Put-Back


by Paul Crewe <Short_pants@hotmail.com>

The expression 'Put Back' can have many meanings. For example, it may refer to a shopper who has taken more items to the check-out than they can afford, in which case some goods are put back on the shelves. It could refer to a shop-lifter who has been caught stealing, now the 'put back' amounts to a confession and apology. In an academic sense put back could refer to a pupil who has been forced to repeat a class or project. In a general sense it usually means to delay an event, for example one's hospital appointment may be put back due to a staffing shortage.

But for me, the expression 'put back' has one meaning greater than all others, it refers to an older boy who is required to wear garments associated with a younger boy. A teenage boy who is put back into short trousers, forced to wear shorts which are smart, tailored, usually grey with a white lining, and a symbol of junior status. These shorts, unlike his fashionable leisure shorts, will probably have a zip, metal clip, two pockets, and powerful symbolism. For many boys in English speaking countries, short trousers indicate little boy, whereas long trousers indicate big boy. This applied more to the English colonies than to US, but the icon is universal. Shortpants represent childhood all around the world, and modern children still appreciate the significance, even if few of them are subjected to it.

Those two words carry such powerful meanings. To be put back into shorts is a humiliation beyond all others. It implies a loss of earned status, a demotion, a punishment, an embarrassment without equal. The 'back' is the gentler word of the two. Although it implies a retrograde step, it does leave the victim with some hope. For where there is a back, there must be a forward. Being sent 'back' is a penalty, an acknowledgement of failure, a recognition that things have gone wrong, an acceptance of work to be repeated. But all of these suggest that it is a temporary reversal. One does not go back to repeat, without a clear intention of moving forward again, soon. So when a boy is put back into shortpants, the back suggests that this is only a temporary step.

The 'put' is much more damaging. Put is a permanent word. Items are put into place, and there they stay. The 'put' implies forever, done and then forgotten. Fires which are put out do not re-ignite. Pets which are put down to not get resurrected. And long trousers which are put away do not get worn again. Put is a powerful word. A boy who is put back into shorts usually has no clear date for the return of his prized trousers. Christmas is perhaps a long time away, but every child knows it will come around eventually. You'll have to wait until Christmas is a phrase often used to delay a desired item. The child does not like it, but does see a possibility for success. With shortpants though, many Christmas's could come and go, the shorts might remain. There is no deadline, no magic period, just a forlorn hope that it will come to an end. Tales abound of boys kept in shorts at age 18, 19, 21. For a fourteen year old, that is eternity, purgatory. And with every passing year, the embarrassment multiplies. As fewer and fewer of one's contemporaries suffer the same fate, the teasing increases. The long trousered ones vastly outnumber those in shorts, and every boy who matures into trousers will delight in displaying them to those who remain belittled. The shame never goes away. Finally, 'put' implies compulsion. There was no consultation, no choice for the boy. The 'put' indicates it was done to him, not for him. His views are ignored, his objections overuleed, his protests silenced. And protests there will have been, for it is deeply felt. To be downgraded to shortpants is the ultimate sanction.

