This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
I'm finding the discussion about the merits or otherwise of cp as a motivator for striving for one's potential very interesting. I've often had wavering thoughts about this myself and am still undecided.
I don't recall my father ever punishing me for being lax with school work, but I definitely remember how I would get a strong sense of his disappointment. That would make me feel 'bad', ashamed of myself and I would try harder to redeem myself. There were times I felt I would feel better within myself if dad did give me hiding.
School was different. I went to a private school and private schools survive or die based on their reputation and their academic achievements. The requirement to strive for one's best was very powerful. Unlike what I have read from many others, there was no set routine that included cp for poor test scores or the like. It seemed to me to be more adhoc and at the discretion of the teacher.
Certainly, things like failing to complete homework or assignments without proper reason could see a boy bending for a few strokes of the cane. When I was in 4th year high (about 16yo), I messed up a due date for a big assignment in history. I realised and admitted it to the history master who wasn't impressed. I was given a weekend extension on the assignment and 500 lines. The lines were not to his standard (not quite 500 and several mistakes). I got 8 of the cane; 4 for the unsatisfactory punishment exercise and 4 for my original 'crime' of late assignment.
In the end, I tend to agree with Chikki that in times past, there was a clear path for preparing boys to be men and ready for the cruel world beyond the sheltered school days. It may have been a bit harsh based on today's standards, but quite wrong to place the standards of today on the norms of the past.
I consider I have been successful in life. Whether that is because of or, in spite of the cp I received growing up, is something I cannot say for sure. I can say that in my opinion, getting my bum soundly whacked at home and school didn't make me resentful or angry or anything of a negative nature.
I don't recall my father ever punishing me for being lax with school work, but I definitely remember how I would get a strong sense of his disappointment. That would make me feel 'bad', ashamed of myself and I would try harder to redeem myself. There were times I felt I would feel better within myself if dad did give me hiding.
School was different. I went to a private school and private schools survive or die based on their reputation and their academic achievements. The requirement to strive for one's best was very powerful. Unlike what I have read from many others, there was no set routine that included cp for poor test scores or the like. It seemed to me to be more adhoc and at the discretion of the teacher.
Certainly, things like failing to complete homework or assignments without proper reason could see a boy bending for a few strokes of the cane. When I was in 4th year high (about 16yo), I messed up a due date for a big assignment in history. I realised and admitted it to the history master who wasn't impressed. I was given a weekend extension on the assignment and 500 lines. The lines were not to his standard (not quite 500 and several mistakes). I got 8 of the cane; 4 for the unsatisfactory punishment exercise and 4 for my original 'crime' of late assignment.
In the end, I tend to agree with Chikki that in times past, there was a clear path for preparing boys to be men and ready for the cruel world beyond the sheltered school days. It may have been a bit harsh based on today's standards, but quite wrong to place the standards of today on the norms of the past.
I consider I have been successful in life. Whether that is because of or, in spite of the cp I received growing up, is something I cannot say for sure. I can say that in my opinion, getting my bum soundly whacked at home and school didn't make me resentful or angry or anything of a negative nature.
View 46 more replies »
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
CarterHall · 56-60, M
Sharon · F
Yes, both slipper and cane (at different times) across my bare bottom when I was a teenager, either off my parents or friends' parents.
At school I got slippered or caned though my knickers usually. The exceptions were bare bottom slipperings in the gym changing room and, in 6th form, through trousers.
At school I got slippered or caned though my knickers usually. The exceptions were bare bottom slipperings in the gym changing room and, in 6th form, through trousers.
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
HairbrushDiva · 31-35, F
@Sharon My mum didn't use a cane. She used a slipper or a hairbrush on my bare bottom.
chikki · 70-79, M
I would disagree with that...it does matter. AT school pupils have to learn to do their best and put effort into everything they do. Take the cross country, if a boy always does well but comes in nearly last because he has been talking all the way round the course and can sprint t the finish the only reason can be a lack of effort. bOYS must put effort into everything they do and in a case like this some "encouragement" to put effort in next time in the form of a couple of whacks with a slipper on his bottom is fully vestified and in order.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@chikki
Maybe, but the point of PE and sports is to develop physical stamina and fitness.
Schools exist, or should exist, to prepare children to become useful, responsible adults, hopefully with the better ones entering vital professions or skilled trades according to their interests and abilities; but sports are not academic and being good at them won't help find employment - except perhaps in sports.
