Ever since mankind has established a written record of historical events, there has been mentioning of petticoat discipline as a means of control of that which was perceived as offensive behavior on the part of disruptive males. While this technique was more common in Europe, and especially the British Isles, than other geographical areas, there are indications that it was also utilized in the Orient as well as in the early American colonies. There are recorded incidents indicating that even the American Indians saw the wisdom and practicality of this control technique.

Of course this procedure was only practical when the accepted dress of the female sex was considerably different from that worn by the males. And, the clothing worn had to be indicative of the lifestyle of the individual so dressed. In early times, the dress of both males and females usually consisted of heavy, durable, tough material designed to be protective of the individual. One’s occupation pretty much dictated what was worn.

Gradually as the females of the species found themselves spending more and more time in the home, with responsibility for the rearing and care of the young, their mode of dress quickly became more appropriate to their particular life style. Thus the marked distinction between feminine and masculine was established, with regard to mannerisms, appearance and emotional behavior, and, of course, clothing.

The males tended to develop attitudes considerably different from the females, and further were, to a degree, lead to believe that female behavior was beneath their level or stature: this being more true in some cultures than others. Accordingly, any suggestion that a male should dress in female attire was usually met with considerable disdain, and promptly rejected, as his peers would surely scorn such an individual.

With that as a simplified background, lets take a short review as to how this technique was implemented. There does indeed seem to be two accepted approaches to this procedure:

Firstly, it appears that in most cases the act of petticoating was done as a form of punishment. The recipient was made to feel considerable embarrassment and humiliation. This was brought about by dressing him in certain female items and then forcing him to appear in front of others. These might be other family members, or it could be the public in general. The result being distressing humiliation, and of course his aggressive, arrogant behavior would be immediately curtailed. How else could he act excepy demurely and obediently when so dressed and displayed? It could also be a tremendous blow to his over-inflated ego and self esteem.

While quick results (that being a control of his unpleasant behavior) were almost always produced, some undesirable results could also be brought about. Anger and rebellion were distinct possibilities. And certainly the individual so treated did not always develop a favorable and beholden attitude toward the person responsible for making this happen.

A second approach to petticoat discipline became apparent, which is much more subtle, and requires a certain amount of skill and patience.  In this approach petticoating should be perceived as a reward, instead of a punishment. Naturally, most males initially will be reluctant to accept this approach, because of their prior training that anything feminine, is beneath them, and inappropriate. Remember that in many cases this type of treatment was accompanied with being called a 'sissy' and similar names meant to be derogatory in meaning.

Consequently, the introduction of female clothing requires much skill and planning in order for the recipient to accept it, and it will take some time. Emphasis on it being a pleasurable experience, and that it is an act of love is paramount. A slow deliberate buildup is suggested. With each additional experience, the reluctance on the part of the recipient will probably be dissipated. Sometimes withholding this opportunity for a short period of time, can result in a manifestation of a renewed desire by the male so treated; and when this takes place you will have an individual totally committed, and probably for life. An advantage to this approach is the recipient will be forever indebted to the perpetrator, and a most amicable relationship hopefully established.

Thus the same results are obtained as the punishment technique, only this time it becomes a more enjoyable experience for all involved.

Surely the vast readership of 'Petticoat Discipline Monthly' have their own valued opinions as to the merits of what I have stated. 'Petticoat Discipline Monthly' would be most interested in hearing from you, regarding what you believe is the most effective and appropriate approach to petticoat discipline. In particular, we would like to hear from various recipients of petticoating, both young and old, as well as others with regard to their personal experiences.

Possibly the best technique to be utilised depends on the individual being petticoated, and what results are desired. For example, if it is intended that the recipient become submissive, than perhaps the punishment approach would be best. If you just want a more docile, loveable person then perhaps the rewarding approach would be better. Your contribution can go a long way to helping us all become more knowledgeable about these fascinating procedures. At any rate let's hear how you feel about either approach. Rest assured, confidentiality will always be maintained unless you wish your details to be publicised.

If you desire more information concerning the history of petticoat discipline, we urge you to read that provided by Miss Susan MacDonald in previous issues of 'Petticoat Discipline Monthly', or any of Peter Farrer's publications.
Julia