Search This Blog

Friday, 28 December 2018

How good of us…

A letter from Blushes 10 in response to By Request — Punishment Shorts
Dear Sir,
How good of you to respond so quickly and in such a well bottomed-out way to my Request for a feature on girls in punishment shorts. I admit that I bought Supplement No. 2 on the strength of the cover photo alone: that wonderful slothful slumberous bottom was so tempting in freshly laundered shorts that were so evidently thin! (Is it true that, in some boarding-schools, the girls selected for a beating had to pay out of their pocket money for the laundering of hired whipping drawers?)
In the captions you ask me some saucy questions and I will work in the answers with a technical point or two; but first a point of criticism. The shorts are too short! I said that they must cover the whole bottom and at least two inches of thigh and perhaps I should have made it clear that, in this matter, we do not measure from the apex of the crotch of a standing girl but from the crease position of a well bent one. The crease is where the under-bottom meets the thigh and is not to be confused with the vertical cleavage which is generally called the crack or the bum crack. (Hence crack-strap to protect the private parts in a straddled birching). To save a lot of words I enclose a quick sketch based on the illustration at the top of page 24 which I hope you will print alongside. This shows my preferred leg length for punishment shorts and, to avoid the vulgarity of an arrow pointing in an indiscreet way I have drawn the door handles opposite to the area of the crease. I say area of because the crease itself is almost smoothed out in a well bent girl.
A phenomenon to be noted in both pictures is the little arch of cotton pulled up from the thigh at the centre of the back hem. This is inevitable in shorts that do not have side lacing. Some people regret this hem-arch as spoiling the effect but, if the shorts are of suitable length, I personally find the effect both enchanting and useful. The thighs are seen to go enjoyable into the shorts — they don’t look just painted on — and, functionally they can be used as convenient finger grips for a final downward pull when the girl is bent. (A detail in passing: my picture shows a ring sewn into the waistband for a good upward pull prior to bending.)
So let us welcome therefore that little deformation of a snugly fitting pair of shorts, but so design the garment that it occurs lower on the thigh. It is, after all, the proof of the tension in the cotton, the tell-tale of tightness, the signal that the flesh is firmly held and that the buttocks are expectant of the cane!
But let us also insist that the crease area is free of visual interruption. It is there, where under-bottom merges to thigh, while the central seam slyly passes underneath, that we sense a natural point of focus in the presentation of a recalcitrant bottom. Lower the arch! Smooth the crease — and a new area invites and will surely be given — the cane!
In the 19th century, punishment shorts, such as the whipping drawers in Nell of Bridewell, were longer still and lashes were allowable ‘anywhere on the cloth’. But in answer to your question I personally find it inappropriate to cane or whip the thighs although the upper thighs, are eminently birchable. Certainly it is recorded that, for the prolonged birching of females in both Germany and Russia, the strokes were alternately given to both bottom and thighs. (Birching is of course always given ‘on the bare’ — and therefore lies outside our present theme).
You ask about the upper nudity so evident in your pictures, and it is of course a paradox that the very part of the body that is to be thrashed is the part that is covered. That, however, is good stage management: it increases the emphasis on the bottom, for both spectator and culprit, if the shorts are the only clothing on. I note with approval the bare feet. A girl should be made overwhelmingly ‘bottom-conscious’ when being prepared. (Again, it is outside our present theme, but the opposite convention is also effective — as in Victorian girls’ schools when the girls to be punished wore their most elaborate Sunday dresses with only their bottoms bared for all to see!)
As for ‘peeling down the shorts after the whipping for the weals to be examined’, this is of course a very usual practice. Indeed, I have read of one institution, admittedly for boys, where the culprit himself had to lower his shorts for a ‘medical’ after every third stroke — and then to readjust them and resume position. This would be a good discipline for Sandra and her delinquent friend and fascinating to watch!
You ask about the number of strokes. Shall we say twelve for the blonde — with four presentations of her punished bottom — and eighteen strokes for the brunette who, by this ritual, will have to strip down six times. I give the ‘other girl’ the more because of the point you make so perceptively: she has that look of a girl from an institution, put upon but plucky, who is hardened to the cane and to watching others get it.
This is course relates to your question as to whether the ‘next-in-line’ should indeed be forced to watch, or wait outside — listening. In my sketch the door is open because I envisaged six more teenagers outside with their delectably plump bottoms in skin-tight shorts — listening to the music of it until their turn comes.
On the other hand, although making them watch allows them to watch you, it has to be said that it is interesting to alternate one’s scrutiny of a girl-bum being whipped with a study of the face of the girl who is to be the next over the trestle. Perhaps the sight and sound of the first girl will make the second rebel just as I think your blonde girl (waiting in the top photos of page 23) will rebel when ordered forward for her second dose.
Rebellion must of course lead to additional punishment — as must undue struggling. But whether, as your last question suggests, this should be solely by extra strokes is a matter open to discussion. Although I am a believer in punishment shorts, breeches or drawers, there is something very touching in seeing them forcibly removed! I am afraid Mr Editor that if that reformatory girl on page 25 reaches up off the trestle again, there will have to be a final peeling down so that the strokes outstanding, doubled in number, can be given on the bare.

G.P. Hants


  1. I certainly cannot agree with the notion that the shorts are too short!

  2. Linda’s tits and face work well together. Everything about her is defiant yet defeated.