Such "encouragement" might bully a child into doing well by some artificial measure in something in which he has no interest, but out of fear, and why? For whose benefit? Not his. You cannot force anyone to succeed in your choice of that success.
I was moderately good at middle-distance running but otherwise hopeless at sports at school, and had no interest in them. I developed my own physical pursuit, but long-distance walking, not athletic sports. I think my PE Teacher once observed on my end-of Year report, that I had some interest in volleyball - that was true but I was no good at it! On another he observed that I seemed physically weak - probably true.
Our school had an annual cross-country, three races on one day by pairs of Years, I think half-a-century later. These were compulsory so one year I thought I may as well make more effort and actually came in fairly near the top. Next year, they reduced the field to those top-half boys - including me! Rude words! I trotted round quite gently with another boy of like mind, so we were not last but not far from it. Next year they made me a marshall instead, with another non-runner at a very muddy field gate, so much more fun than running through it.
Maybe, but the point of PE and sports is to develop physical stamina and fitness.
Schools exist, or should exist, to prepare children to become useful, responsible adults, hopefully with the better ones entering vital professions or skilled trades according to their interests and abilities; but sports are not academic and being good at them won't help find employment - except perhaps in sports.
Such "encouragement" might bully a child into doing well by some artificial measure in something in which he has no interest, but out of fear, and why? For whose benefit? Not his. You cannot force anyone to succeed in your choice of that success.
I was moderately good at middle-distance running but otherwise hopeless at sports at school, and had no interest in them. I developed my own physical pursuit, but long-distance walking, not athletic sports. I think my PE Teacher once observed on my end-of Year report, that I had some interest in volleyball - that was true but I was no good at it! On another he observed that I seemed physically weak - probably true.
Our school had an annual cross-country, three races on one day by pairs of Years, I think half-a-century later. These were compulsory so one year I thought I may as well make more effort and actually came in fairly near the top. Next year, they reduced the field to those top-half boys - including me! Rude words! I trotted round quite gently with another boy of like mind, so we were not last but not far from it. Next year they made me a marshall instead, with another non-runner at a very muddy field gate, so much more fun than running through it.
CheesePickle · 41-45, C
@chikki I agree. Effort is required.
Caned4doz · 61-69, M
I was never slippered but I did get the cane quite often when I went high school (it was a private boys school). Only once did I get caned on the bare when I was about 14. It was done in the privacy of my housemaster's office and I was required to lower my underpants just enough to expose the buttocks. I often saw other lads getting the cane, usually in the classroom but on a few occasions when I and some mates were in trouble together.
At home I was spanked by dad otk until I was about 10 then it was the strap and, I don't mean a belt but a thick leather strap that's only use was to paint my back porch red. At home it was always on the bare bum, no exceptions.
At home I was spanked by dad otk until I was about 10 then it was the strap and, I don't mean a belt but a thick leather strap that's only use was to paint my back porch red. At home it was always on the bare bum, no exceptions.
chikki · 70-79, M
in certain fields you are right but children should always give of their best. To take that one step on, if in later life you have to do something you do not like then it is acceptable not to give much effort. WRONG....in my days of deputy up to 2003 (cp ended sept 1999) pupils were always required to give their best and if not in the days of cp received a few whacks on their bottom. It is conditioning. In adult life a boss will expect you to give of your best enen if you do not like the task and regardless of if he is watching. School as you say trains boys for this and a lack of effort at school got your bottom whacked...in employment it may be the sack. trouble is these days in the workplace and schools anything will do and nobody does anything about it
chikki · 70-79, M
@Codrin while i am not into adult cp i do think some of these youngsters need a good thrashing on their bottoms. Having said that neither myself or my four sons got whacked after 14 because the lessons have been learnt. Youngsters these days have poor attitudes and need these correcting while at school where the consequences are not so great as in later life. SURE, at school, and nobody can deny it, that the cane or slipper certainly on a bare bottom was very painful.I should know i had it enough as a boy and saw its effects on many boys bottom that i whacked as a deputy. The point is the lessons were learnt at a young age before the attitutues became set. When i was deputy boys had a week to do homework. they still used the excuse they forgot or did not have time. as i said in a week they could have found time but could not be bothered and as for forgetting i would help them remember. Then it was over the chair and two hard whacks with the slipper on the bottom. Over shorts if it was the first visit fot cp that year or for a second or more visits it was shorts off and it was two hard cracks with the slipper on the bare bottom.....it was a long time if at all before homework was not done
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@chikki
I am well aware that in work you do need to keep to certain standards, and in many areas, not just performance, or you may well be dismissed. (Not necessarily on the spot unless the offence is particularly serious, but usually after a formal warning procedure.) I have known it happen to a couple of people, and only a few years ago, though many of suspected a strand of "office politics" there too.