For some such boys, the return to short trousers may only be enforced within the home. At the age of eleven Mark was equipped with a pair of grey shorts, to be worn all day Saturday if his behaviour during the week was below standard. The penalty could, and was, imposed on other days, after school and during school holidays. Although he was not forbidden from playing out, he would not dare to be seen outside. His 'naughty shorts' were kept in the living room, and he could be ordered to don them at any instant if circumstances warrented it. They lurked on the back of the settee, just behind where his mum sat, and she would toss them across the room to him, with a sharp phrase to encourage him to change. Any delay would certainly cause her to rise from her seat, and if she did he would not want to sit down for a while. Mark always changed right there, kicking off his shoes and removing his long trousers whilst muttering how unfair it was. Once pulled up, Mark would sit sulking, often on the carpet with his knees under his chin. After a while his mood would improve, and he would get on with his homework or game until bedtime. Once put on, the shorts stayed on for the rest of that day. The shorts were there, on full display to any and all visitors, until he left home to go to college. And he had to wear them quite regularly, about once a month at first, perhaps three times a year at fifteen, and was last seen in his naughty shorts just three weeks before leaving school at age 16. There were occasions, though, particularly when he was thirteen, when he had to wear them much more frequently, sometimes for a week at a time. I never heard if any visitor asked about the shorts whilst they were parked on the edge of the settee. Avisitor calling whilst he was wearing them, on the other hand, was a serious hazard for Mark. If he had the option, he would dodge upstairs at speed. Many a caller saw his grey-clad bottom and white thighs rapidly ascending the stairs. At other times he would cower behind the settee for a while, or hide in the kitchen. If the caller did not stay long, this was fine, but eventually he would have to come out, and would stand red-faced to speak to the visitor.

For some boys, this partial return to shortpants is extended to every day, except for school where long trousers must be worn according to their uniform rerquirements. In these circumstances, the option of hiding is not available. Boys are sent out to play, taken shopping, driven to relatives homes, always in their shorts. For these boys the pressure is constant, exposure to the elements of wind and rain - as well as the glare of the public - is unavoidable.

The next category of sufferer, for that is what they are, is the boy sent to a school which does permit short trousers as part of the uniform. Although these are becoming fewer, they still exist. Most notably are the state-run middle schools, with children aged nine to thirteen. Also many independent preparatory schools insist upon shorts up to age eleven, and allow longs after that. In both of these establishments several older boys will be observed who have yet to shake off the shorts of their earlier years, and a number will occasionally arrive in shorts for a week or two. These boys will usually be allowed to change into leisure clothes after school, partly to keep their expensive uniforms clean for the next day.

The final category is the boy totally immersed into shortpants. These poor unfortunates lose their trousers for both school and home wear. Although probably the rarest of all categories, it is this boy who is perhaps most fortunate. His total exposure is initially a big shock, but after a short time becomes normal. At school he will experience an initial flurry of excitement, but the novelty will quickly wear off. At home he will become accustomed to his state of dress, and soon become oblivious to it. Only unusual events will draw attention to his attire, such as an unusual visitor, a trip out, or a particularly cold spell. For this reason, as a disciplinary tool it is not as effective as one might hope. One does not miss something that is gone, out of sight for ever, not as much as something that is close by, but unobtainable. Having said that, total immersion for a short period is devastating.

When a big boy is put into shortpants, it is the end of his world. First, there is the misery of public exposure, then the cold winds, stinging rain, vicious brambles, whippy branches of hedges. A hundred hazards which a kid in longs never encounters, but a boy in shorts feels every day. One boy I knew would dash around to avoid the tail of his excited dog - the hairs being coarse could cause quite a sting as the pet rampaged around the room in greeting. Then there are the consequential losses. No more grown-up conversations, no more adult privileges, no more freedom. When a teenager is put into shorts, he reverts to a small boy. Bed-time is dictated to him, he is expected to be compliant to the wishes of any adult. He is an unpaid worker, a runner of errands, a washer-up. No longer will his opinion be welcomed. "Go and play" replaces "What do you think?" Furniture may not be available to him, only grown-up men in long trousers use the settee, kids in shortpants occupy the carpet. Maybe not all the time, but when visitors call, those who have bare knees will be expected to relinquish their seat. And failure to get up without prompting may lead to the ultimate humiliation for the short-trousered, the slap.

