Search This Blog

Monday, 12 August 2019

Approved School Report

Story from Blushes 1
The following letter, addressed to the department of the Home Office responsible for Approved and Industrial Schools, formed part of a report submitted by the then Chief Inspector of Approved Schools in Warwickshire, which as an insight into the conditions obtaining in such establishments is illuminating; as an exposition of the kind of double-think with which the administrators of approved schools — or one of them at least — approached the matter of corporal punishment, it is, to say the least, revealing. For anyone interested in verifying the authenticity of the document, it may be found under the reference: HO 45/14545 at the Public Record Office.
Kenilworth Training School
Model Rules
Chief Inspector of Reformatories
(C.P. in girls under 16)
Minutes
In May last there was a serious revolt on the part of the girls at this Reformatory — Dr Norris went there and found the girls entirely out of control, and as the situation looked ugly, he — ordered an obstreperous girl of 15 to be whipped on the posterior (under the skirt).
That action had good effect, and things have since quietened down.
Corporal punishment in the past was not forbidden by the rules in force at the school, though the Managers strangely enough did not appear to know that it was in the power of the Superintendent to inflict it. I think Dr Norris was perfectly right to adopt the course he decided to take.
(Other correspondence in the file reveals that ‘there were a number of other whippings on the day in question.’)
The question now arises whether C.P. on the posterior is to be allowed in this school in the future. In the Model Rules it was decided that the only C.P. in schools should be on the hands — not exceeding three strokes on each hand with a light cane or tawse.
Dr Norris agreed to this rule at the time, though he says he always felt doubtful whether it would be possible to maintain it in dealing with certain classes of girls. The Managers are unanimous in asking permission to keep their existing rule, which leaves the Superintendent the discretion as to the infliction of light and moderate C.P. (whether on the hands or on the posterior).
The two lady inspectors (Dr Whitlock and Miss Wallis) hold that all C.P. of girls on the posterior is objectionable and ought to be unnecessary — and I believe this is the view which would be commonly held, except possibly by some of those who have had the actual management of unruly girls.
There is no doubt that the task of controlling difficult girls such as one finds in our reformatory schools — especially when they become hysterical — is a very difficult one and baffles even the wisest of women. It is possible that women of exceptional type might be able to tackle the problem without resorting to C.P. at all, but women with such qualities are rare and are not often found in our schools. We must do the best we can with the staff we are able to command, and give them such support as they need. The Departmental Committee gave special attention to this question, and came to the conclusion that the discretion to inflict C.P. must be given to the Superintendent, though they are silent whether it should be inflicted on the hands or the posterior. I presume that they intended to leave it to the Superintendent’s discretion also as to method. It must also be remembered that girls over sixteen can be sent to Borstal, and that it is in the case of the younger girls that the difficulty arises.
If this policy is accepted (the appeal of the Managers for retention of the old rule), having regard to recent happenings, I think it would be unwise to refuse the application of the Managers, and if it is made clear that no C.P. on the posterior may be inflicted without the sanction of the Chief Inspector, frequent or improper recourse to this method will be prevented.
It seems to me better to alter the rule rather than, when serious trouble occurs, to contemplate the possibility of the staff or the Inspector authorising punishment contrary to the rule.
I should prefer, however to keep the framework of the new rule rather than to adopt the present rule and I would suggest the following draft. This has the advantage of not mentioning specifically whipping on the posterior, which might give rise to adverse comment by those who are not familiar with the circumstances and leaves the Chief Inspector the responsibility of prescribing the conditions under which it may be administered.
Rule 21
(3) C.P. should be used only as the last resort when all other methods of maintaining discipline have failed and its administration shall be subject to the following conditions.
C.P. shall be only of light and moderate character and shall be inflicted on the hands with a light cane or tawse as prescribed by the Secretary of State — not exceeding three strokes on each hand. If in cases of grave breaches of discipline the anagers think it necessary to adopt any other form of punishment the previous sanction of two chief inspectors must be obtained.
S.W.H. 24.7.23
(Various signatures are appended.)
Well, put that in your pipe and smoke it! The background to the events described above will no doubt be interesting, and may add to the reader’s delectation as he conjures up a vision of the way things were, when a girl consigned to such an institution was considered eligible for ‘Whippings’ — and on the ‘posterior’ too — and not much fear of recriminations after the event, if the attitude of the Inspectorate is anything to go by.
The school at Kenilworth was known as the ‘Warwickshire Girls’ Reformatory School’. Its inmates numbered between fifty and sixty, all of them in the charge of a Principal and various mistresses and ‘mistresses in training’. That the Inspector thought little of the quality of these ladies may simply have been the result of his ‘male chauvinism’ in the days when there was no such thing as a ‘liberated’ woman — certainly he had superiors with accounts of other punishments meted out at the same time — if the one caning thus mentioned is then deemed to have been a reasonable response to the unusual situation in the school, then plainly no exception could be taken to other canings administered for the same reasons. Clearly the Chief Inspector is no fool!
