was the unusual nature of the regime and not any suggestion of abuse (as you would expect given the time). What drew my attention was the revelation that the swimming instructors were two young women. Its a long time ago so I cannot remember what the justification was, my attention was grabbed by the basic story in that it involved the requirement of boys to be naked in front of females.

What a dreadful disappointment! I had high hopes of Oliver_S and he turns out to be Eric returning under yet another name. I'll have to hunt down that picture again!

No need for you to apologize. I think you're absolutely correct in your inference and I hope you can see why I find giving special consideration to my sex so offensive.

But you don't find it offensive to advocate the abolition of disciplinary policies in schools that overwhelmingly work for boys while retaining disciplinary policies in schools that overwhelmingly work for girls?

Tell me - how is that not giving special consideration to girls? How is that not treating their needs are more important than those of boys?

Another Lurker
I guess we might not hear from poor old Oliver again - shame that. I enjoyed his anecdotes.
Zeno

Another Lurker
Whatever do you mean? Oliver was on subject in this thread about unusual customs in PE, and his item was certainly unusual and I do not discount that it ever happened in some unique school somewhere.
As I said in my post it was common practice in America, so could it never, ever have happened in Britain at least in one school?

Hi Zeno. You say:

I guess we might not hear from poor old Oliver again - shame that. I enjoyed his anecdotes.

I do hope not, I enjoy his anecdotes too, and I'm sure that like you he spotted the smiley at the end of my post!

Hi Willy. You say:

Whatever do you mean? Oliver was on subject in this thread about unusual customs in PE, and his item was certainly unusual and I do not discount that it ever happened in some unique school somewhere.

What do I mean? It was a private joke really, though I wonder from his post above if Zeno remembers what inspired my remark? I had a lengthy spat with a contributor who posted under many names, the two most common being Eric and Observer. We got off on the wrong foot when in his first post he put some ridiculous material in one of my threads (here it is). Eric constantly posted ludicrous things he'd supposedly read or seen on the web but never once provided a link or any supporting data. Eric was in the wrong place because his thing wasn't really CP, school or otherwise, it was CFNM (if you don't know what that is, look it up).

We had the post linked above, we had boys being caned naked in front of female witnesses in the judicial systems of American! States, we had all sorts of things, but most of all we had boys swimming naked supervised by females, then finally a school where they had mixed swimming lessons with the boys swimming naked and the girls in costumes, at which point I did a quick Google (don't filter my search results) and posted a link to a picture on a CFNM site to show where he'd got that from. And no, Forum Management, I shan't do it again, and thanks once more for removing the post when requested. I'm happy to say Eric seemed to get the message though!

You also say:

As I said in my post it was common practice in America, so could it never, ever have happened in Britain at least in one school?

There certainly were schools in the UK where boys swam naked. There may even have been the odd case where with very young boys they were occasionally supervised by a female or females in an emergency, but I don't believe that it was ever normal. I am sure Oliver_S believes he read the newspaper report he cites, but I wonder if it said exactly what he thinks it said, unless the boys were very young and it was some sort of exceptional circumstance. Although you do say your US YMCA reference was to young boys I'm still surprised - in general the US is a much more prudish society than the UK.

Doctor Dominum:

But you don't find it offensive to advocate the abolition of disciplinary policies in schools that overwhelmingly work for boys while retaining disciplinary policies in schools that overwhelmingly work for girls?

I don't, I advocate equal treatment. If offence X is is to be punished by method Y, then that punishment should be administered regardless of the sex of the offender.

Tell me - how is that not giving special consideration to girls? How is that not treating their needs are more important than those of boys?

You claim that, if CP were removed, more boys would be suspended or expelled. If girls are exempt from the CP, in a case where a boy and a girl commit identical offences, caning the boy and expelling the girl would not be putting her needs above his - quite the reverse in fact. It would be best to cane both but, if you're not prepared to cane the girl, they should both be expelled.

I attended an Australian prep school from age 10-13, 1985-1988. While I never had nude swimming lessons, and never swam nude with a female teacher present, if somebody of similar age and similar school experience told me it had happened, I'd see no reason to doubt them based on what did happen at my school.

