Burnley Grammar School

In response to all the comments directed against me, I would like to point out that it was Alan who brought up the topic to which I responded. Even then, I already had a bad feeling about how it might be received. I should have listened to my instincts and left it alone. Clearly, some people here believe it's appropriate to judge events from 40 years ago by today's standards—and to do so with little tolerance for differing views. I’ll step away from this forum now and leave you to continue criticizing other contributors.

I'll admit that Steven talks a good occupation and I would have thought little of it, but when you start veering off into what can only be described as mildly sexualised talk regarding children then of course that illuminates things a hell of a lot. I've no idea what Steven's occupation is or was, just because he's now talking inappropriate stuff doesn't mean he wasn't a teacher but I no longer believe the content he's provided either.

I'm sorry Alan but you cannot cite the 45 years ago argument, things may have been different and I should know as I was about then just like you, but I know full well that no PE teacher would have dared make reference to anyone in class becoming aroused, like was said previously it would have been ignored. I don't remember a single boy prancing around our gym in that state do you, or more openly and obviously in the showers either come to think of it where something would be clear.

I don't know whether a fear of getting an involuntary arousal in and around the showers was a fear for anyone else here but I can honestly say that such a thought never crossed my mind my entire school time and the hundreds of showers I must have taken, never mind in gym PE itself.

I felt a total sense of incredulity when Steven said he didn't like to draw attention to a pupil he noticed with an erection but then went on to say he made a big deal of it anyway with calling them aside and making them sit the lesson out for a few minutes. That is completely making a big issue of something. If a teacher did that a few times we all know that kids in school would get to understand what was going on and start making private jokes among themselves. Kids are not dumb like that.

I can well believe Steven would be a bare chest fanatic PE teacher, so many of us on this discussion seem to have had them, even it seems do some today like Jack. But like the others have said here, the erection line was the tripwire that made the accounts no longer believable.

If I'd had a teacher at school who I knew was looking at my shorts in the lesson like that and pulled me aside because I had an involuntary arousal, or so he thought, no matter how discreet he thought he was being I would have been horrified and very upset by such behaviour and probably very angry at him doing that to me, not seen it as an act of kindness to save me some kind of perceived humiliation. The humiliation would be the teacher acting like that.

By the way Alan, and maybe Jack will confirm this another day if he comes back, I don't think Jack was saying he was doing total across the board shirtless PE was he, every lesson, at least indoors anyway. Wasn't it more like just regularly over the past five years, rather than 'full time' as I think you said it.

A permanent shirtless gym situation would be extraordinary I think nowadays, even the much maligned Nathan Hind only did his PE classes bare chested every now and again, but regularly, but not permanently. Doing shirtless PE for the last 5 years doesn't literally have to mean every class indoors was that way.

Comment by: Andrew on 19th April 2025 at 22:55



One thing I have learned on this forum over the years, Andrew, is that so many of us (including myself) tend to apply today's values to 45 years ago. I have to admit that when Jack came on a couple of weeks ago, I frankly didn't believe him, but since he replied again a day or two ago, I think he is authentic. If somebody had told me a couple of months ago that lads were being forced into minimal kit on a full time basis in their lessons in 2025 I wouldn't have believed it, but now - well, the fact that Jack isn't a one time poster, I do. I don't agree with his assertion that ALL the lads in his class are totally happy. He comes over as an extremely confident student, and the less confident are not going to confide their fears to him. There have been many instances in the past where people have visited once, said something outlandish and have never returned. I do question them, but when they engage, as he did, you take them on trust.

Steven was working in the business at a time when this (to, me) humiliating treatment was regarded as the norm, and the subject he was discussing yesterday was something that occurred in many classes, and the teachers must have been aware of it - ours was, and I have told you how he used to respond. I have no reason to think he was a fantasist. He seemed, given the constraints of the time, a reasonable man. That is not to say I approve of the methods used. You know my views - nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do - within reason. Clearly if a lad doesn't want to learn to write or read, some pressure has to be bought to bear for his own good, but to me, if a lad who is uncomfortable not wearing a top, it is not going to change the course of history, or increase our chances of gold at the Olympics if he wears a shirt. Similarly with showers, if it really is a great problem, especially if it is a class at the end of the school day, is it essential?. You would hope he would get showered when he gets home - he is highly unlikely to stink the bus out on the way there.

What I am trying to say is this - I hope the board is not going back to the Wild West days of four or five years ago when everyone was disbelieved, and some people were bullied off the board. Terry mentioned Mr. Hind, who was forced out by the most disgusting and underhand method. I didn't agree with him, and we had some robust exchanges on the board and ONLY on the board, somebody, however, discovered the school he worked at and made a complaint to them. I was at one time accused of being six different posters, and somebody, because I happened to mention I used to employ Saturday lads in the early days of my business, suggested in terms I was employing them for an immoral purpose. The truth is, that in those early days, I used to cannibalise old equipment for electronic parts, and the equipment was often in rusty old metal containers, that often contained spiders. I used to post out orders on Saturday mornings (remember the days when Royal Mail was reliable and not a plaything of a Czech billionaire?) and some of the parcels were heavy. Therefore only lads were interested in doing the work. One of them by the way, became so interested in the subject he went on to study electronic engineering at college. No girls replied to my advert back in 2009, if one had I would have given her a chance. I had my Saturday help till about 2016 when it was clear the nature of the business needed to change to keep afloat.