Reading between the lines, therefore, and picking up hints from other documents having a bearing on the incident, what we have is a report from the worthy Chief Inspector putting a respectable face on the wholesale bare-bottomed caning of an unspecified number of teenage girls, the whole affair prompted and overseen by Dr Norris, in the performance of his enviable duty.
The girls who were to be caned would presumably have been locked into a suitable room — if they were ‘rioting’ they would have needed to be kept under control — and on the ‘divide and conquer’ principle would have been dealt with one by one. A picture can be imagined of the school’s Principal, accompanied by her mistresses, mounting ‘snatch squad’ raids into the locked room whilst the door is guarded by other mistresses, emerging with their first choice of ‘victim’ — the women had been threatened with physical violence by some of their charges, so they would have been in an unsympathetic frame of mind — and then marching a probably protesting, struggling girl to the separate room where the canings were to take place in the presence of the Inspector.
If the girl’s bottom was to be the chosen location for the application of the cane, she would surely have been bent bottom-up over some suitable piece of furniture. Her dress would have to have been hoisted up while the doctor, no doubt maintaining a severe and professional countenance, looked down upon a pair of knickers covering the wriggling, protesting buttocks that he had ordered to be thrashed.
The girl’s pants would have been yanked down in a trice, galvanising her into more violent protestations, and then the cane would have been produced.
The girls slept in dormitories, a dozen or so to a room. They were provided with a uniform; two dresses, two sets of underclothing, stockings, shoes; and according to their behaviour at the school were allowed to wear belts of varying colours, aspiration to which was controlled by a system of ‘Merit Marks’. A silver belt meant a girl was a proper ‘Goody Two Shoes’; blue or red belts were for those whose conduct had been less exemplary. Marks earned could be taken away for, ‘Disobedience, insolence, stealing, lying, bad language, quarrelling, bad work, bad habits’ — whatever they were — ‘bad conduct generally and careless breaking of crockery’.
An architect’s report, included in the file, describes certain areas of the building as ‘lacking sufficient natural light’ — it was a gloomy place in other words — and it isn’t difficult to imagine the scene into which the visiting inspector walked — a late Victorian building, dimly lit, forbidding — and raucous with the voices of teenaged girls running riot!
Dr Norris, who seems to have been a man to stand no nonsense ‘ordered an obstreperous girl of fifteen to be whipped on the posterior’. This girl (according to other letters in the file, initiated by the same incident) was a ‘well-built girl’ who seemed to be one of the ringleaders. She was to be whipped ‘under the skirt’. Under? Well, without the benefit of its protection, presumably, so that it must have been turned up to afford access to the girl’s ‘posterior’. Other documents state that there were ‘a number of other whippings’. There is no reason to suppose that these other punishments were any less severe or traumatic for the girls involved than was the whipping of the ‘obstreperous’ ringleader, nor indeed that they were not carried out at the same time and in precisely the same way. We may suppose the writer of the letter — the Chief Inspector — to be citing one particular punishment as something of a test case. From the tone of his letter it is plain that the good doctor’s action met with his approval, so he would not have thought it necessary to overburden the consciences of his no hesitation in recommending that the girls there should be kept in their places, and with the utmost firmness.
The building was made up of a central block, with two wings appended on either side, within which the girls and staff were accommodated, the whole surrounded by a high enclosing fence, with access and egress controlled by the porter, who resided in the Porter’s Lodge at the gate.
There is no record of what number of strokes were given, but since three strokes on each hand, making six in all, was the prescribed ‘dose’, in the interests of efficacy, the Doctor would probably have ordered the maximum number to be administered to the bottom presenting itself unwillingly before him. (If he was quelling a riot, he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to seem less than determined.)
Six strokes it is then, applied by the Principal. Embarrassment caused by the girls’ behaviour, which must have diminished her self-importance as well as her standing with her employers, would have prompted the Principal to have laid the cane across those eminently deserving buttocks with all the strength that a vengeful woman could muster. How the girl must have howled and pleaded, how she must have jerked and swerved her hips as the cane bit viciously into her ‘well built’ bum! How the Inspector must have watched the wretched miscreant’s squirmings with all the satisfaction of knowing that he was quite within his rights to have the girl caned, this girl and all the others yet to be brought in, and how he must have enjoyed the whole enervating experience. One after another the girls would have lain on their bellies across the bench and wriggled and blubbered — six strokes each, and what with comings and goings, fetching and sending away, the Inspector might have stood for a whole hour while the procession of young bottoms was caned under his auspices, and under his very nose!