When I was ten, just after I'd started at the school, we had a medical check up, and we were required to strip completely and queue up. These queues were supervised by our class teachers, and a couple of these were women. Class teachers also sometimes supervised us while we were changing for sport or PE and while this normally didn't involve stripping below your underpants, I can recall occasions when there was a female teacher in the room and naked boys there. Besides the medical checkup, the only time I can recall it happening to me was on school camp when a lady teacher walked into our cabin while I was getting changed and happened to be completely undressed at the time. I was 11 then and while I remember it meaning it made some impression on me, I don't really recall being that worried or surprised.

At 13, that same teacher did spank me on my bare backside. That's a fact. That was, I believe, very unusual, but I deserved it and I don't think anybody would have read anything inappropriate into it at the time. Not with a boy that age and a mature woman - who was a mother.

Even at the senior school, 14 to 17, I can recall stripping down to my underwear while changing for a school play with mothers who were doing makeup in the room and our female drama teacher there as well. At that stage, I think complete nudity would have been seen as very odd, but up to that point was nothing, and with younger boys even going further was nothing.

The prep school was very near the beach and in summer, we used to get taken down there on really hot days to swim sometimes. By my period at the school, you wore your swimmers (school speedoes, part of the PE unifom) or your underpants if you didn't have your swimmers there that day, but there is at least one reference in the school's published history to some boys from an earlier period swimming naked on such a trip and that was a public beach (and even though we didn't swim naked, we still changed on the beach behind whatever shelter friends could provide with a towel).

A highlight for the Form II/Year 8 school camp (when we were 13) was being able to skinny dip in a creek need the camp site. This was an activity boys looked forward to. They did keep female teachers away from that one when I went that year, and I would assume that was normal practice, and that creek was pretty sheltered in an area without all that many people around to start with. But I would guess that probably doesn't happen anymore which is a shame in my view.

I assure forum members that I am not trying to float total fantasies. In the last forty years there have been many items and in the press and tv that have caught my attention, but at the time I wasn't in the business of retaining hard copy. It is all in the memory.

I just hope that someone somewhere can also remember some of these memories. In more recent times, many of them have been substantiated by CF on his excellent site. Others have been talked about on this forum, though I cannot claim to have read all posts.

So while I am at it, does anyone remember an incident in Leicester, probably 1978, where a group of sixth formers were caught drinking? The resulting punishments are very muchy OT for this forum at the moment. The boys were caned, the girls were not, despite parity of offending. My memory tells me that the school was quoted as saying that the girls had expressed a wish to be caned like their colleagues, but a spokeswoman for the LEA said their request had been declined. There was an inference in the report that the girls had shown constructive support as the boys received their caninings in the assembly hall. This just hints that the girls may have been present, but I very much doubt this was the case, just some hack putting his own slant on things.

Now before Eric gets involved, this was a small item printed in the Sunday Mirror in June of 78.

Oliver S

Oliver,

I know of the incident although through a third , or more, hand report. You must be aware that certain schools in the Midlands were quite touchy about this issue , and I know of a number of cases that caused some consternation, not just for inequality either. some of the kids in this area were , depending on your viewpoint either extremely brave or foolhardy as whistle blowers.

Later , of course we found out the authorities had been looking once again through kaleidoscopes not their telescopes, or what would have been even better high powered microscopes.

Oliver_s:

So while I am at it, does anyone remember an incident in Leicester, probably 1978, where a group of sixth formers were caught drinking? The resulting punishments are very muchy OT for this forum at the moment. The boys were caned, the girls were not, despite parity of offending. My memory tells me that the school was quoted as saying that the girls had expressed a wish to be caned like their colleagues, but a spokeswoman for the LEA said their request had been declined. There was an inference in the report that the girls had shown constructive support as the boys received their caninings in the assembly hall. This just hints that the girls may have been present, but I very much doubt this was the case, just some hack putting his own slant on things.

So either the girls were let off (clearly unfair) or expelled/suspended (again clearly unfair) for exactly the same offence! Presuming the former occurred (probably the more likely) if the boys couldn't have been, or refused to be, caned, would they have been treated like the girls and let off or would they have been expelled/suspended: thus proving boys are more badly behaved than girls?

