The “English” cane isn’t designed for the naked bottom

Caning is the quinessentially English contribution to the spanking / corporal punishment arts. I confess I have not gone deeply into the history of this implement, but I know it came into English society and culture from the colonies – Malaysia most likely – where the smooth rattan (Malay: “rotan”) cane grows wild and plentifully. By the end of the 19th century caning had replaced birching across English society, famously in public (i.e. private) schools and other insitutions, and across the colonies too in similar environments, as the standard form of corporal punishment.

The institutional nature of caning is important. Key is guidelines and conventions of practice were that the caned person was to be fully clothed. One must step back to understand the English themselves to fully appreciate this: clothes-stay-on interaction of this type is in no small part bound up in English cultural “reserve” and embarassment about nakedness and eroticism. Caning with clothes on keeps the whole process more comfortably “at arms length”. It allows reserve to be maintained and, specifically, facilitates denial of any suggestion that it is an erotic act, which of course it is (to a greater of lesser extent depending on the proclivities of the participants).

So the cane found its place as an instrument in English society in the latter part of the 19C, the height of Victorian puratinism, as the instrument that resolves a specific conundrum — how to effect a punishment of a fully clothed bottom. Fully clothed, the cane makes perfect sense. It provides the ability to punish well enough through two or three layers. It is fit for purpose.

If the cane is all about penetrating clothing it follows that the amount of bend, and whip, and the weight-to-surface-area of a cane will easily break bare skin. (I’m not an overly large man. I’m reasonably strong, but not excessively so, but I know if I put my body and shoulder into a strike I break the skin. I can safely assume this is true of everyone.)

As caning has left the school and judicial sphere, but remains very much alive in kink, a bit of this memory does no harm, I feel. And can lead to better practice.

It’s fine of course to cane the bare bottom in a forearm-wrist-flick-flick kind of way. Visually this is highly attractive, and safe enough. This is very much the erotic side of things and there’s nothing on earth that gets as much yummy wiggling and squealing and utter contrition per tiny ounce of force as a cane. It’s intoxicating. Great.

As long as that’s where it stays. Problem comes in confusing this with real discipline and punishment mode…

When the situation calls for a proper caning, I deeply prefer she has full bottom-covering on — low cut knickers (that’s panties for you lot across the pond), plus stockings, plus a skirt or slacks which pull tight when she bends over. Prepared this way she can be properly caned, thrashed if necessary, to the mental and emotional and physical catharsis that real discipline provides. It will leave stripes to be sure, but will also inherently respect her physical wellbeing and the sanctity of her skin. And it will be using the instrument in the manner it was designed for.