So much then, for the incident itself, but what are we to make of the Chief Inspector’s enthusiasm, in his report, for the exercise of authority that had consequences so painful for the girls? His readiness to support Doctor Norris might, it is true, have been prompted to some extent by loyalty for his staff — ‘In his position, I should have acted in exactly the same way, and felt that I had done no more than discharge my duty in doing so!’ With regard to the opinions of the two women inspectors. Dr Whitlock and Miss Wallis, he is scathing in his suggestion that people who haven’t actually had to deal with ‘unruly girls’ — he is clearly addressing himself to the two ladies — oughtn’t to express their opinions on matters they don’t know anything about. So far as the staff of the school are concerned, he has no regard whatsoever for their ability to manage girls; indeed his opinion of women in general seems to be a very low one.
A clue to his ‘enthusiasm’ is to be found in his suggestion — a suggestion that was, in fact, adopted subsequently — that the Chief Inspector — he himself, in other words — should be left to decide whether or not girls should be caned on their ‘posteriors’ in future. Given that he would want to be seen as being at least as concerned for the smooth running of the schools in his charge as the good Doctor, it seems likely that he would want to take the opportunity, should it present itself, of seeing at first hand the effect which a well-applied cane would have on the bared buttocks of an unruly girl, particularly since the authority to get her knickers down would have come from him, and him alone.
The Chief Inspector’s wily assessment of the likely reaction of the public, were it to become common knowledge that girls were being caned on their bottoms, is interesting, not least because it demonstrates his awareness of the sexual implications of such punishment methods. After all, on what other grounds would the public be expected to object, if not on those of morality? Equally interesting is the complete omission, in his report, of any explanation as to why caning on the buttocks should have been considered in any way a more severe punishment than caning on the hands. Certainly it is seen to be so, both by him and Dr Norris, yet a cane can be applied with as much force to a hand as to a girl’s bottom. Could it be that in the minds of the two inspectors, and implicitly in the minds of their superiors, the caning of girls on their bottoms rather than their hands is indeed a more severe punishment precisely because of the sexual implications? What other explanation could there be? No medical or physiological reasons are advanced, such as the greater resilience of female buttocks to canings as against the capacity of a girl’s hand to withstand punishment, yet the noting that whipping a girl on her bottom is a greater punishment is clearly in the Chief Inspector’s mind, despite the objections of two lady inspectors and the expected opposition of the public to such methods of punishment!
Seen in this light, it would seem that only two explanations of the Chief Inspector’s enthusiasm for bottom caning are logically possible, and bearing in mind the subsequent endorsement of that gentleman’s views by his superiors, one or both of these explanations must hold true also for those who later proved to be in agreement with him, though whether they themselves would have realised the implications so far as their own motives were concerned is doubtful.
The first explanation, bearing in mind that the people concerned would not for one moment have thought of it in such clear cut terms, is that caning on the bottom was seen as a more severe punishment because it required a girl to submit sexually — sexually because of the part of her anatomy involved, and its necessary nakedness — to punishment, the additional severity being in the girl’s own intuitive realisation that she is being forced to be sexually submissive, particularly in the presence of a man. If so, and taking that logic a stage further, a yet more severe punishment would be administered if the girl were made to strip stark naked, irrespective of how hard the cane were applied. Can it be that it was the intention of the Chief Inspector and his superiors to punish girls by forcing them to be sexually submissive? Presumably not, at least on a conscious level. Yet that it must have played some part on an unconscious level seems inescapable when the only other logical alternative is put.
That, whether consciously or not, the Inspectors and their superiors themselves saw bare-bottom caning as being more severe than hand caning because of their own appreciation of its sexual connotations. That, in other words, the Inspectorate thought of it as more severe simply because the idea of taking a girl’s knickers down and whipping her naked buttocks was sexually arousing to them.
Remembering that the people involved in making the decision — and apparently including the two women, who, I would suggest, intuitively recognised the sexuality implicit in bottom caning of girls and therefore saw it as being either too severe a punishment or simply an indulgence of the sexual tastes of the men, who were in favour — all regarded caning on the bottom as the more severe punishment. In the absence of any physiological excuse for bottom caning — and none was presented — one, or both, of the foregoing reasons must be the decisive factor. If anyone can offer a logical opposition to that argument I should like to hear from him — meanwhile we are left with the conclusion that Dr Norris, the Chief Inspector, and their superiors were all in favour of caning their girls’ bottoms chiefly because it was an exciting idea, so long as they could get away with it! And as for the Chief Inspector, he, it would seem, provided himself with ample opportunity to consider the question of his own motivations in the field, as he first sentenced girls to caning, then, presumably, witnessed their tearful, squirmy-bottomed receipt of the same, and all with the blessings of the Home Office, Parliament, and the unknowing populace of the country.