Incidentally, if I had been one of those girls, there would have been a riot when they refused to cane us too.

"Incidentally, if I had been one of those girls, there would have been a riot when they refused to cane us too. "

And if I was one of those boys I would have rioted too and refused to be caned.
Actually I find it strange that the girls, or any girl, would ask to be caned. The only explanation can be that the girls wanted to support the boys by creating a controversy. I think it unlikely that it was expulsion for the girls instead of a caning, otherwise it would have been an expulsion for the boys too. So did they got off scott free or did they get an alternative punishment?
However, I did read on other forums, albeit in America, where boys were paddled or spanked in a most humiliating way in front of their mixed class, sometimes even pants down, while the girls were immune from any physical punishment. Some girls wrote that they really enjoyed this. So Jenny is a really brave woman to want equal punishment.
Incidentally there was a similar case which was in the papers together with photographs of girls in a British school rioting all over the school and outside over something and were all due for a caning which raised a huge controversy at the time. I think it is found in the Corpun site.

"What drew the attention in the press at the time was regime of early morning runs which were always carried out with boys only wearing shorts and pumps. The school were adamant that even in the depths of a Highlands winter the two mile cross country run by boys naked above the waist was "good for them". The school also said that there were never any exceptions other than genuine illness! The run was apparently accompanied by a "cold water shower", to reduce the chances of hotaches no doubt. "

Was it common at schools in England and Scotland back then?

Hi Willy




I didn't say what the rioters would be demanding.

Actually I find it strange that the girls, or any girl, would ask to be caned. The only explanation can be that the girls wanted to support the boys by creating a controversy.

It's not a matter of wanting to be caned, it's a matter of wanting fair play. By demanding equal treatment, those girls were highlighting the discriminatory practices at that school. Caning those boys was clearly unnecessary brutality - if were just a punishment the girls would have been caned too.

I think it unlikely that it was expulsion for the girls instead of a caning, otherwise it would have been an expulsion for the boys too. So did they got off scott free or did they get an alternative punishment?

They almost certainly got off scot free. They should had gone out for another drink - without the boys of course - and invited the local press to watch them celebrate being let off.

So Jenny is a really brave woman to want equal punishment.

Thank you for the compliment but I don't consider it bravery - it's just standing up for what's right.

Hi Willy. You say:

However, I did read on other forums, albeit in America, where boys were paddled or spanked in a most humiliating way in front of their mixed class, sometimes even pants down, while the girls were immune from any physical punishment. Some girls wrote that they really enjoyed this.

Yes, cfnm obsessed Eric, whom I've mentioned above, frequently wrote about things like that happening in the US, but as usual he never produced any links so that we could judge the authenticity of the reports for ourselves. Can you?

You also say:

Incidentally there was a similar case which was in the papers together with photographs of girls in a British school rioting all over the school and outside over something and were all due for a caning which raised a huge controversy at the time. I think it is found in the Corpun site.

Are you thinking of this:

• Heaton Riots

The so called Heaton Riots have been kicked to death in this estimable Forum before. The girls weren't all due to be caned. The Headmaster had simply announced that in future they would be corporeally punished like the boys when appropriate. Despite Jenny's admirable belief in equality of corporal punishment, not all (I was tempted to say very few ) girls agree with her, then or now. The Heaton School didn't even use the cane. It was in that part of the North East which used the tawse (I think prof.n has recently commented on this). However the English hacks simply assumed all school cp involved the cane and reported accordingly. If you read all the material in the link to the excellent Corpun.com site above you'll see that this is corrected in some reports.

Or are you thinking of this:

• 1972 London Schoolkids Riots One
• 1972 London Schoolkids Riots Two

Here none of the children were specifically threatened with anything. Boys at a boy's school held a protest against school dinners and corporal punishment, and some days later a further protest was held which children from other schools, including girls' schools joined.