Perhaps what is more important to learn is not striving to reach someone else's artificially-set level of ability (by understanding rather than mere parroting if academic) at all costs, but responsibility, to self and others. Mere effort is no guarantee of learning even if bullied - I was not bullied but I did my best, but still could not learn French or Maths even with Dad (a scientist) trying to help me with the latter.
It helps too, to have good teachers. Two of my Maths teachers were frankly useless at helping those like me who struggled with the subject. One was in his last year before retiring so was probably bored stiff with his work - so his lessons were boring, especially since Maths was taught generally as abstractions of no clear reason or purpose other than a future GCE O-Level for equally unclear purposes. The other was a bumptious, sarcastic bloke who didn't care anyway about anyone but the really bright, keen pupils. It probably didn't occur to him that if you find it hard you won't be keen on it - and often of course, vice-versa.
One thing I do wonder: which is the more important - punishing a child for being lazy (or allegedly so), or the mode of punishment?
All four of my schools used CP only as a rare last resort. In the 1100-roll, mixed, state grammar I attended for 7 years in the 1960s, I heard of no more than perhaps four boys having the cane - the playground samizdat is usually pretty good at disseminating such information - and saw our PE Teacher uses the plimsoll only about 3 times, and then one whack on shorts. Yet the school's overall discipline and academic record was very good, so I don't believe physical punishment is the only answer.
I am well aware that in work you do need to keep to certain standards, and in many areas, not just performance, or you may well be dismissed. (Not necessarily on the spot unless the offence is particularly serious, but usually after a formal warning procedure.) I have known it happen to a couple of people, and only a few years ago, though many of suspected a strand of "office politics" there too.
Perhaps what is more important to learn is not striving to reach someone else's artificially-set level of ability (by understanding rather than mere parroting if academic) at all costs, but responsibility, to self and others. Mere effort is no guarantee of learning even if bullied - I was not bullied but I did my best, but still could not learn French or Maths even with Dad (a scientist) trying to help me with the latter.
It helps too, to have good teachers. Two of my Maths teachers were frankly useless at helping those like me who struggled with the subject. One was in his last year before retiring so was probably bored stiff with his work - so his lessons were boring, especially since Maths was taught generally as abstractions of no clear reason or purpose other than a future GCE O-Level for equally unclear purposes. The other was a bumptious, sarcastic bloke who didn't care anyway about anyone but the really bright, keen pupils. It probably didn't occur to him that if you find it hard you won't be keen on it - and often of course, vice-versa.
One thing I do wonder: which is the more important - punishing a child for being lazy (or allegedly so), or the mode of punishment?
All four of my schools used CP only as a rare last resort. In the 1100-roll, mixed, state grammar I attended for 7 years in the 1960s, I heard of no more than perhaps four boys having the cane - the playground samizdat is usually pretty good at disseminating such information - and saw our PE Teacher uses the plimsoll only about 3 times, and then one whack on shorts. Yet the school's overall discipline and academic record was very good, so I don't believe physical punishment is the only answer.
Caned4doz · 61-69, M
@ArishMell I think it would be reasonable to say that you, Chikki and Codrin are in fact all in agreement, along with myself, in that punishing a student because they have a lack of understanding about a subject is simply wrong. Punishing will do nothing to help the situation and in fact only make it worse by instilling resentment and make the child give up. If a child is having trouble understanding a subject, it is the duty of the teacher to give extra guidance and tuition. That said, there are also children who are just lazy and don't bother to put in so much as a modicum of effort. If the root cause of that apathy, after reasonable efforts to establish otherwise prove fruitless, then a degree of punishment to show error of ways is not out of place.
I have read numerous accounts over the years where it is expressed that some schools had a standard routine of administering punishment if test scores were below a certain level. I don't know if those accounts are based on fact or have become "Chinese Whispers" - Chikki, you may be in a position to shed some light on this. What I can say is that I didn't experience such a thing in my time.