35 comments:

  1. Thanks Fleas. The issues here are a timely post given recent discussions on the blog about sexual aspects of punishment. The above article says the girls are forced into being sexually submissive & the men are aroused.
    These conclusions miss the essential points about nudity in corporal punishment. Yes they are forced, as this is the only way of turning round the disgraceful behaviour of some girls. Their nakedness is not about their sexual submission or male gratification. It is merely a very effective way of getting their focus & instilling discipline. If the bottom, pussy & breasts are bare, the girl feels humiliated during discipline & is more likely to mend her ways. If there is a sexual element to the punishment (be cause the girl is being sexually wayward with boys her own age), again, for example, being made to undergo sexual intercourse as part of the punishment to put her off boys, it is not strictly speaking about her sexual subservience or the arousal of the disciplinarian, and absolutely not about her arousal as some prefer, it is simply about finding the most effective way of disciplining a girl to improve her behaviour. Five issues after the above Blushes 1, in Blushes 6 (& then Blushes 7), the sexual element was fully explored when Valerie has unwanted sexual intercourse as a part of her punishment & discipline. Judging by her distressed expressions it works well in tandem with the cane on her bare bottom. Any satisfaction the disciplinarian takes from ejaculation inside Valerie as detailed in the text, derives from his successful disciplining of the girl. It is not about his arousal, and certainly not hers. Valerie is lubricated by a dollop of Vaseline not by arousal.

    So it is important not to misinterpret the role played in corporal punishment by the removal of a girl’s underwear and the necessary exposure and involvement her sexual anatomy.