There is quite a nice photograph supposedly taken at the latter protest showing mini-skirted schoolgirls holding up a banner saying 'No to the cane' (again not friends of Jenny's ). I have a copy, but I can't currently find it on the web. I've seen suggestions that in any case it is a fake. I'll have another look on the web, and then maybe post it if nobody else puts it up in the meantime.

Jenny,

I think you are right here. There was a lot of activity about gratuitous punishment in that area at that time ( I'm picking my words carefully)A few years later and I doubt the boys would have cooperated , there were some well known stand offs on issues of 'governance ' around then.

I guess this is it Another Lurker? Hope so

http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss91/profn/img058_edited.jpg>

Well done prof.n! That is indeed the one! Sorry you had to take time and effort to post it. I'm afraid I find the Photobucket interface only slightly less clunky and annoying than the Friends Reunited interface, and thus avoid using it if possible. My copy is rather sharper, but sadly has a Getty Images watermark, though this doesn't detract from the picture.

I can't recall now where I found someone claiming that it was faked by a newspaper to go with the 1972 demonstrations story. Wherever it was it was the same place I got the picture, which as noted I can't find either. The only thing I am certain of is that it wasn't Getty Images!

If the picture is real, clearly the young ladies clustering round the banner were not quite as liberated as Jenny, despite the length of their skirts! Or are mini-skirts a symbol of patriarchal male domination - I can never remember which it is! I'm sure Jenny will tell me though! J

Seriously, I suspect that, real or not, they are sending the message most schoolgirls would want to send, then and now. Of course, punishments should be punishments, not governed by whether the recipient objects to them, so perhaps the picture is actually a vindication of Jenny's claim that if the cane is used at all it should be used for girls as well as boys. But if girls do look on corporal punishment as objectionable, wouldn't that mean it would be worse for them and thus unfair? Questions, questions! Oh for those happy days of yesteryear when one could spend one's time here discussing bottle green gym knickers and skirts being raised for punishment! I'd better put another just to emphasise that I am joking!

Absolutely no intention to trump your ace prof.n, but I've uploaded my version of the picture here.

The only reason is because on mine I've noticed that you can see quite clearly that the second 'schoolgirl' from the right is smoking a cigarette - in school uniform and in public too! Six of the best I think, to say nothing of being absent from school without due cause!

The photo of the demonstrating schoolgirls is a real gem. Just look at how short those skirts are, just as they wore them at my school in 1972.

I'm sure girls would not be allowed to wear such skirts today, though I suppose they would not be in fashion.

Absolutely no intention to trump your ace prof.n, but I've uploaded my version of the picture here.

The only reason is because on mine I've noticed that you can see quite clearly that the second 'schoolgirl' from the right is smoking a cigarette - in school uniform and in public too! Six of the best I think, to say nothing of being absent from school without due cause!


I wonder if the girl second left is concealing the supplies (check out the socks)


Oh for those happy days of yesteryear when one could spend one's time here discussing bottle green gym knickers and skirts being raised for punishment! I'd better put another just to emphasise that I am joking!

You know such discussion were not good for your blood pressure

Ketta

Hi Another_Lurker

The only reason is because on mine I've noticed that you can see quite clearly that the second 'schoolgirl' from the right is smoking a cigarette - in school uniform and in public too! Six of the best I think, to say nothing of being absent from school without due cause!

What's the point? According to some, such punishment would be ineffective. What she needs is a "good telling off".

What do other women here think? Would a "good telling off" be more likely than "six of the best" to deter her from repeating the offence?

Just goes to show folks, when you are sure you have seen, heard or read something from the past, but cannot substantiate it, someone else can!

I too had seen the photograph in question previously and had seen the accusations that it was a fake. Where that came from was some "Eric" claiming that it was related to caning at a girls school, which it clearly wasn't. It was simply girls supporting a no cane stance taken by boys. Nice peek into 1972 though!

Oliver S

Hi Declan. You say:

The photo of the demonstrating schoolgirls is a real gem. Just look at how short those skirts are, just as they wore them at my school in 1972.

You were a very lucky lad to be at school in those days. I wonder you got any work done at all! I think this was the era when JJ was conducting his slippering campaign - I really can't imagine why he might have needed the technique he mentioned to get the skirt a bit higher when the young lady was bent over. Sadly he never got round to telling us what it was! I'm afraid when I was at school things were very different.