By far the worst part of having to wear shortpants is the slap. This small spanking may not in itself be very hard, a mere gesture, but it's very existence and execution is devastating. The slap is a sharp swipe from an open hand onto the exposed skin. Usually just one smack, aimed at the bare thigh, and often accompanied by a curt rebuke. The verbal component frequently takes the form of the name of the recipient, spoken loudly and with anger. "James!" smack. Sometimes it will be a verbal order, never a request, but an order. "Get down" smack. There may well be a tug at an arm, or shove in the back, immediately after the slap, to further encourage the boy to comply with whatever act is desired. But the slap is the key weapon. It's immediate impact is both physically stinging and emotionally bruising. The red imprint is a badge of disgrace and an indicator of status. Smacked legs are associated only with children, and only with young children. Toddlers who wear nappies receive a slap on the leg, it is an instant punishment, simple to administer, quickly forgotten (at least by the toddler). It is applied to a leg because the nappy prevents a smacked bottom, and the toddler will usually have a bare leg. Slightly older children get a slap again because it is convenient. The presence of already bare tissue provides a ready target for a stinging reminder. And the skin will already be bare because shorts are so suitable for little children. Adults are in charge, kids obey - fail to obey and this happens. SLAP. Gosh it stings. The slap is often administered without warning, frequently in public, always in anger. The slap produces a reaction far beyond it's force. For the small child it is a clear indication of the loss of favour. Being shouted at upsets small children because they are not being loved. Getting a slap reinforces that sentiment ten-fold. A small child will without exception cry after a slap.

For an older boy who has been put back into shorts, there is a great urge to cry also, the pain of the impact is bad enough, but the association with such babyish emotions is overwhelming. On a cold day, the skin will have contracted, colour will have faded to a pale white, and the slap will sting even more fiercely. It's red landing site will glow with a heat that is neither welcome nor warming. A hot hurt heat. The damaged area will be impossible to disguise. For a boy who is out, probably shopping, a slap will be heard by everybody around, who will turn to stare at the poor fellow. There can be no mistaking the shame. This boy is too tall for that costume, but is still wearing it. He has been naughty, hence the short trousers. Now he has been silly, look at the slap. Cringing with embarrassment, the boy will display cheeks as red as the bruise, and will often freeze. Boys who get regular slaps will have learned to stand still in case another one is earned. A tear may form in his eye, and trickle slowly down his face. He dare not wipe it away, for that will draw even more attention to it. Eventually people will look away, and he can trot along behind his still angry adult. The rift will not be healed until a kind word or small cuddle, but that may be a long time coming.

Following a slap some boys may speak out, following the first slap. This fateful act is spawned by the frustration of his situation. Trapped in a stressful role, the animal instinct takes over. Fight or flight. First comes fight. He may swear at his adult, or bawl out his pain. A few may even wave their arms around, even push the parent away. Then comes flight. He may step back, turn to run, or duck past his tormentor. Escape is only temporary, he cannot go far, and is easily spotted in shortpants. In every case the behaviour leads to further slaps, producing inevitable tears, maybe a tantrum, and a promise or worse punishment when he gets home. All of this rebellious action has the opposite effect to his desire. It confirms that he is not yet ready to move forward, and that it was right to put him back into shorts.

For the boy, there are some advantages to the return to shortpants. Firstly, life is easier as a small child. Mistakes which might earn a boring lecture as an adolescent are overlooked for a kid. So although leaving one's toys out may earn a modest smack on the seat of one's shorts, it is quick, usually pain-free, and loving. The pat on the bum that small children often receive implies a caring parent, a small gesture that one is being nurtured. Bigger boys in shortpants may also receive that little pat, which for teenagers who are not often cuddled, is a welcome comfort. Teenagers go through a torrid time, with hormones causing all sorts of mood swings. A fuming boy standing in shortpants insisting that he should be treated more like an adult is so comical that even the hardest parent will have to grin. Their irratic behaviour can cause great friction within a family, but when the boy is short-trousered, and a tempting thigh is easily available, then there is much less disturbance. A quick hard slap saves hours of arguing, ends disputes, enforces rules with no back-chat. Even the most difficult teenager will eventually revert to pre-pubescant compliance if kept in shorts for long enough, and will continue to enjoy his fading childhood. Boys who play rough games often fall over, shorts are not vulnerable to damage at the knee, like longs, so they stay neater - thus avoiding arguments about clumsiness. In summer time, shorts are much more comfortable. Boys who run around get sweaty in long trousers, and shorts are seen by some kids as functional, fun. It is ironic that in England today there are many boys who want to wear shortpants to school in the summer but are forbidden, when forty years ago many were sent in shorts who despised it.