    (In another note, the girl featured does have a pretty bottom. The Inspector has certainly carved out an enviable role. The bloke is also in the Blushes video Half-Term Punishments)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This may be of interest: http://www.childrenshomes.org.uk/KenilworthRfy/

    Just think, you can actually live in this place now!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well,this report certainly gets my approval...ha! Not so sure the plump bottomed miscreants at this institution
    would have agreed,not that anyone would have been too concerned about their opinions,of course.
    The girl in this feature does,I agree,
    have a very pretty bottom.Oddly enough though, my favourite shot here is the
    one near the top where the girl stares
    moodily out towards us,the cane oh so patiently waiting in place at the bottom of the image...a sort of "lull before the storm " moment.A prelude of the anguish about to befall this girl in the subsequent shots.A most stimulating photo,in my opinion.
    of

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inspector Rudkin12 August 2019 at 23:22

      Yes well a young lady's view of what is good for her should rarely be taken into account. These institutions perform sterling work and it is salutary if blameless young women sometimes get caught up in them due to 'administrative errors'. Naturally these individuals tend to be very pretty, very pert and have often crossed someone in authority. Once they get out of the clutches of the Reform Centre they will be told that a young lady can surely only have profited from a well warmed backside and if she hasn't then perhaps she should go back for a second session!

      Delete
  4. Valerie referred to above has her first sexual punishment experience with Henry Fultonby in Blushes 6 & 7.
    The two sequences can be found on Fleas blog here on 19 & 20 dec 2017 if you want to see the pictures & read about her ‘big salty tears’ & how it hurt when she was penetrated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19 & 20 Feb 2017 actually.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the correction. I have the original magazine copies & made a note of the wrong dates then.

      Delete
  5. Well said,Inspector Rudkin.innocent or
    guilty,a little dose of cp medicine will do any young woman a power of good.Perhaps,once a month say,there should be a random draw of about half
    a dozen ladies,18-40,from each city and town in the country,requiring them to attend a mandatory one day cp session at their local punishment centre,regardless of how good or bad they have been.Failure to attend will result in them being marched there stark naked and having to attend a one week residential stay,inevitably incurring a great deal more punishment
    than they would have gotten for being
    obedient.The delight of such a system
    Would be that each and every month,for
    decades to come,every single naughty girl in the country will always feel
    apprehensive each month that their city or town announces it's selection of six...never sure until the last moment if she is in for a hot bottom day or not.Too bad for her if she is.And if not ? Well,perhaps next month,or the one after that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Inspector Rudkin13 August 2019 at 03:16

    It should be a 'random draw' in name only. In reality if a young lady has been awkward or un-coperative with a 'man in the know' then she should expect to find herself at the Punishment Centre the next week. After a day bawling and wailing with her knickers around her knees she maybe more amenable to taking them down for other purposes in future..

    ReplyDelete
  7. Inspector Rudkin13 August 2019 at 03:33

    I do like the idea of the draw though. The unfairness of it will stand to emphasise that young ladies should have their bottoms dealt with on a regular basis, that's why they were given such attractive one's. If they've been naughty stripe them with a cane, if they've not been naughty stripe them with a cane - bet they thought about being naughty or just didn't get caught. They should learn from their 18th birthdays that knickers are there to be pulled down, chairs are there to be bent over, bottoms are there to be warmed up and young ladies are there to do as they're told.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The draw is a great idea. Girls need to be kept in a constant state of trepidation and unease if they are ever to buck their ideas up. And as to 'unfairness' well as we all know, once they hit 18 and the hormones start coursing round their ripe young bodies, they are all guilty of some sort of mischief whether in deed or thought.

      Delete
    2. Inspector Rudkin13 August 2019 at 06:06

      Trepidation and unease can be heightened by the knowledge that a young lady can be stopped on the street at any time and questioned as to her comings and goings. Unsatisfactory answers will result in her being marched around to the local Correction Centre to have a whippy 3' rattan stingingly applied to her rear. She might alternatively be asked to accompany the gentleman ( or lady) back home to answer further questions. Young ladies will be issued with a lengthy rule book detailing expected behaviour, deportment and even the specifications of disciplinary instruments. They will be expected not only to follow all these complex rules but also to be able to quote from them verbatim.
      To assist in identifying the truly recalcitrant, girls who had been caned more than three times in a month, usually the pretty ones, would be forced to wear a luminous sash, needless to say these young ladies can expect to be standing up for meals most days!

      Delete
    3. I think for those recalcitrance I would have a different uniform: shorter skirt, glossier blouse, tighter knickers. And they should expect the general public to question them in detail about their recalcitrance and their subsequent treatment. Those questioning them should be at liberty to provide instant, summary discipline if they deem it necessary or useful.

