My mental storylines about girls being punished after school sports have always involve them being wet, bedraggled, muddy. Think rugby, cross-country running… Think supervised showers, followed by sound whackings in the changing rooms with the sports master’s plimsoll.
A long walk in sub-zero temperatures the other day provoked a different idea. Girls in short hockey skirts, freezing in the wind on a sub-zero day. Made to stand with hands on head in the dressing room at the end of the game. Caned on their ever-so-cold thighs. And then sent to strip and shower.
I’m wondering, though, about the effectivenss of the punishment. How much would the strokes actually hurt on numb-from-cold flesh? More or less than a room-temperature caning? And would the marks start to hurt more or less as the water from the showers warmed the punished culprits up?
(Oh, did I say ‘warmed’ there? See, I’m getting soft: who says the showers would be anything other than bracingly-cold anyway?)
I was also considering the same on a run earlier this week when I passed a lady running. Her shorts offered no protection to the cold and her legs were decidedly reddened from the cold.
Clearly, a practical test of this theory is required, all in the name of sadistic science of course.
Abel might try it on Emma-Jane’s resilient thighs (and why thighs and not arse, the latter can’t be much warmer, can it?)