One young man I knew in 1988, Jason, attended a private boarding school, but his fees were paid for by the state. He had severe dyslexia. Boys were only allowed longs after age twelve. Jason's birthday fell just three days before the end of the spring term, as did four of his friends. It was warm that spring, and they made a pact to all return to school for the summer term still in shorts. On the Sunday before school opened, Jason repeatedly asked his mum if he could have some long trousers, just in case his friends did not keep the pact, and he was the only one in shorts. She went ballistic, the shops were closed, he had insisted earlier in the holiday that he did not want trousers, she had saved up for his trousers but he had used the money for a computer game. Jason returned to school not only in shortpants, but displaying six smarting handprints on each leg. As it happened all of the friends kept to the bargain, not only that term but right through to Christmas.

The return to shortpants may not have been done as a punishment, but the effect is just as dramatic. A boys grammar school in Yorkshire was used in 1990 to make a film about a teacher who had worked there in the 1960's. He had run an after-school science club which developed a method of observing Russian satellites. The boys had plotted the orbit of every Russian spacecraft, and discovered the meaning of radio transmissions. They were the first people to realise that the Russians had opened a new launch-site, and the Western Governments became interested. To make the film, all of the current boys at the school were asked to play extras. Of course all the boys agreed, they wanted to be filmstars. For the younger ones this meant wearing the costume associated with kids of that era. So all 300 boys under age 14 (first three years) were supplied with traditional caps, shortpants and long grey socks by the BBC. Filming took months, and between sessions the boys were asked to keep wearing their shorts, to avoid changes to their skin-tan which would spoil the production. So for almost a year the boys were kept in shortpants. A few of the older boys mysteriously appeared in shorts from time to time. They told their friends that they wanted to take part in the fun, and had bought their own. During this time the parents and staff noticed how behaviour, attendance, and attitude had improved. The boys exam results were far superior to the previous year. Visitors commented upon the smart uniform, and the parents of next years intake were delighted. Many parents asked if the school would retain the shorts after filming ended, and the school agreed to allow those who wanted to retain their shorts. The following year every one of the 12 and 13 year olds stayed in shorts, so did many of the 14 year olds. Some of the new boys had long trousers on their first day, but all were in shorts on the second. The school continues to permit shorts, but sadly less and less boys take up the option.

Another school, in Cheshire, had a sudden return to short trousers as the result of a printing error. The mixed school catered for boys and girls aged 11 to 16. Boys had all worn long trousers for many years, with their bright red blazers, white shirts and striped school tie. Girls wore the red blazer with grey knee-length pleated skirts and white knee-high socks. A new typist had been employed in the spring, and she was given the task of retyping the uniform requirements. A copy was sent to all prospective parents in good time for the start of the new term. It was accompanied by a note from the headteacher stressing the importance of total compliance with the uniform. The typist accidentally extracted a very old version of the uniform, which stated that boys should wear 'grey shorts/trousers' and copied it out. She mis-took the '/' meaning option for a correction, delete the 's' She wrote 'grey short trousers' and sent out the details. Although some parents thought it odd, nobody dared to question the Headteacher. Come September 120 very smart little men arrived on the doorstep of their new school. They looked an absolute picture, all with bare legs, most wore shorts which reached to mid-thigh, and had been sold cute grey knee-high socks with two red stripes in the turn-over. The local school outfitter had been delighted to off-load some stock that had been gathering dust for years. Although the school instantly realised what had happened, they were unwilling to pay compensation. So the uniform stayed in force for the rest of that year. Next year the rules were quietly eased, the '/' was put back in, and the crop of short trousered boys eventually withered.