      Delete
  8. Discipline for its own sake. When a girl asks what the specific infringement is, they are told a girl needs discipline regardless; it might bring a general improvement. The pretty ones need hostility to deter them from misuse of their assets; the less pretty or stupid ones, because otherwise it’s annoying to have to put up with them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I quite agree Marco. The only reason to discipline a girl is because she is a girl. Without it the pretty ones get way too big for their boots and the less favoured ones have no incentive to improve. I'd only add one thing: a girl who dares to ask the reason why she is being punished earns herself a slap across the face for insolence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That’s a clear approach. It is insolence and as with any unnecessary infringement requires additional measures. Just as say, taking hands off the head, moving from a punishment position or trying to flinch the bare bottom away from an incoming cane, all require extras - penalty strokes which can be administered to the backs of the thighs or breasts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed. Imagine the scene: The disciplinarian puts the implement down and allows the girl to stand either with her hands on her head or obediently by her side. Her knickers hang redundantly half way down her chubby thighs. She desperately wants to rub her aching bottom but dares not. Tears are clearly visible Still, a look of relief brightens her pretty face. Then......
      "Young lady, you did not take that punishment in the appropriate manner" He lists her various infractions.
      He picks up the cane. She looks confused and then terrified.
      "Take off your bra!"

      Delete
    2. The command would be barked into her ear Harold prompting big salty cry-baby tears to roll down her pretty cheeks.
      The hapless 16-year old hesitates, so the bra is yanked clear.
      ‘I said hands ON head girl, not back of your head!’ and the slight adjustment is made.
      ‘I always expose the tits’
      ‘Yes sir’
      She thinks she’s got away with just showing her breasts.
      ‘If you can call them tits, they’re pathetic’
      (A girl is always self-conscious about her breast size and they can easily be insulted. There’s always an added mischief when one insults tits one quite likes)
      At this point the breasts are mauled, kneaded and the nipples distended and dragged out of shape.
      ‘Keep yer hands ON yer head!’
      Before she’s answered her ‘Yes sir’ (it’s always good either to ignore them or deliberately talk over what they have to say, as it’s always irrelevant)
      The first cane cut of six slams into her breasts, clipping both nipples on the follow-through.
      ‘And while I deal with your tits, you can think on what else you did wrong during your bare-bottom caning, why you’re getting a dozen extras across your thighs . . .
      and why this is going to be punished’
      A couple of fingers shove into her pussy.

      Delete
  11. It is a matter of some sadness to me that these redoubtable gentlemen of yesteryear felt obliged to deny and suppress the fact that the disciplining and training of pretty young ladies is a highly enjoyable business. Yet enjoy it they did and no doubt their pleasures in some cases were not confined to the whipping. Thankfully, we modern enthusiasts for a 'new moral order' have no such qualms. We wish to see the old hierarchical and draconian ways which had stood us in good stead for centuries, especially in terms of keeping the common herd in check, fully restored whilst greedily enjoying what is ours by right - the exquisite privileges which the natural order of life confers upon those whom it favours the most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is indeed a matter of some sadness that the training and initiation of young ladies which has always been the preserve of older gentlemen of good character is now something we only speak about in hushed tones and in places such as this. In the New Moral Order it will be celebrated as part of our civic duty as citizens.

      Delete
    2. Oh yes, Harold, come the great day all of nature will applaud and rejoice in our superb endeavour! You are quite right also, old men are the best girl handlers, they're the ones most able at stamping out their vile coquettish wiles. Of course, I dare say that however much they might initially shrink from it, the feel of an old man's cock going into a girl soon seems like blessed relief in comparison to the searing agonies inflicted by the cane. Not that they should ever get it into their pretty young heads that one is necessarily a substitute for the other.