These days equipment is smaller, I don't cannibalise any longer (no profit in it) and I have gone on to specialize and I don't need help with packing and posting (I use courier companies these days, they are cheaper and more reliable).

Years ago there were some clearly fetishistic postings (Jockstraps was one where it seemed everyone was vying to tell the most unlikely stories about the age they discovered them). Those days, happily, have passed. I don't see anything fetishistic in Steven's postings (or Jack's) therefore I have no reason to doubt what they say is true. I might not agree, but I tend now to take people at their word. Perhaps that is some sort of good progress in my personality.

Comment by: Andrew on 19th April 2025 at 22:55

Rather regrettably and having re-read back everything I have drawn much the same conclusion as you have Andrew and for the same reason. I call fake teacher on Steven, easily so.

Real teachers do not come onto message boards and start talking about their former pupils physical sexual stirrings and a real teacher would just completely ignore such things. We all know that, I hope.

OK Steven, cut the claptrap please.

The moment you started talking about schoolboys erect penises down their shorts in PE lessons was the moment I fully understood you are not an authentic PE teacher but a fantasist.

No teacher talks that way. I urge others to consider that, including those here who have really worked in education.

Nice try Steven.

Steven is managing to sound all very reasonable here and thoughtful about his application of the bare chested shirtless rule in school PE at a school he is employed at. But actually there is nothing reasonable about it and it appears to me to mask a quite draconian mentality on a number of levels, not least discipline and keeping order. Because although you're denying that the loss of a top in PE should be seen as a punishment, you are admitting using it as a sanction to get a certain result, and to many people a sanction equals a punishment of sorts.

Jack that's interesting to hear again from you that you've been at a school bang up to date over the last five years and have been doing your own PE lessons shirtless a lot. There have been a few people over the past year or two come along and say they've done so, and there was the chap who saw some shirtless running a number of times out of a school in an area he drove a delivery van in. While going 'skins' is probably less than it used to be there is obviously a lot of this still taking place. Nathan Hind for instance was here saying the same at his school, another PE teacher once posting here until a year back. He always sounded reasonable too, even took a vote and found out that three quarters of his pupils didn't mind going bare chests for PE when told to, and the other quarter of them had to accept it and did so according to him. Well I suppose that was democracy. I'm pleased that doing five years of shirtless PE in your school gym has left you fairly positive Jack and you are fine with your appearance shirtless. That is good news, and good to know you think you have a fit class. You did sound like you were pleased you would not be doing much more of it though.

I bet you didn't do any shirtless cross countries like I once had to though in some quite nippy fresh air. Now that's when some of us really earned our shirtless bare chested 'going skins' mettle.

Comment by: Steven on 19th April 2025 at 04:02



Thanks for your reply Steven. I am sure that you are totally different to our old P.E. teacher, - in every respect (I have said in the past some of what he got up to, so I don't intend repeating it here - luckily I wasn't his type), and you come across as a very reasonable man. If our teacher found one of the lads he didn't like with that difficult teenage situation (and the great majority of them he disliked) he would yell out "all stand still we'll wait for a few minutes till Smith cools off" - clearly to the great embarrassment of the lad concerned. I was very grateful I was never in that position. I think one of the other horrible aspects of our situation was that we all had to have white shorts - perhaps if they had been black or dark blue you wouldn't have felt quite so exposed. White always feels more transparent under lighting. Clearly though you were much more understanding and were not a bully, which ours most certainly was. I suppose it is somewhat like your first experience with a dentist - if he is unsympathetic it can put people off going for years. Happily I never had that problem because I had a calm and friendly dentist, but I have known people who would not go to a dentist - that's the way I have always been with sports clubs and centres all my life.

Who knows, if you had been my teacher I might not have felt so scared all the time, but the constant bellowing of your surname (I don't think he knew many of our first names), the sarcasm, the aggression (and my guilty secret) honestly made it the worst time of my life, - as you say you felt you were in a borstal or a military situation. I never felt so nervous about anything else in my life - not even the first time I took a trumpet solo in front of an audience.

I certainly agree with you it is the attitude and the personality of the teacher that can make lessons either a humiliation or something more pleasurable (not unlike band leaders - a few of whom can be martinets).

I still feel the "no pants" rule, certainly for boys post 14 was entirely wrong from a practical point of view - it would have been an easy matter to have bought along a second pair and changed into them afterwards.

Jack, would you say it's the "being shirtless", or (more) the "being told to be shirtless", that is/was "difficult"?

Hope your GCSEs go well!

Comment by: Jack on 18th April 2025 at 22:38



Sorry Jack I was the bloke who doubted you - I apologise for that, but you must go to a VERY old-fashioned school. I have a neighbour who has a son about your age, and she often takes in parcels for me if I am out at an auction or doing an on-site repair, if something breaks down not long after it has been sold, and I return the compliment for her when she is out. She is always telling me about the amount of stuff she has to buy him for school (she is a single parent) - track suits, different coloured tee shirts etc and he is always outgrowing them. She and other parents take part in a scheme where they exchange items, and when the students leave school they donate their old kit to the scheme. He goes to a comprehensive, like yourself.

It is as well you don't mind it, but I bet there are some of your fellow pupils who do, but of course you wouldn't know because they would be unlikely to tell you. Good luck with your exams,


Comment by: Neil on 18th April 2025 at 20:56



"...A strange rule, that meant full nudity before and after PE was unavoidable. One or two boys lapped it up of course they did. There's always a few who are too confident for their own good at that age......"