You also say:

I'm sure girls would not be allowed to wear such skirts today, though I suppose they would not be in fashion.

I travel regularly through a certain town (I won't say where, because getting through it on market day is bad enough already, without a huge infux of visitors from this estimable Forum ) where the standard is not far off! I understand the Head of the school concerned has repeated purges, but the skirts (or rather kilts) creep back up. For an old man like me to whom a pretty 17 year old in a short kilt is a bit like a magnificent peak that you can admire from afar but don't have to think about mounting an expedition to, a trip through that town at certain times is a ray of light in an otherwise rather boring journey.

This is the girls riot article I was referring to. Second item.

http://www.corpun.com/uksc7601.htm#02

Hi Ketta. You say:

I wonder if the girl second left is concealing the supplies (check out the socks)

Amazing observation! I'd completely missed that. They do look exactly like packets of 10! Can you advise if this was a recognised schoolgirl technique for the concealment of contraband items?

You also say:

You know such discussions were not good for your blood pressure

Hang the blood presure, life's about enjoyment!

---

Hi Jenny. You say:

What's the point? According to some, such punishment would be ineffective. What she needs is a "good telling off".

This thread perhaps isn't the best place, but perhaps I should make my position absolutely clear. I'm in favour of corporal punishment in schools. It worked for me, because wanting to avoid it made me behave, and behaving got me a good time at school and an education that has come in very handy since. When I first arrived at this estimable Forum I was all in favour of complete sexual equality in CP, though with necessary safeguards to try to prevent too many JJs getting into the system.

However since then people better qualified than me, whose arguments I find convincing, have led me to think that for girls especially you need rather more safeguards than just an anti-jj filter if you are going to have cp as a sanction in schools. I also think that if, unlikely as it is, school cp was ever restored in the UK, public opinion wouldn't stand for males administering it to girls, and the complexites of managing this could be unworkable. So I accept that for practical purposes (for which read mixed state schools) it is probably wise to aspire to boys only as the best attainable solution. In single sex schools and (the usually better resourced) private schools maybe equality with safeguards could be attained. Perfection is sometimes possible, but seldom in large doses!

And the gist of all that is that in 1972 (when I believe the picture was probably taken) I'd have been all for the young lady getting an appointment with the cane. The same would have gone for the other girl if those are cigarettes in her socks. Now, in 2009, if it was possible (which it isn't) I'd still be all for them getting an appointment with the cane, provided that those supervising them were satisfied that this was an appropriate punishment for them for that offence and that they were not likely to suffer anything longer term than a sore bottom as a result. And I don't think that standard would be likely to be met in a current mixed state comprehensive!

---

Hi Oliver_S. You say:

I too had seen the photograph in question previously and had seen the accusations that it was a fake. Where that came from was some "Eric" claiming that it was related to caning at a girls school, which it clearly wasn't. It was simply girls supporting a no cane stance taken by boys. Nice peek into 1972 though!

I am mightily relieved that you saw it too. Last night I really began to think I'd imagined it - but I knew I'd got the picture from somewhere! Heartened by your confirmation I shall search again tonight.

Another_Lurker

This thread perhaps isn't the best place, but perhaps I should make my position absolutely clear. I'm in favour of corporal punishment in schools. It worked for me, because wanting to avoid it made me behave, and behaving got me a good time at school and an education that has come in very handy since.

It worked for me too, far better than any number of "tellings off" would ever have done. I very much doubt I would have achieved even a tiny fraction of all I have if I had been treated as some want girls to be treated.

When I first arrived at this estimable Forum I was all in favour of complete sexual equality in CP, though with necessary safeguards to try to prevent too many JJs getting into the system.

I tend to agree re JJ but I'd like safeguards to prevent too many Miss JJs getting through too.

I also think that if, unlikely as it is, school cp was ever restored in the UK, public opinion wouldn't stand for males administering it to girls, and the complexites of managing this could be unworkable.