      Delete
    3. Yes. It is the searing agonies of the cane which enables Henry Ponsonby to be able to cajole 2 sixteen-year olds into knowing this comparison - in Blushes Number 7. His relentless bare-bottom punishments lead Valerie to reluctantly accept the other. ‘I don’t want those canings all the time. Please . . .
      (the first time) ‘it hurt . . . it was a tight fit but Mr Fultonby managed . . . it was very tight and also hurting’.
      We can tell that from the pictures of young Valerie’s face in Blushes 7 as he is in her.
      As you say, so she doesn’t get any ideas in her pretty young head, best cane Valerie afterwards.

      Delete
    4. Definitely a good idea to cane them afterwards, particularly if they have just had a (reluctant and very embarrassing) climax. This can actually be a good pretext for punishing her and an opportunity to chide her for her wantonness in the obvious enjoyment she has taken in sex with an unfamiliar man. On that topic, I was a huge fan of the Bunbeating Fun videos particularly the ones where Greg took the slut up on her desperate offer of a blowjob only to resume spanking her immediately after cumming in her mouth. The sheer desolation in the girl after realising her gambit had failed was a delight to watch

      Delete
    5. Excellent. Some of these minxes will try anything. A good one is to get them to agree you can come in her face if you agree to stop caning. Pre-agree with another chap to then turn up & cane her bare bottom instead. It is so much more satisfying to come all over a face contorted by the distress of a renewed caning. Another stupid female gambit foiled.

      Delete
    6. I live to foil stupid female gambits! Marco, I would love to chat with you at greater length please feel free to drop me a line at thenewharoldframley[at] gmail dot com. I put it in that format to prevent spam bots. That invitation is an open one but with one proviso: I have zero tolerance policy for discussion of or images of minors.

      Delete
    7. Acknowledged Harold. We certainly have some identification with each other’s philosophy re. the Blushes girls.

      Delete
    8. Hi Marco. Please do get in touch, I'd be delighted to have more philosophical discussions with you. I also believe Inspector Rudkin is a like mind so he is also welcome to correspond with me.

      Delete
    9. Inspector Rudkin21 August 2019 at 00:19

      Hi Harold, I'm glad my little vignettes meet with your approval.

      Delete
    10. Indeed they do. Sadly I think chaps like us are a dying breed in these censorious and politically correct times, so it's always good to make contact with a fellow spirit.

      Delete
  12. Inspector Rudkin21 August 2019 at 03:48

    I look forward to plenty more opportunities on this wonderful blog to propose suitable treatment for the young lady's exhibited. I really enjoy the chance to focus our collective energies on one story and girl at a time. Recent favourites have been Evening Entertainment, Re-orientation Weekend and Visit from an Inspector (as you've no doubt guessed) but I'm sure there will be plenty more little darlings along thanks to Fleas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes quite. I do appreciate a thorough approach. It's not enough just to give a girl a bare bottomed thrashing and then let her go on her way. She needs to be comprehensively humbled, preferably by a range of gentlemen of appropriate character.

      Delete
    2. I agree Harold. The removal of a cocky girl’s expression, clothes and sixteen year old’s virginity is a duly humbling experience, while disregarding all her adolescent emotions throughout

      Delete
    3. I agree Harold. The removal of a cocky girl’s expression, clothes and sixteen year old’s virginity is a duly humbling experience, while disregarding all her adolescent emotions throughout

      Delete
    4. So key to a girl’s improvement it was published twice

      Delete
  13. Inspector Rudkin21 August 2019 at 04:41

    The humbling and humiliation aspects are at least as important as the caning or strapping. Thus in 'Visit' Hilary's humiliations include having to wear full uniform at 17 (marking her out as completely controlled by males in society); being interrogated about her sexual habits in front of her father whilst the Inspector holds her 'displayed', being spanked by her father in front of the Inspector and realising, to her horror, that this excites him and finally the caning itself. A veil is drawn over what happens before Hilary is brought back down but as a minimum I assume 'oral relief' was given - and quite right too. This visit should be just the beginning of a chain of events that lead Hilary to a Reform Centre and a spell at an older gentleman's house doing National Domestic. Is it fair, of course not, that's the point, she is young, pretty and needs to be kept on a very tight leash. If a number of gentlemen get pleasure from this well that's all to the good. ' Now get your knickers off Hilary and let's have you over the back of the sofa'...

    ReplyDelete