"....I'm genuinely keen to know how being an emerging gay teen at school in such situations where barechested PE and communal showers were unavoidable affected you and how you thought...."


I can only speak for myself, Neil, of course. I was a very reluctant homosexual (still am if I am honest) but I knew when I was 9 or 10. I didn't understand the word then of course - I was nothing like the mincing "Mr. Humphries", but I remember finding every opportunity I could to see a neighbour who lived a couple of doors away, and how smart and attractive he always looked. One of the problems at school was that, until you were 11, you didn't have "P.E. Kit" per se' - usually you just took your jacket off and kicked a ball round the school yard and did those rather pointless running on the spot exercises, which bored the teacher as much as it did me, then you got to 11 and suddenly there you were, wearing just shorts, being yelled at, then being forced into an undersized shower room all 33 of you (there were 33 in my class). Having to stand there waiting your turn without even a towel It is the worst possible age to introduce that sort of kit. In retrospect it would probably have been better if they had started that requirement at 5, then you would have been used to it - but like you, I never saw the point of the "no underpants" rule. It seemed - and seems, if it still goes on - kinky in the extreme. Our P.E. teacher was a homosexual and I thought at the start that it was another of his perversions, but clearly it seems it was almost universal. It is bloody uncomfortable by the time you get to 15/16, and the idiots who mandate such things must know that..

My discomfiture was that not only did you have to see other lads naked or near naked, but you had to touch each other in partnered exercise. As I have said before I was always too scared and feeling sick for any physical manifestation, but there was always the fear that it could happen. I feared being found out (and what the consequences would have been if I had been) - it is all very well for schools to say it is a safe place where "bullying is not tolerated"(ours to be fair, never gave such a promise - perhaps scared of the Trades Description Act!), but they could always "get you" away from school - at the bus stop, on the bus etc. There was always the self-loathing, and I have always considered it akin to putting an alcoholic in a brewery.

It is a feeling that never leaves you, and today, after 40 years I can still remember it and feel nauseous when doing so - the lads who loved showing themselves off by displaying themselves, and when they did it near me, were they trying to catch me out? - that is the sort of feeling you got, and the the acrid smell of Brut (a smell that always makes me feel sick, though thankfully not many men use it these days). Since the day I left school I have never visited a sports centre or gone to a swimming pool because it reminds me of those appalling years.

Alan, thank you for answering my question. It is true that boys PE shorts in the 80s were rather short and tight fitting and that with the boy being shirtless an erection was difficult to dissimulate. It is also true that teenage boys could have them rather often. When I could see a boy in my classes being erect, I went to him, tapped him gently on the back or the shoulder and told him to go the changing room for 5 minutes. I did this in the most inconspicuous way possible and was always intent on preserving the boy’s dignity. I would never have shouted at him or exposed him in front of all the others as your teacher seemed to do.
While the action taken of sending the boy away to relieve himself in the changing room was, on the surface, similar to what Alan described, the way I handled it was very different. And I think the same can be said for shirtless PE in general.
I’m well aware that shirtless PE has, in the past, sometimes been used in ways that were unkind—even demeaning. There were schools and teachers who saw it as a way to toughen boys up, to assert control, or to strip away individuality. In those cases, it could feel more like a borstal or a military drill than a lesson in physical education. And I completely understand why some look back on those experiences with discomfort, even resentment.
But that was never my approach. For me, the aim was never to embarrass or break a boy down, but to create an environment where discipline and respect went hand in hand. When handled with care, I genuinely believe shirtless PE can foster a sense of focus, equality, and even pride. It can help boys feel more in tune with their bodies, more present in the moment, and more engaged in the task at hand—so long as the emotional well-being of each student is always front of mind.
The key is in how it's done. I always tried to set a tone of quiet confidence and calm authority without making any concessions. I made sure the boys knew what was expected, but also that I was there to support them—not judge or shame them. Discipline, yes—but never humiliation.
So while some might see shirtless PE as harsh or outdated, I’ve seen firsthand that, when handled with empathy and respect, it can actually contribute to a positive, even empowering, learning environment. It's all about the tone you set, the trust you build, and the dignity you preserve.

Hello again.

Someone has said this about me - 'IF "Jack" was telling the truth, a couple of weeks ago, this minimal kit is going on to this day but since he was a "hit and run" poster I do somehow doubt that a standard comprehensive would be like this all the time today - a grammar or boarding school, yes, but a comprehensive?' -



Yes Jack, that's me, is telling the truth. Here in Lincoln at our secondary school our PE teachers have always told us gym is shirtless for boys since I started in 2020. It was a bit of a big deal at first but you can't stay anxious forever about anything at our age, I worry about other things a lot more, I've got my GCSE's coming up and a lot of revision to pack in and then another two years WITHOUT P.E!!!

I'm lucky I've got a body I have always felt alright about, and looking around me at school in PE so have all the others, yet we are meant to be the least fit generation, we don't look it and some of them go up the gym to work out to look even better. I don't know if they pay for it or what it costs.

I've never heard the term 'hit and run poster' before online, I like that. But that doesn't apply to me now LOL.

One thing I do know is that PE teachers are wary of intelligent boys like me who have an answer for anything they say!!

Some people say I'm 16 going on 21.

The PE teacher called Steven and his explanation sounds just like my own PE teachers explanation of why we do PE shirtless at our school, and it's rubbish isn't it!