In which case, in the interests of equality and fairness, prohibit females from administering it to boys too. That might mean girls would disrupt classes run by male teachers and boys would disrupt those run by female teachers but each would be able to keep half the class under control.

So I accept that for practical purposes (for which read mixed state schools) it is probably wise to aspire to boys only as the best attainable solution.

Or girls only - it would be just as unfair. If only one sex is liable to be punished for misbehaviour, the other will make up for it.

And the gist of all that is that in 1972 (when I believe the picture was probably taken) I'd have been all for the young lady getting an appointment with the cane. The same would have gone for the other girl if those are cigarettes in her socks. Now, in 2009, if it was possible (which it isn't) I'd still be all for them getting an appointment with the cane, provided that those supervising them were satisfied that this was an appropriate punishment for them for that offence and that they were not likely to suffer anything longer term than a sore bottom as a result. And I don't think that standard would be likely to be met in a current mixed state comprehensive!

At least we partially agree, but I would expect the same consideration to be afforded pupils of both sexes (not just one) and if that standard couldn't be met for both sexes, which I agree is unlikely in a current state comprehensive, the cane shouldn't be used.

"Just goes to show folks, when you are sure you have seen, heard or read something from the past, but cannot substantiate it, someone else can!

I too had seen the photograph in question previously and had seen the accusations that it was a fake. Where that came from was some "Eric" claiming that it was related to caning at a girls school, which it clearly wasn't. It was simply girls supporting a no cane stance taken by boys. Nice peek into 1972 though!

Oliver S"

You are mixing things up. I think this was the photograph and article that "Eric", and I, was referring to

http://www.corpun.com/uksc7601.htm

Maybe this was the "Eric" that A,Lurker was referring to

http://www.corpun.com/wildman.htm

Amazing observation! I'd completely missed that. They do look exactly like packets of 10! Can you advise if this was a recognised schoolgirl technique for the concealment of contraband items?

A_L

Having never been a member of the school smokers clique, by choice not deterrent, I honestly couldn't confirm. Fountain pens adapted very well and being a highly transportable method clipped to the V neck jumper proved a popular inconspicuous method, to say nothing of concealment in a certain brand of feminine product Not being a smoker didn't stop me being a contraband courier, and the risk was just as high, luckily caught only the once, the cookery apron as you may recall saved the day.

Periodically teachers conducted lunch time raids, hauling enough free bounty for the staff room addicts, saving themselves few bob in the process.




The only reason is because on mine I've noticed that you can see quite clearly that the second 'schoolgirl' from the right is smoking a cigarette - in school uniform and in public too! Six of the best I think, to say nothing of being absent from school without due cause!

What's the point? According to some, such punishment would be ineffective. What she needs is a "good telling off".

What do other women here think? Would a "good telling off" be more likely than "six of the best" to deter her from repeating the offence?

Jenny

In this instance, if one method didn't work the other was unlikely. I've not met a converted smoker yet, as a result of a meeting with the cane, male or female.

The cane for many, made us more vigilant, better liars, and of little deterrent where smoking was concerned.

Jim
shirtless PE October 25 2009, 10:08 PM


"What drew the attention in the press at the time was regime of early morning runs which were always carried out with boys only wearing shorts and pumps. The school were adamant that even in the depths of a Highlands winter the two mile cross country run by boys naked above the waist was "good for them". The school also said that there were never any exceptions other than genuine illness! The run was apparently accompanied by a "cold water shower", to reduce the chances of hotaches no doubt. "

Was it common at schools in England and Scotland back then?


It certainly was. I attended a grammar school in Hertfordshire in the late sixties until 1971, and we performed all PE and games shirtless including cross country runs for which we wore white shorts and white plimsolls only regardless of the time of year.

Thanx for your answering. And what was your (including your classmates) reaction to that rule.Were there boys who complained?

What was the reason for that rule and why they stopped that custom?

There were a few disgruntled moans from a few, but they were never made public and the majority of us just accepted it as a rule that was in place and which was known about when we started at the school and which was strictly enforced.
The reason for the rule could have been for reasons of:
toughening up
simplicity
discipline
or any or none of the above. we just accepted it
I do not know how long the rule continued but would be very surprised if it avoided the nanny state!