Incidents of a whole school (or year-group) being returned to shorts are rare, but there are many boys who suffer the indignity in isolation. One such fellow was Terry, who at the tender age of thirteen broke his ankle. Terry had to have a large plaster cast on his left foot. After a week he was able to go back to school, but on the morning of his first day he couldn't get his trousers on. Time was running out, Terry had to be driven there by his dad, and dad had to go to work. Terry's mum put him back into his primary school shortpants, because they were wider and she could just squeeze the cast through. A knee-high grey sock covered his right leg, and a white sock covered his exposed left toes. At school Terry was slightly embarrassed by his short trousers, but on his crutches he had a good excuse. That day his mum bought him a new pair of shorts, in a bigger size, and when Terry came home the smaller ones were cut off. The new shorts slid easily over the plaster, and Terry could dress himself. Terry continued to wear his new shorts for over a year after the plaster cast had been removed, at first he said it was because it was sunny, but when the new term commenced in the autumn and he was still in them, that did not ring true. By the winter time he admitted that his mum would not buy any new trousers until the shorts had been out-grown, a process which took until the start of the next academic year, when Terry was almost fifteen.

When Martin was eight he had joined the local cub pack. All the cubs had to wear grey shorts as part of their uniform, the rest being a green sweatshirt, yellow kneckerchief (triangle folded and wrapped around the neck), a red woggle (plastic tube to retain the kneckerchief), black shoes, long grey socks, and elastic rings with green tags called garters which were supposed to hold the socks up. Akela ran the group's uniform shop, and made a tidy profit from it. When Martin was aged eleven, and due to go up to scouts, the scoutleader resigned. This was not such a bad event, he had done very little and the troop had effectively disbanded. But Martin and his friends were reluctant to leave the pack. Akela agreed to allow the four pals to become pack helpers, as a temporary measure until a new scoutmaster could be found, and more boys recruited. The gang of four were not able to take part in cub events, but they did have special activities of their own, a sea-fishing expedition, mountain walks, canoeing trip, and a land-yacht just for them. In return they came to cubs and helped Akela to set up games, tidy away, teach a few skills, and take care of the camping equipment. It worked very well, and Akela came to rely upon his helpers. Nobody saw any need to change their uniform much. The helpers wore scout shirts but retained the cub shorts and socks. Akela insisted upon this, knowing that once the boys acquired long trousers there would be nothing but trouble. After a while Martin's mum asked if her older boy, Andrew, could join the gang. Andrew was already fourteen, but was the smallest boy in his year, and no bigger than Martin. Akela reluctantly agreed, but soon found that Andrew was a very reliable and polite boy. Akela had insisted that Andrew wear the same clothes as the others, initially thinking that it might put him off. However his mum was keen, and bought some new grey shorts from Akela for the boy. Andrew joined in with enthusiasm, and soon became the leader of the gang. He proudly wore his uniform to & from meetings, and was never shy when the gang went out alone. Both Martin and Andrew were occasionally seen in their shorts, but without the full uniform. At first this was just around the home, then family events. The following summer on most Sundays the boys attended church in white shirts, black tie, grey shorts, knee high socks, polished black shoes. By now Andrew was 15 and Martin 12. The older worshippers were very complimentary. Clearly their mother had found other reasons to keep the boys in shorts. Certainly they were a credit to her. As Akela had predicted, when the gang were 13 and they demanded long trousers, the gang fell apart. Attendance dropped, those who did come were unhelpful, and the practise was ended. The uniform had been the glue, once removed the gang went their sepatate ways.

Whilst many of these boys were not put back into shorts purely for the discipinary benefits, it has to be recognised that the effects were profound. In almost every case their behaviour improved, childhood was extended, and adolescent difficulties were overcome. For all boys, being put back into shorts is actually a step forward.


More stories byPaul Crewe