Burnley Grammar School

Julian S and Edward

I remember late 60s early 70s l turned 13 and we wore jockstrap + pouch for box for cricket and jockstrap without pouch for all other sport like rugby, rowing and running. Why? Because we wanted to be like the boys older than us!

Continuing the jockstrap saga ... as far as I can recall no-one at my school in the early-mid 60s wore a jock, but that it not to say no-one did. I have a memory of one lad talking to a teacher about his 'bits' and it being suggested he wear swimming trunks under his shorts.
As as been commented before, by the mid-60s underwear was becoming a bit more 'adventurous' and some of us were wearing 'Speedo's' or similar for cross-country, etc..

Our PE uniform list specified no underwear to be worn under our pe shorts for "hyginic reasons" although I suppose now I think I'm glad I took off my underwear so I wasn't sat in sweaty underpants for the rest of the school day. It just felt normal to us and nobody ever complained, they were never any checks and certainly nobody else wore a jock strap

Like Edward we started wearing a jockstrap at around 13. Most of us wanted to follow what the older boys were already doing i.e. wearing a jockstrap. That said, it was by no means compulsory as some lads preferred to stick with wearing swimming trunks.

Like Edward we started wearing a jockstrap at around 13. Most of us wanted to follow what the older boys were already doing i.e. wearing a jockstrap. That said, it was by no means compulsory as some lads preferred to stick with wearing swimming trunks.

Andrea. It wasn't mentioned before that and we hadn't heard of them. A few of us did notice however some of the older boys in the changing room at the same time as us wore something "strange" but didn't know what they were.

Andrea,
At our school that I attended we weren't allowed to wear anything under our shorts.We went through secondary school without wearing a jock strap.

Edward,
Did any of you try wear a jockstrap before your teacher said they were 'allowed' or was it just that they weren't mentioned until you were nearly 15?
My Ex said he felt more 'secure' when he started wearing one (at about 13).

Tim H, particularly at the end of the day but at other times too, our PE teachers joined us in the showers. I never thought anything of it and I'm sure there was nothing sinister about it. Nor was it sinister that they saw us naked as we changed, showered or got dried.

Not wanting to get too involved in the 'teachers in showers' discussion but ...
Our school games fields were a good distance from the school. It was not unknown for teachers to strip off and use the showers alongside the boys. As far as I can recall there were no comments - it was just part of growing up.

Like other comments our pe shorts were short and there was the risk of exposure due to wearing no pants.

Edward,
It was customary at the school that I attended not to wear anything under our shorts and then shorts were much shorter than they are today.
Like yourself we were always conscious about the risk of being "exposed"

To Phil Hargreaves.

This could just be a story made up by somebody who didn't like him. Was there ever any proof?

Jeff. You were lucky being allowed to wear a jockstrap from the age of 13. We were nearer 15 before our PE teacher allowed us to wear one. After that we continued to wear them for all sports - and felt better, and less "exposed" as a result.

I went to Burnley Grammar from 1973 to 75, and Ron Parry was still there as sports teacher. He was known for inviting boys for a chat in his private changing room and he was always naked in the shower when they went in...someone commented earlier that he was known as 'Gay Paris' haha

Michael and Edward:
I too wore a jockstrap for support at school, for PE, running, rugby etc. I got it at the beginning of third form, when I was 13. Before that nothing was worn under the shorts.

Rachel, in our school PE was done in shorts only shirtless and barefoot. No lad was exempt from being shirtless that I remember and especially for me since I was a little chubby and had a hairy chest and back

Edward.
Obviously the teacher felt the same way as we do.
Please email if you wish to chat further and anyone with similar memories is of course most welcome.

Interesting question Rachel and, as someone whose chest hair started coming through at 14-15, I feel well qualified to answer it!
I guess you wondered whether exemptions might have been made to avoid embarrassing boys who were self conscious about having visible body hair? Well, I was one of those boys and would certainly have been grateful for it at the time... but then so, I'm sure, would boys who were overweight, or very thin or had acne on their backs, for example. The short answer is no, the rules were the same for every boy. That meant if I was selected as a 'skin' in PE I had to take off my t-shirt and do the lesson with my hairy chest on show. That continued to be the case until I left school but by then many more of my classmates had hairy chests too!

Michael. I think that your amusing story of your young PE teacher going outside to put his jockstrap on explains simply why some of us felt that we needed to wear one for sport and PE when we reached a certain age. It was the support that was needed rather than have things loose. Briefs and other pants did not give the same type of support that we needed. Thanks for the story.

Bernard, we had the same rule - excused PE meant that you still had to change in to shorts and watch or more often do jobs assigned by the teacher. A favourite was to clear out the recess in the gym and wipe equipment, I was never excused PE but lads who had to do that rarely brought a note on a second occasion because it was filthy work and at the end of it, they had to join us in the (cold) showers just the same.

Rachel - Why would they have been spared from stripping to the waist ? In my grammar school, PE was done shirtless right trough to Sixth Form. Never did i see a boy wear a top for PE be it inside or outside. There just were no excemptions made at all, neither for the boy with bad acne, nor the one whose mom wrote him a note asking the teacher to allow him a top or for the boy whose severe father punished him leaving welts on his bare back. Why would à hairy chest be a reason to be allowed a top anyway?

Rachel - not at my school - why would they be? All boys were treated the same. Even those who had notes from home asking for them to be excused p.e. had to change into shorts and sit on a bench in the gym to watch or watch from the side of the field if outside. I think they may have been allowed to stay inside if it was particularly cold.

Hi, hope no one minds me asking were lads with hairy chests exempt from stripping off. Just curious.