At a Southern Boys Grammar school, late 60s/early 70s:

PE in shorts only. There was a vast supply of "lost" shorts and plimsolls, so it was not possible to argue you had forgotten your kit.

If a boy knew that he was to be caned, he would slip into the gym if he had time to slip a spare pair of shorts under his trousers. I am sure that the Head must have known this, but I never heard of anybody being requested to remove shorts. He had a pretty good arm so maybe he didn't think it made much difference. Does anybody think that it did?

Rather than "skins" and "shirts" for team games, there were plastic sashes.

Showers were compulsory. The gym master would stand at the end of the shower and check that each boy was suitably wet.

I think that compulsory showers were not unknown in girl's schools. At Sutton Common School in Surrey, the PE mistress used to whack the last girl through the showers with a plimsoll..this used to be in FRU, I haven't checked that it still is.

My goddaughter is currently at a Girl's Grammar School. She tells me that compulsory showers were recently abolished, I suppose that this is due to religious sensibilities.

RB

I went to an all boys grammar school in the south of England in the 1970s where corporal punishment was an everyday part of life. PE was also a shock - we had a long list of PE and Games kit and these were duly bought by my mother. However, the first PE lesson our teacher made clear we would be needing white shorts and a towel and that was it for gym lessons! The vest, ankle socks and plimsolls would not be required. It was also made very clear that pants were to be removed and showers were compulsory afterwards.

It transpired that only this PE teacher required us to go barefoot and bare chested in the gym. Boys in the classes of the other two PE teachers (only one was full-time, the others taught other subjects as well as PE) got to wear the full kit. As this wa the early 70s, the white cotton shorts were very short indeed and I think a lot of us felt very vulnerable.

Our teacher was also the most fond of corporal punishment. From the very first lesson boys were spanked and slippered - for forgettting kit, for not putting in enough effort, or for not listening or standing still when the whistle blew. In the first term of First Form (age 11), he made very clear we were "little boys" and to be treated as such - we needed a "firm hand" and to be disciplined. This he did by taking us over his knee and taking down our shorts and giving half a dozen hard spanks. This was all very thrilling and terrifying for a small boy from a dozy village primary where corporal punishment was very rare.

After Christmas of that first year, we graduated to the slipper (a large gym shoe kept behind the wallbars). But the over the knee spanking always figured large in our memories of the school.

Nickk

Our teacher was also the most fond of corporal punishment. From the very first lesson boys were spanked and slippered - for forgettting kit, for not putting in enough effort, or for not listening or standing still when the whistle blew. In the first term of First Form (age 11), he made very clear we were "little boys" and to be treated as such - we needed a "firm hand" and to be disciplined. This he did by taking us over his knee and taking down our shorts and giving half a dozen hard spanks.

That was simply child abuse. It had nothing to do with punishment or reasonable chastisement.

Jenny,

Absolutely agree. As I think I've said before, informal cp in my school ,(using such as such as slippers ,wood whackers ( 2x4)inch), was when I arrived totally unregulated. Some staff used it as you described above as a 'warning' , some used it for 'amusement' in class, but a small number had, without doubt darker purposes. There was an 'over representation' of the latter category in the PE and craft staff. The brightest boys dropped craft early,as , as I have alluded to elsewhere , as you went up the school, unless you were in a team there were 'ways and means' of avoiding the confrontations in games/ PE which had become ingrained in the cultural history of the school.

However the youngest couldn't do that, and with one staff member in particular used to get whacked ( very hard) for things as stupid as being the last ten on the run......last out of showers....not getting to the top of a rope...etc etc. Anyway when the deputy heads changed so did this, and the frequency of informal punishment ( except minor warnings/joking) reduced very substantially. A couple of staff who were not given the right to cane under the new regime left, leaving only our friend in PE.

He was a small rotund man , with a huge chip on his shoulder ( about what I don't know). But with his activities restricted in the gym and the middle /upper schools, he continued his reign of terror in the junior forms (8-13) where as well as gym he taught RE and a little maths. Right from my initiation in the school he was one staff member I really disliked....there was only one other , who was a non thrashing 'bully'. We just kept away from each other.