That said, the whim of individual teachers is something that I have experienced, not often thankfully. I specifically recall when I was in 4th year high school chemistry, the class was set the task of learning the first 20 elements of the Periodic Table. We had 4 nights of homework to learn the symbols, names and atomic weight and there was to be a verbal "round-robin" test on the Friday. The chem master said that if any boy (it was an all boys school) failed to pass the test, they would be caned. I slaved over those 4 nights to learn those 20 elements and put in much more than the normal homework time for one subject. Even my mother helped me. Come the Friday, I started off ok getting the first few questions right but then I faltered. In the end myself and 2 other lads were the last ones standing (meaning we had incorrectly answered the last 2 questions fired at us). We were called to the front and each given 3 strokes of the cane.
At the time I didn't feel too badly about it but I think that was because I wasn't the only one, but later I did feel bitter. I had done what I thought was my best and yet I was still caned.
I have read numerous accounts over the years where it is expressed that some schools had a standard routine of administering punishment if test scores were below a certain level. I don't know if those accounts are based on fact or have become "Chinese Whispers" - Chikki, you may be in a position to shed some light on this. What I can say is that I didn't experience such a thing in my time.
That said, the whim of individual teachers is something that I have experienced, not often thankfully. I specifically recall when I was in 4th year high school chemistry, the class was set the task of learning the first 20 elements of the Periodic Table. We had 4 nights of homework to learn the symbols, names and atomic weight and there was to be a verbal "round-robin" test on the Friday. The chem master said that if any boy (it was an all boys school) failed to pass the test, they would be caned. I slaved over those 4 nights to learn those 20 elements and put in much more than the normal homework time for one subject. Even my mother helped me. Come the Friday, I started off ok getting the first few questions right but then I faltered. In the end myself and 2 other lads were the last ones standing (meaning we had incorrectly answered the last 2 questions fired at us). We were called to the front and each given 3 strokes of the cane.
At the time I didn't feel too badly about it but I think that was because I wasn't the only one, but later I did feel bitter. I had done what I thought was my best and yet I was still caned.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Caned4doz
Thank you - if anything your own experience rather proves the point, as well as proving the incompetence of your chemistry teacher. Incompetent at teaching, not at the subject, obviously.
Apart from the cruelty it also shows he thought mere memory is what matters. I dropped French because I did not have the memory for a language, but failed Maths because even when I could remember formulae I could not understand how they work or how to analyse mathematical problems.
I remember an ex-soldier telling me when they were taught basic vehicle maintenance, their sergeant impressed on them not to rely on remembering tyre pressures, engine adjustments etc: "Always look it up - one day the makers will change the specifications", and of course, one day you might simply forget. Now, the Periodic Table won't change like engine specifications, but a professional scientist would still have it to hand - would know where to find the details, and understand them. Parroting is not learning.
I have worked for professional scientists, and they all had the text books in their offices. They understood the science and how to do very hard sums, but could not be remember know all the formulae and deeper practical details without help from the reference books.
I wonder if this is what Charles Dickens had in mind and was trying to show up by exaggeration in his novels, when he described the thugs passing themselves off as as school-masters in Nicholas Nickleby and David Copperfield?
Thank you - if anything your own experience rather proves the point, as well as proving the incompetence of your chemistry teacher. Incompetent at teaching, not at the subject, obviously.
Apart from the cruelty it also shows he thought mere memory is what matters. I dropped French because I did not have the memory for a language, but failed Maths because even when I could remember formulae I could not understand how they work or how to analyse mathematical problems.
I remember an ex-soldier telling me when they were taught basic vehicle maintenance, their sergeant impressed on them not to rely on remembering tyre pressures, engine adjustments etc: "Always look it up - one day the makers will change the specifications", and of course, one day you might simply forget. Now, the Periodic Table won't change like engine specifications, but a professional scientist would still have it to hand - would know where to find the details, and understand them. Parroting is not learning.
I have worked for professional scientists, and they all had the text books in their offices. They understood the science and how to do very hard sums, but could not be remember know all the formulae and deeper practical details without help from the reference books.
I wonder if this is what Charles Dickens had in mind and was trying to show up by exaggeration in his novels, when he described the thugs passing themselves off as as school-masters in Nicholas Nickleby and David Copperfield?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Yes but not by slipper or cane, only by hand. Over-knee, in class in Infants' School, and so out of character it stuck in my mind and probably seeded the penchant that began to surface only about 4 years later, when I was 10.
I have the seen a boy have the slipper, in PE class (where else?) in my mid-1960s state grammar school- but only one whack and on shorts.
I have the seen a boy have the slipper, in PE class (where else?) in my mid-1960s state grammar school- but only one whack and on shorts.
StuartS · 56-60, M
At home my father did the punishing, he was very formal about it. I was often told at breakfast time that i would be spanked that evening giving me time " to reflect" on my misdemeanours during the day.