I've read your recent posts Steven with great interest. Always interesting to get another teacher pop up on here alongside the pupils of old to balance it out a bit.

I'm interested to know if you ever had anyone's parents bring this barechested PE subject up with you, at a parent evening event or any other way?

I was one of those kids in school in the 70's who went under various teachers who instructed us then to always remove our tops in so much of our PE. So much so that I'd go as far as to say it was what most of us after a while considered to be the real authentic PE kit, even though it wasn't meant to be at all, we did have gym vests, almost never worn, I never quite got that. We went bare footed in the gym itself, and the rule was take your underpants off and stick only the black shorts on that we had. Yet technically I am not aware that there was anything said by school about us having to remove our pants from being under our shorts for PE, or for that matter that we should not wear trainers/plimsolls on our feet. But no matter which teacher we had, they all played by the same book, their own rulebook rather than school's?

Because we all had to remove our pants to put our shorts on I remember that even at the start of PE there were naked boys larking around our changing room sometimes and even joke picking up other boys y-fronts and putting them on top of other boys heads and joking about dirty pants and all that. It would have been so much easier just to keep them on. A strange rule, that meant full nudity before and after PE was unavoidable. One or two boys lapped it up of course they did. There's always a few who are too confident for their own good at that age.

Showers were compulsory of course. Tell me a school where they weren't after a certain age.

So Steven what's your attitude to the school showers we all got sent to do? Did you for example ever get any parental feedback or concerns that you had to address, or any of your colleagues? The reason I say this to you is that we had a boy in our PE class when I'd just started and was about twelve years old who created quite a thing about PE showers, and our teacher let him off for a number of PE lessons. I remember him telling me he was going to get his dad in to tell them he shouldn't. Well one lunchtime I saw his parents coming into school together, I guessed it might have something to do with his 'problems' with PE.

A day or two later we all had PE again and this boy was made to shower with the rest of us and the PE teacher seemed really strict on him this time and determined, and he made him go in, not in a nasty way, but in a very assertive in control type of way.

So some other boys and me asked him after PE what his parents had been doing up the school the day or two before and he told us that his dad had asked if he could be excused PE showers on account of his acute shyness in such a situation. Yet aside from PE he didn't seem the shy type at all. This boy in our class, Chris, told us all that both his parents had come to school at the request of the headmaster after a report from our PE teacher over various difficulties, meaning what we could all see for ourselves - the showers.

He told us that his parents request to excuse him from showers after PE lessons had been declined by the headmaster of our school in the presence of two PE teachers, who agreed with the headmaster decision, and that his parents had almost immediately backed down and accepted it.

You might have thought that this boy Chris, who this was all about, might have actually been a part of the discussion but he was absent from it, not allowed to be, while they all talked about him. He was not allowed to offer his view.

I remember he told me that before his parents left they had to wait for the school secretary to type up a letter for them detailing the discussion they had just had in the headmaster's office with two of our PE teachers, where it was said that our head of PE had told his parents that being told to shower after PE was a fully reasonable instruction to do with the running of the school and the parents wishes had been noted but dismissed fully. Basically the teachers and head ultimately decided that someone's son at our school would shower naked with the class whether he or his parents liked it or not, as was the case here. So they trumped the parents wish on behalf of their own son.

The justification for this was apparently if they allowed this boy to be exempted from showers after PE lessons then someone else would ask they same and then others would too, and that the whole rules based order of the school would ultimately break down because you couldn't make one rule for someone and deny it to someone else, which is fair point I suppose, but at least explains the highly rigid nature of why they forced us all into showering at school and were even prepared to overrule actual parents sitting in the headmaster's office.

Of course most boys who felt like Chris in my PE class did, just bit their tongues, got their heads down and made no such fuss over it and endured it. For most people showers and baths are meant to be a mainly solitary private activity and I think many of us automatically think this. Some adapted far better than others to this.

So that's for you Steven.


I just want to ask a bit of a direct question for out gay friends on here, as a straight male myself. If you are at school and realise you are gay, and have to do all these barechested PE lessons and take showers, is that like putting a heterosexual schoolgirl by herself into a shower of naked boys in terms of how uncomfortable that would obviously make someone in such a situation (presumably) feel. The same for barechested PE for boys at school, is that similar to a girl of the same age being told she must do it topless, or is it just because like one girl among a lot of shirtless boys you have to hide certain feeling about what you are looking at and possibly being attracted by.

I'm genuinely keen to know how being an emerging gay teen at school in such situations where barechested PE and communal showers were unavoidable affected you and how you thought.

To the person who said about what it was like for people in the 80's you are quite right, and even more so in the 70's. I can't help but wonder how many struggling boys there must have been in my own PE lessons and showers at the time, there were definitely quite a few I'm sure, but we pretended in those days that everyone in our class was 100% straight and not just straight but a very macho straight.

Alan, thank you for the clarification you gave me on 14th April. Your classmate's treatment was vile.

Though not quite as extreme, I remember an overweight boy in our first PE lesson at junior school (boys just in shorts) who unfortunately received a tactless remark from another boy about his weight. He protested to the teacher in front of the class as we were about to leave for the school hall; she said nothing - literally nothing, was just silent. Knowing her to be a kind woman, I suspect she spoke to them both quietly at a less public moment.

Steven, thank you for your thoughtful responses to Alan's comments (and also partly to my own questions).

Comment by: Nick T on 16th April 2025 at 16:49



"....Steven and others who back shirtless PE, I’d urge you to consider the risks of cases such as mine."