What had led to such a long term dislike? Well just one observation. He taught me for RE for a few weeks as 'cover' . He set a test with a 'pass score' . Fail and you would be whacked. But no one did fail! So without notice he raised his pass mark to get his jollies presumably! After the first few weeks a new member of staff joined us late in the first term and his cover ceased.

I didn't meet him again until the Sixth form. In the Upper sixth I was once asked, as a Prefect , to take an urgent note to him in the junior school from the Head. It was a very long walk, and when I got there it was like I was back to the start of my fourth form year. He had a miserable line of boys waiting for a whacking at the front of the class - very little boys- and one poor specimen was nose to floor being about to receive......I went in and gave him the note. He curtly thanked me , without any embarrassment whatsoever.

As I was about to leave I turned to him

' By the way Sir,please, what lesson is this?' He looked taken aback,

' R.E. Why?'

'Just thought if it was , an appropriate text might be suffer the little children.....'

I shut the door ,. he hurled the gym slipper in my direction , but it hit the glass......'

We never spoke again. Mind you I still owe an apology to the poor lad who was nose to floor. I bet he suffered for my sass!

The reports spread round the school like wildfire. Strangely no one, neither student , Master, Matron ,Head, no one, ever uttered one word of disapproval to me in respect of that action........


Most teachers try their best , but there are a few rotten apples even in quality barrels. ........

I hated PE and team sports, communal showers and boyish rough and tumble when I was a school boy but later came to greatly enjoy cross country running and similar activities, especially in rain and mud. The rougher the better. Only sooks could / would not enjoy the same.

I have watched two very sporty, athletic, well behaved boy neighbours grow into teenagers. Their physical skill and hardiness are a marvel. I have seen similar in other boys.

I have not changed camps, or at least not completely, but now have some sympathy for sporty types and struggle a little not to despise those who are not sporty.

Tyrant PE teachers may have been ignorant and intolerant but I can believe they might have believed they were doing boys good.

I was at school a bit more recently than some posters (all boys, southern England, mid to late 1980s) and I'm glad to say we didn't have to do cross country runs with no tops. The usual PE kit (both in the gym and outdoors) was white vests, white shorts, socks and trainers or plimsolls. Some boys did run bare chested in summer, but that was always optional.
However, if we played team sports such as indoor football or basketball it was always vests against skins and the teacher picked the teams, so you didn't have a choice about whether you kept your vest on or not. For outdoor sports like rugby we wore reversible coloured jerseys to tell the teams apart.
Apart from playing on the skins team, there was another occasion I had to do a PE lesson bare chested. We had one teacher who was very strict about the kit regulations and one day, when I made the mistake of wearing a white T shirt instead of my vest, he noticed straight away. "You do my lesson with the right top or no top," he announced and ordered me to take my T shirt off. Being on a skins team of one wasn't much fun, but I guess that was the idea - next time I made sure I wore the correct kit!

I went to a all boys grammar school in the mid 1970s, all we were allowed to wear for indoor PE was white shorts, nothing else. Although our official kit included a vest and plimsolls, at the first lesson the teacher made it very clear that he expected everyone to have bare feet and strip to the waist. We just accepted this, having no choice in the matter anyway.

We had one two PE lessons each week, plus a sports afternoon. One PE lesson was always indoors, with the other involving a 5 mile run, so we did cross country every week, irrespective of the season or weather.

The supplied kit list specified white PE shorts, running vest or rugby shirt plus plimsolls & socks as appropriate kit, and we all duly turned up at the first lesson, and changed into this kit. A couple of boys didnt wear socks, and more importantly didnt wear a shirt or vest. We soon found out why, they had older brothers at the school, and knew what was going to happen. ! Lined up outside we were all made to take our socks off (which I didnt mind), and then told to strip to the waist (which I did, it was freezing). One boy complained it was cold, and rapidly earned a cold shower for his efforts, never had 30 boys pulled their shirts off so quickly. From then on we always ran shirtless, with a couple of boys always running in bare feet as well, yes it was cold, but everyone had to strip, so you just did it.