Up to about 10 it was hand spanking and then the slipper after that. It was a routine in our house that children had a bath each night. I was the youngest by 4&6 years.
After bath and drying off would come downstairs naked and either be spanked over the knee or bent over an armchair. Always bare.
At school most punishments were over your shorts/ trousers but if you were a frequent offender or had done something really bad you could be slippered or caned bare. I got both in my time.
The baring of the bottom added to the humiliation especially if part of a group.
Up to about 10 it was hand spanking and then the slipper after that. It was a routine in our house that children had a bath each night. I was the youngest by 4&6 years.
After bath and drying off would come downstairs naked and either be spanked over the knee or bent over an armchair. Always bare.
At school most punishments were over your shorts/ trousers but if you were a frequent offender or had done something really bad you could be slippered or caned bare. I got both in my time.
The baring of the bottom added to the humiliation especially if part of a group.
chikki · 70-79, M
@StuartS I think it is not until you get the cane or slipper on your bare bottom you know just how much even a thin pair of trousers reduced the sting, yet alone trousers. Not so much with the cane but the slipper stung nearly twice as much on the bare bottom. I know as a deputy, years after boys told me they would rather have two of the cane than two of the slipper on the bare bottom. They said the slipper stung a lot more on landing but the sting soon went compared to the cane which hurt for hours .
chikki · 70-79, M
was that a slipper or a gym shoe. As a deputy and at school a house slipper with the top cut off was used. This left a large but flexible sole which was made of leather. It stung more than a gym shoe and could rally be smacked across the bottom hard without the risk of bruising. Bots tesify that it stung a lot on shorts, with no pants, but was nothing compared to the way the leather sole stung on the bare bottom. It did not sting so long as the cane but two whacks of the slipper on a bare bottom stung more than two of the cane for the first couple of minutes. Unlike the cane which took time to bui;d up sting after it landed the slipper stung almost to full sting as soon as it landed on the bottom. The cane left a thin line on the bottom so the second stroke did not land on the first one, but the slipper got most of the boys bottom on the first whack si the second went right on top of it and really stung the bottom.
NortiusMaximus · M
chikki · 70-79, M
that is what i used as a deputy...a good thick but flexible leather sole which when applied to the bare bottom really stung but did not bruise. While underpants were very thin they greatly reduced the sting of the slipper...boys have told me the slipper hurt nearly twice as much if they got it are compared to over pants
frenchstrictdad · 46-50, M
Would you say that bare bottom discipline was common in UK schools?
chikki · 70-79, M
i do not know of any real cases of girls having their bare bottoms caned...i think these belong mostly to fantasy stories
frenchstrictdad · 46-50, M
@chikki I know bare bottom spanking happened in primary school in France but nothing as formal as you described
chikki · 70-79, M
hand spanking some little childs bottom while over the knee om the bare bottom is fairly informal. It did happen in State schools to a linited extent but as a rule it was done on pants. iN private school punishment was more formal and spanking with the hand was not often done. With young children it was a ruler on the backs of the legs or bottom, but mostly after 8 it was a leather slipper, strap or cane used mostly on the bottom but in a few cases on the hands. Even 8 year olds if they wee going to be whacked on the bottom had to take their short trousers dow and either reach over a table or chair to have their bottom whacked. Of course in some schools they had to take pants off as wll and bend over to have it on the bare bottom
chikki · 70-79, M
was this a gym shoe or a proper leather house slipper
SW-User
@chikki yea leather one
chikki · 70-79, M
@SW-User that is wjat i used as a deputy and was far better than a gym shoe....the tio of the slipper was cut off which made the leather sole more flexible and being a size 11 not much of the bottom escaped on each whack. It use t sting far more than a gym shoe and tended not to bruise. TAO BE MOST EFFECTIVE IT HAD TO BE USED ON THE BARE BOTTOM...BOYS THAT HAD IT HAVE TOLD ME SINCE THAT IT HURT NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH WHEN APPLIED TO THEIR BARE BOTTOM THAN WHEN OVER UNDERPANTS
Codrin · M
Only the belt
chikki · 70-79, M
hope you dont mind me asking but hw many whacks did he give you
bijouxbroussard · F
SW-User
Yea got the slipper once on the bare bum
chikki · 70-79, M
@SW-User when you got your bare bum slippered was it in a pe lesson
SW-User
No from my dad @chikki
JohnStretton · 46-50, M
I was slippered and caned on my bare bottom at boarding school