For sure, Nick, totally agree. I was in exactly the same position as yourself. I think a lot of people today forget what the 1980s were like - Mr Humphries and Larry Grayson on the TV, being laughed at, encouraged by themselves to fuel the idea were were all effeminate mothers boys, , I also remember when The Sun was printing stuff on their front page in banner headlines like "Poofters On Parade" when it was suggested the army should take a more lenient attitude, and their "Eastbenders" when the TV soap introduced two gay characters. It was not easy. At my school you could get a wallop from other pupils for having ginger hair (I was lucky mine was brown). None of this bothered the teaching staff. Turning a blind eye in the "playground" was their speciality.

What I find especially worrying is that Steven was obviously a very young teacher back in 1980, which was our time at school, and while I wouldn't expect older teachers of the time, to understand, I would have expected younger men to have done so. IF "Jack" was telling the truth, a couple of weeks ago, this minimal kit is going on to this day but since he was a "hit and run" poster I do somehow doubt that a standard comprehensive would be like this all the time today - a grammar or boarding school, yes, but a comprehensive?

I lived in a very straight world - I expect you did, too. My situation wouldn't have gone down well at home, my first job was in the engineering industry, and in my spare time I played in a big band. You were on your guard all day, every day, thinking about everything before you said it. To this day I would not want my neighbours or my customers to know about me. That said my life was at it's worst between 11 and 16 and I wouldn't live it again for all the tea in China. Like you, I would urge all P.E. teachers to remember what lads like you and me went through, and many are still going through, and give them the right to privacy. I think this is even more important now that so many are forced to endure school till 18. It might be a more tolerant world, but not everywhere.

Comment by: Steven on 16th April 2025 at 14:23


It would depend who it was, Steven - it it was one of his favourites he would shout at the lads laughing , and tell the object of the humour to leave the gym for five minutes - if it was one he didn't like he seemed to enjoy their humiliation. I have mentioned the conditions of the school before,, but it was an old run-down school which closed the year I left, but it had been known to be on the closure list for a few years, and we only had teachers who were towards the end of the carers, and they really were just eeking out their time. We kept corporal punishment to the end. As less academic lads went there (my interests were music and electronics, neither of which were taught, as nobody had the ability to do so, and the only lesson I enjoyed was technical drawing, and even with that the slightest mistake, like rubbing out being too obvious you would get bawled out, and you could get a whiteboard cleaner thrown at you, or one of the pens. I always felt ill at ease. I think because we were neither academic or athletic,we were considered no hopers. We had two careers advice lessons - one was a day trip to Fords in Dagenham and the other was a visit from an Army careers officer. It was fairly easy to get into either at that time. If you had any other ambitions, I felt they thought you were above yourself. You got no encouragement at all. The school was pretty much off the radar of the LEA., we had an elderly headmaster who was in poor health, and he delegated to the deputy who was a very vindictive and aggressive man (he taught TD by the way!). We only had one good teacher, the art master who was kind and actually remembered we had forenames, and alone amongst the staff called us by them.. Luckily I was fair at art. I was also good at English, but again, no encouragement. For the rest, you would have thought we were in a borstal. It was a single sex school, so we had no women teachers, just these rather jaded old men, and the dislike, frankly was mutual..

My years there really pit me against authority figures,and though I was an employee for a time, I started my own business as soon as I could afford to, in a fairly niche market, so I have always been in control in recent years, so in that respect, school did me a favour, but school for me was a nightmare, especially P.E.

Alan, your concern is exactly what made my life difficult as a closeted gay teenager having to endure PE like this in the 1980s, as well as the general extreme self consciousness that came with that age, as I commented a couple of weeks back.

Steven and others who back shirtless PE, I’d urge you to consider the risks of cases such as mine.

Thank you, Alan, for your response.
If you don’t mind my asking—you said that it never happened to you, which implies that it did happen to other boys. I’d be interested to know how your teacher—that revolting old man, as you put it—reacted to that.
I shudder to think what he might have done.

Everything you describe about your old school—your shorts-only PE lessons—makes it sound like quite a bad place, run by fear and intimidation.
It all seems very different from the atmosphere at the school where I started teaching in the ’80s, even though this must have been roughly the same time.

Comment by: Steven on 16th April 2025 at 01:54



Thank you for your reply. I don't, for one moment, doubt your good intentions, but of course, you can't control boys (and girls, I suspect) on the abuse that can go on in the changing room, fore and aft the lessons. I do understand that branded footwear, for example, can highlight the financial position of the families of the various boys, and allow the better off ones to feel superior, but of course, you had a no footwear policy, so that wouldn't be a problem. If my mate had been able to wear a tee shirt he could have turned his back while he put it on - the abuse would start when we went in to the changing room, and as I have said our P.E. teacher (who was a revolting old man) would join in and use the same, often abusive , nicknames the boys used. For example just one lad in our class was called "The Rabbi" by both pupils and the teacher, (we were a bunch of white working class lads). He wasn't Jewish, not that it would have mattered if he was.The teacher should have been ashamed of himself, but it sort of endorsed and legitimised, to some extent the "teasing" in the boys eyes..

The other problem I have with a "just shorts" policy (and thank God it never happened to me, because I was scared and tense throughout all P.E lessons) was that the older you get, the more likely it will be to have an unwanted erection, which, of course, can be covered to some extent with a shirt. When you have nothing but shorts you feel totally exposed. On days when we had P.E. I used to feel sick all day, and on afternoon sessions, I couldn't eat at lunchtimes. I am sure that I was not the only one - then and now. especially as schooldays seem to go on till 18 these days.