Bernard and Andrea.
Partly in answer to your query about jock straps I can relate an amusing story.
When I was at school back in the 60s we had a college student taking us for PE for a couple of weeks. One day our lesson was straight after assembly. The student came to the gym and after we had done several excercises he gave us a slightly complex one to do.
Someone asked quite reasonably if he could demonstrate. H.e hesitated for a moment then said;
'Not sure, I haven't put my jock strap on this morning' which caused great mirth. He disappeared for a short while and came back and proceeded to demonstrate the excercise.
As I have stated here a few times, and others have reported the same, we usually wore our swimming trunks underneath for support. Perhaps that helps explain.

Andrea - I too am confused about the value of a jockstrap on its own. For games like cricket I can see that an insert like a box or cup could prevent painful and possibly damaging accidents but for other physical activities a jockstrap by itself seems unnecessary.
I never played cricket at school - in the summer those of us who were not so good at p.e. would play games such as volleyball or softball or go off on cross country runs which were common all year round. We were not allowed to wear anything other than our shorts - certainly nothing under them. I found this generally very comfortable and quite liberating though a quick adjustment was sometimes required to ensure nothing became too prominent. We must have looked quite comical running through the streets on the way to and from the countryside especially in winter though I don't remember any-one ever staring at our shorts. A few boys may have preferred to wear plimsolls for the first few weeks but I was never aware of any-one wanting to wear anything under their shorts let alone any-one doing themselves a mischief.

I must say I am somewhat perplexed by the amount of discussion on the board about the usage of one specific item, the jockstrap, which has reappeared once more as a topic. The reason I say this is because in all my years in teaching Phys.Ed that item as far as I can best remember was scarcely mentioned if ever at all. I've no memory of ever being approached on that attire by anyone or even feeling the need to do so. That applies both here in Britain and in the overseas locations I was seconded to in my career.
I can't help but wonder why this item therefore seems to generate so much interest as a talking point considering it never generated any notable discussion between lads I took eleven plus up to late teens or amongst my actual colleagues in any way either over so many years.

Although I never worked in any school environment in Phys.Ed that asked for it, I'd cite the fixation with the non allowance of underwear under shorts as similar to the jockstrap one. But I can only speak for myself in my own world and neither of these things crossed my path in anyway at all in four decades from the 1970's onwards.

A few weeks ago someone called Robert asked some questions, such as what do I think about Phys.Ed today. Well quite simply there is not enough of it and it's been sidelined and diminished. But what can be more important than physical wellbeing? It's not all about academic pen to paper. I don't think two or three lessons per week is unreasonable. I think having just an hour per week in one Phys.Ed lesson is very poor indeed.

It would be quicker to say what I didn't take in Phys.Ed over the years, all the curriculum activity anyone would expect although I tended to specialise in athletics. I read on this forum about Phys.Ed teachers favouring the talented kids who excelled at sporting activity and neglected the strugglers almost as lost causes. Not my experience at all. Nothing is greater than trying to make someone with a lack of natural ability improve themselves and their esteem with encouragement. I can only speak for myself and all the places I worked and those I worked with. I don't for a moment doubt those with poor experiences surrounding their Phys.Ed school life. Those who used to frequently show up with the school Phys.Ed note from mum were a hard nut to crack and I always thought they were their own worst enemy and if they'd just allow themselves to get fully stuck in they'd surprise themselves and improve esteem far more than realised.

It may surprise some of you on here but some of the kids I remember the most and were fondest of were not the high achievers whom everything came easy to them on the football team or the athletics track but those who were quite obviously not born to be the sporting type but who I could see made immense effort to try their very best. These were the qualities that I and many of my colleagues appreciated. So just remember when you think about that nasty Phys.Ed teacher having a go or making you do sports and maybe yelling a bit that he was in the majority of cases not setting out to be unkind but the encourage. I do wonder how many misinterpreted their Phys.Ed teachers.

Chris G and Edward
I can see how a jockstrap and box would protect against getting hit in that area, but would a jockstrap without a cup (box) offer much protection?
My Ex said they were told that they needed support to prevent them 'doing themselves a mischief' as they matured, although the exact nature of the threatened injury wasn't really specified - hernias maybe? Anyway the message stuck as he continued to wear one for sport as an adult.

Before you started wearing jockstraps, did you start to feel uncomfortable or embarrassed having to go without underwear for PE as things started to mature (much the same as doing PE without a bra became uncomfortable and embarrassing for us girls)?

Did your mothers know what a jockstrap was when you first purchased one, or was it a mystery (as it was to me when I first saw my then husband's)?

Edward

I agree with you that plain "everyday" jockstraps are hard to find these days, and have been for a number of years. The last ones I was able to get on the high street were from Debenhams, who included jocks anad thongs in their mens "Active Sport" range. This was ten years or more ago, and the two jocks that I bought back then have long since gone to the locker-room in the sky. I still have a small and waning supply of the thongs from the same range - these seem to have lasted better than the jocks for some reason, and are definitely more durable than Debenham's more recent thong ranges, now, alas, also unavailable.

I agree with Chris G. When we were about 14 at school our PE teacher advised us to wear a jockstrap after one of us took a painful "hit" during a game of rugby. Until then we had to go commando under shorts for PE and games. We had never heard of a jockstrap before, but gradually each of us started to get one. It took a bit of courage to ask my mum for the money to buy one. We felt very manly going into a sports shop to buy them. They were so comfortable to wear. Many of us continued to wear one for sports even after we had left school. They were so much cooler to wear in the summer than briefs, particularly under shorts. I still do so in the hot weather even though they are not easy to buy now. I bought my last couple on line.