Akan, thank you for your comment.

You’re right to point out the tension between my acknowledging the boys’ initial reluctance and my claim that it wasn’t intended to embarrass them. Let me clarify: yes, I fully expected discomfort at first — self-consciousness is a part of adolescence, particularly when it comes to one’s body. But the intention was never humiliation. The aim was to build a disciplined, focused, and equal environment where all boys had the same expectations and where no one could hide behind brands, distractions, or cliques. In my experience, such an environment helped these boys to overcome their sens of embarrassment.

The example of your friend with the noticeable scar is heartbreaking, and I can only imagine how isolating that experience must have been — especially with a teacher who, as you say, joined in the cruelty. I can assure you, that is not how I operated. In my gym, bullying of any kind — particularly targeting someone’s body — would have been dealt with swiftly and seriously. It simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.

Had I had a boy with such a scar in my group, he would not have been exempted from the kit policy. In fact, I believe it would have been all the more important for him to be included equally. Exempting him — even with the best of intentions — would have risked further isolating him and reinforcing the idea that he was “different.” Instead, my approach would have been to ensure that his inclusion was accompanied by firm boundaries around respect, clear expectations for conduct, and a culture that did not allow mockery to take root.

In my experience, boys in that position often benefited most from the policy over time. Being treated the same as everyone else — not singled out, not shielded — allowed them to develop a healthier perception of themselves. They weren’t pitied; they were accepted. And the initial discomfort many felt, including the more shy or self-conscious pupils, often gave way to a surprising sense of pride and solidarity. In overcoming their fear of being seen shirtless, they gained confidence in themselves — and that was something no T-Shirt ever gave them.

So yes — the shirtless rule would have applied to everyone, including a boy with a scar. But he would have had the protection of structure, discipline, and a zero-tolerance stance on bullying. That, to me, is what allows true acceptance — not isolation, but inclusion with support.

As for your point about a plain, budget T-shirt: in theory, that sounds reasonable. But in practice, the problem went far beyond affordability. Missing kit, forgotten kit, selectively worn kit — these issues undermined consistency, wasted lesson time, and often came from exactly the boys who most needed boundaries. A stripped-down, shorts-only uniform was simple, equal, and removed those grey areas completely. It was not about punishing anyone, but about drawing a clear line — and sticking to it.

I know not everyone will agree with my methods, but I hope this gives you a clearer understanding of the thinking behind them. I’ve reflected on this decision many times over the years, and I still believe it was the right one — not because it was easy, but because it worked.

Comment by: Steven on 15th April 2025 at 02:47



....!It’s true that many of the boys were reluctant — some extremely so — when told they would now be required to de PE bare-chested. I fully expected that. At that age, self-consciousness is often heightened, especially among those who aren’t naturally sporty or physically confident. But that was precisely why the change was necessary........

This wasn’t just about discipline in the traditional sense — it was about levelling the playing field. Previously, some boys hid behind layers, behind branded sportswear, behind bravado and distraction. Meanwhile, the quieter ones — the so-called “academic types” — were often mocked, sidelined, or simply overlooked in PE lessons. They were the ones who regularly “forgot” their kit or lingered on the fringes of activity — not because they lacked ability, but because the environment didn’t give them the structure or confidence to fully take part.


Crucially, it wouldn’t have made sense to apply the rule only to the more disruptive or undisciplined boys. That would have undermined the entire purpose. Uniformity must be consistent to be meaningful. The strength of the policy lay in its clarity and fairness — everyone, without exception, followed the same standard. That consistency fostered unity, not resentment.

Once all shirts were off — no exceptions, no debates — the superficial differences began to fade. There was a shared vulnerability, yes, but more importantly, a collective focus. And, quite unexpectedly, many of the quieter boys began to engage more. They were no longer being scrutinised or singled out — they were simply part of the group. For some, it was the first time they had felt genuinely included and respected in a physical setting.........."

Over time, I saw a genuine transformation. — gave them space to build a healthier sense of self, both physically and mentally.......

So yes — the shirts had to come off. Not to embarrass the boys, but to provide a firmer, fairer, and ultimately more empowering framework in which they could grow."


Steven, I disagreed with you before, I do so even more now. I have to say I don't like the word "fairer" - it is a favourite of the government trying to justify the unjustifiable, and we know that isn't the result or the purpose.

In the first paragraph above you admitted yourself that " many of the boys were reluctant — some extremely so — when told they would now be required to de PE bare-chested. I fully expected that. At that age, self-consciousness is often heightened". This is totally add odds with the final line "not to embarrass the boys". I am sure some were, even if they didn't tell you so your face.

If you read my response yesterday you will see I made mention of a schoolfriend of mine who was embarrassed three times a week in term time for six years for his very noticeable scar, for which he was given a very cruel nickname that never left him - even used by the P.E. teacher himself.

How would you have coped with a situation like that, Steven?. I am sure that you wouldn't have joined it, or condoned it, but we all know these things happen, and this unnecessary bare-chest routine just fostered it. I remember his discomfiture to this day, even though it did not personally affect me, nor did I take part in the name calling.

I agree with you about the pretentiousness of high end clothing but surely a tee shirt from Primark (they were not around in London at my time I think the low price equivalent was Waide & Pollard) universally endorsed would have been acceptable?

It’s true that many of the boys were reluctant — some extremely so — when told they would now be required to de PE bare-chested. I fully expected that. At that age, self-consciousness is often heightened, especially among those who aren’t naturally sporty or physically confident. But that was precisely why the change was necessary.

At the time, I was a beginning teacher — young, inexperienced, and still finding my feet. I struggled with maintaining discipline, particularly with the older boys, and I knew that something had to change. I didn’t want to spend every lesson chasing respect through shouting matches and half-measures. I was looking for a solution that would actually work — something firm, clear, and fair.

This wasn’t just about discipline in the traditional sense — it was about levelling the playing field. Previously, some boys hid behind layers, behind branded sportswear, behind bravado and distraction. Meanwhile, the quieter ones — the so-called “academic types” — were often mocked, sidelined, or simply overlooked in PE lessons. They were the ones who regularly “forgot” their kit or lingered on the fringes of activity — not because they lacked ability, but because the environment didn’t give them the structure or confidence to fully take part.

The change to a simplified, stripped-down uniform altered that dynamic.

Crucially, it wouldn’t have made sense to apply the rule only to the more disruptive or undisciplined boys. That would have undermined the entire purpose. Uniformity must be consistent to be meaningful. The strength of the policy lay in its clarity and fairness — everyone, without exception, followed the same standard. That consistency fostered unity, not resentment.

Once all shirts were off — no exceptions, no debates — the superficial differences began to fade. There was a shared vulnerability, yes, but more importantly, a collective focus. And, quite unexpectedly, many of the quieter boys began to engage more. They were no longer being scrutinised or singled out — they were simply part of the group. For some, it was the first time they had felt genuinely included and respected in a physical setting.

Over time, I saw a genuine transformation. Posture improved. Confidence grew. Even the way some of them carried themselves outside the gym began to shift. The discipline of a simple, no-nonsense kit — and the removal of old social boundaries — gave them space to build a healthier sense of self, both physically and mentally.

This effect was most visible with the older boys. That’s where the behavioural shift was most dramatic. Discipline, focus, and mutual respect all improved significantly. Some of the most defiant pupils responded best to the clarity and firmness of the new standard.

So yes — the shirts had to come off. Not to embarrass the boys, but to provide a firmer, fairer, and ultimately more empowering framework in which they could grow.

Looking back now, I can say without hesitation: I never regretted the decision to introduce the shirtless kit. It brought structure, authority, and cohesion — not only to the lessons, but to the boys themselves.

Hi Jack! You said you were "shocked" how and when did you find out? Was it before going or was it "dropped on you"? What was the first lesson like, do you remember? Sounds like you've gotten used to it, how long did that take? How comfortable were you with being shirtless (say at the beach or pool or even outside on a nice day) before? Would you say it's been a positive negative or neutral experience for you overall? For example do you think it's helped/encouraged/motivated you to stay in shape?

On a more general note...

I think maybe there are five possible options when it comes to boys being barechested in PE:
* Mandate it
* Encourage/incentivize it but don't require it
* Permit it but otherwise remain neutral
* Discourage but don't forbid it
* Forbid it

be interested to know what other commenters think the "best" path is or what they would do if they were PE teachers (or what they *do* or *did* do if they *are* or *were* PE teachers!)...and whether or not the answer would change depending, for example, on the age of the pupils, or whether it was single or mixed sex/gender lessons, or indoor vs outdoor or what kind of activity they were doing. Also the importance or otherwise of getting "buy in" if not from pupils then from, say, parents, or other teachers, or governors, etc.

Comment by: Matthew S on 13th April 2025 at 23:48



...."Also (excuse me if this is foolish), when you say "Especially in the upper classes, I struggled a lot", do you refer to older teenage boys or top-set pupils with ability?......"

Matthew I took it to mean the older age group, because Steven said his school was "a difficult inner city comprehensive school". I can well sympathize because that was what mine was like.

As I said before Steven sounds a reasonable man, but as I read his original post it made me remember a mate of mine from the age of 11. We were in the same class. When he was born he had some serious obstruction and they had to perform surgery on him, which resulted in a scar, very noticeable, which of course, grew in size as he did, which went from his chest to his navel. He dreaded P.E. lessons not only because he was very self conscious of that fact, but also from eleven to when we left he was always called "Frankenstein" - not only by the other pupils, but by the P.E. teacher as well!. Do people never tire of repeating the same "joke" for six years? I know Steven would not have been the type to join in that cruel "banter", but I do wonder if he had any pupils that had scars the lads were embarrassed by and could not see the damage it did to them, when they were forced into the position of being.on display like that for three one hour periods a week. That is why I say that for many lads to have to appear without shirts was a punishment to them.5nztg

I always regarded doing barechested PE as a very practical method. Quick and easy for teachers and pupils alike, Everyone knew where they stood. It's a common sense kit for boys

Comment by: Yours Truly on 13th April 2025 at 21:32


and

Comment by: Chris G on 13th April 2025 at 21:29


".....Isn't that the point, Alan. Steven didn't force anyone into minimal kit and didn't make everyone suffer....."


Before I say anything else, I have to say that Steven sounds to me quite a likeable man, if, in my view, a misguided one. At least he responded openly, unlike the drop and run ex-teacher last week, so anything i say here is not a personal attack on him.

I agree with YT that the method employed was about subjugation. I know he meant well, but in my opinion Steven went about it the wrong way. I am sure though, in his case, his methods had no sleazy edge to them. It reminds me of a situation that occurred once with our well named Mr. Burke. Some idiot threw a stink-bomb in his class towards the end of the summer term. I don't know who did it, there were six possible suspects but I don't know if they were acting alone or jointly and severally. Of course, Mr. B wanted to know who did it, and seemed to think the culprit would own up (as if! - he was a demon with the cane). Of course nobody confessed, so all of us got an hour's detention (it was the last lesson of the day) Thirty boys suffered for the crime of between one to six lads.

Now Chris, what can I say?. I can only assume you are a government spokesman, who always manage a pusillanimous excuse!. You juggle with words mate. Steven was the one who changed the rules, so he DID force the boys into minimal kit, and I am sure he is honest enough to admit it. In so doing he probably did make some of the lads feel they were being punished. I know that wasn't his intention, but as they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I would only punish the guilty.

Steven, please excuse someone without professional experience asking you something. In your 12th April comment you show thoughtfulness, even kindness, when you say, "I knew I didn’t want to rule through fear or shouting" and "It wasn’t about humiliation or severity". If a pupil new to your classes had shown some clear reluctance or embarrassment at doing PE in shorts only, you would have responded sensitively?

(Incidentally, I note there were some concerns about numbers of overweight children in the United Kingdom even in the nineties).

Also (excuse me if this is foolish), when you say "Especially in the upper classes, I struggled a lot", do you refer to older teenage boys or top-set pupils with ability?

Thank you for any responses you are happy to give, and thank you for sharing your professional knowledge and recollections on this site.

Hi Alan,

Steven's post demonstrates my earlier point about subjugation. Teachers of both genders come to find that while girls can be worked with boys must be worked on. And it is about undermining them, stripping them to make them feel self-conscious and vulnerable.

Boys in particular seem to need to know that there is a line there and will keep pushing until they find one. I have posted previously about the biology teacher at my school, who, no doubt aware that as a petite, young, cute woman she would be particularly vulnerable, ran our first two or three classes like Herr Flick. I have also mentioned several other teachers who failed to establish that line and had unhappy, stressful working lives as a result.

But there is a flipside. Once the teacher has established their authority they can start to build a more genial relationship with their students. Our biology teacher turned out to be interesting and likable. But she had to know the lesson was learned first. And it's my guess that is what Steven did with the boys he taught.

' I would further put it to you that the quieter lads who did not cause trouble, had to pay for those who did.'

I was one of those quieter boys who never played up. (Thankfully there was no shirtless PE at my school.) But you are absolutely right, such boys just get lost in the fray.

Just a final thought. My secondary school was quite rough. But we still got through it with vests for PE and athletics outdoors and rugby-style tops for outdoor stuff. It's a but sad that it still always has to be boys coming in for that sort of treatment.

Comment by Alan, 13th April:

"Would it not have been better, in retrospect, just to have picked out those lads who were causing trouble, and forced them into minimal kit, instead of making everyone suffer?"

Isn't that the point, Alan. Steven didn't force anyone into minimal kit and didn't make everyone suffer. He introduced a new way of doing things that everyone accepted, and brought his pupils on-side without resorting to force or threats.

Thanks for your reply Steve. I can understand your aim, but I know, as I was never a tearaway, for want of a better word, that had I been one of the pupils, who, up until that point, had been allowed to wear a shirt, had that been removed from me (literally), I would very much have resented you.

A lot of lads, as you will have read in these posts, felt very insecure in minimal kit - I have given my reasons before, so I do not intend to rehearse them here.

Would it not have been better, in retrospect, just to have picked out those lads who were causing trouble, and forced them into minimal kit, instead of making everyone suffer?.

I do remember that one of our lads, who was extremely violent even at school (he organised the playground protection racket at our place) ended up serving a term for GBH when he was twenty, so I do not for one moment think all schoolboys are angels, I think if it is your blueprint for life it is going to happen.

Hello Alan,
You're absolutely right to question what "earning respect" really means. It’s a term that can be used too casually, and I don't take it lightly.

When I said I earned the boys’ respect, I didn’t mean it in the sense of dominance or submission. What I meant was this: I learned to create a space where expectations were clear, where structure replaced chaos, and where every student — especially the quieter, more reserved ones — could feel safe, seen, and able to participate without being drowned out by the louder voices.

The shirtless uniform policy wasn’t about punishment. It wasn’t a response to bad behavior. It was about setting a collective standard — stripping away status symbols, distractions, and ego games that so often play out among teenage boys. It was about returning focus to movement, teamwork, and discipline. And I led by example: calm, consistent, present and it did indeed help that my leadership was clearly visible by them being stripped to the waist.

Did that approach feel strict? Yes, to some. But my goal was never blind obedience — it was creating a shared rhythm, a sense of fairness. Over time, I saw something shift: the boys started showing up differently. Not out of fear, but with a clearer sense of what was expected, and why.

And no, not everyone responded the same way. But many of those "quieter lads" you mentioned — they were often the ones who benefitted the most. They told me they finally felt able to participate without being shoved aside by the more dominant personalities.

So no, I don't believe I simply controlled them. I guided them — and in return, many of them offered trust, even enthusiasm which I had never seen to such an extent in a shirted group of boys. That, to me, is a form of earned respect. Not perfect, not universal, but honest.

Thanks again for raising the question — it’s an important one.