Did You Swim Nude In High School?
Censored By T-O-P-I-X-com

Sevierville, TN

#21 Dec 22, 2012
DJW wrote:
Colgate also said the rule accommodates female doctors and athletic trainers doing skin checks on males and vice versa.
It also cited privacy and the increased number of female athletic trainers, doctors and administrators.
More off-topic CFNM fantasizing by DJW, chief CFNM representative of Great Britain, where CFNM originated.
DJW

Wythenshawe, UK

#22 Dec 22, 2012
Censored By T-O-P-I-X-com wrote:
<quoted text>
More off-topic CFNM fantasizing by DJW, chief CFNM representative of Great Britain, where CFNM originated.
Y'all have to do better than that my clothing free confederate from Tennessee lets introduce no nudity clauses for all High School students so forced naked swimming never happens again!
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#23 Dec 22, 2012
DJW wrote:
<quoted text>
While Maltamon may be sceptical about boys swimming naked in High School the one thing that will make his genitals shrink is the practice of forced nude weigh in's for wrestling that carried on until mid 2010. Maltamon was himself a victim of this practice that occured in his Pennsylvania High School in the 1970's.
Often boys were forced to strip naked one by one while their coach leered on!
Why couldn't they let them keep their underwear on? & for all those forced nudity deniers there is proof!
see below: http://internationalyn.org/forum/index.php...
High schools ban naked weigh-ins for wrestling
« on: May 08, 2010, 01:50:42 am »The rationale is correct, in my opinion, but its sad that its come to this, not for the athletes, but just in general.
No more naked weigh-ins in high school wrestling, not in this age of cell-phone cameras and easy access to the Internet.
Among wrestling rules changes approved last week by the National Federation of State High School Associations is that starting next season competitors must weigh in wearing "suitable" undergarments.
That means something covering the buttocks, groin and (in the case of girls) the breasts.
"The concern is technology. We're getting into cell phones getting into weigh-in areas. It's a privacy thing," said Bob Colgate, assistant director of the Indianapolis-based association.
There have been breaches of that privacy.
"There is every year," Colgate said. "If I was in a state association office, I'd rather have someone upset at me that their daughter or son was a tenth of a pound overweight than call and tell me,'Why is their picture on the Internet?' "
With weight classes in wrestling, a tenth of a pound can prevent a wrestler from competing at that weight. That was motivation for some to totally strip.
The previous rule was they could wear "no more" than an undergarment, and there was a rationale for that. Weigh-ins also are when wrestlers undergo checks for skin conditions such as ringworm. It is a total body check of limbs and torsos.
"They didn't want you covering up some kind of communicable skin condition," said Dale Pleimann, chairman of the association's wrestling rules committee.
The new rule is about images spreading on the Internet.
"With cell phones and (video) recordings and pictures and stuff like that, privacy issues were a great concern," Pleimann said. "All it takes is one time. With the ease of putting stuff like that on the Internet, YouTube and all those things, we just felt it's better to make sure that everybody is appropriately covered."
Colgate also said the rule accommodates female doctors and athletic trainers doing skin checks on males and vice versa.
Before last season, the NCAA made a rules change that wrestlers must weigh in wearing briefs, boxers or a competition singlet.
It also cited privacy and the increased number of female athletic trainers, doctors and administrators.
The NCAA had allowed naked weigh-ins. In international freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling outside of the school setting, the rule is that wrestlers must weigh in wearing their competition singlets. That was done at last week's U.S. Open in Cleveland.
From: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/2010...
You-re repeating yourself. I told you last month that I was on my school's wrestling team from grades 7-12. Aged 12-17. Nude weigh-ins in the locker room before every interscholastic meet. So what-?
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#24 Dec 22, 2012
Post something original, will ya?
DJW

Knaresborough, UK

#25 Dec 23, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You-re repeating yourself. I told you last month that I was on my school's wrestling team from grades 7-12. Aged 12-17. Nude weigh-ins in the locker room before every interscholastic meet. So what-?
You should sue for compensation school wrestling is nothing more than militarised paedophilia!
DJW

Knaresborough, UK

#26 Dec 23, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
Post something original, will ya?
There is nothing original about a forced male nudity denier, you've been brainwashed by the Star Spangled Banner Maltamom!
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#27 Dec 23, 2012
DJW wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing original about a forced male nudity denier, you've been brainwashed by the Star Spangled Banner Maltamom!
It's too bad for the British that you presume to speak for them by turning nudity into an America-bashing exercise. My point is that you post enormously lengthy samples other people's writing when very often you seem, by having posted so much that is irrelevant to your emphasis to not comprehend all that you post. That last treatise on Title IX, and the blatantly fictionalized account of the fourth-grade girl's medical exam are only the most recent best examples.
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#28 Dec 23, 2012
And, for your failure to edit out the vast sections that are not relevant, you reveal yourself as lazy. You don't even read these lengthy missives posted on the internet by others before you post them here. Quantity of words doesn't translate into quality when it comes to your own message, especially when those enormous quantities of words are not your own. You're lazy.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#29 Dec 23, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You-re repeating yourself. I told you last month that I was on my school's wrestling team from grades 7-12. Aged 12-17. Nude weigh-ins in the locker room before every interscholastic meet. So what-?
What about the female reporters ?? Also; I feel DJ should read some of the blogs he posts as the one about the young lady's examination may be "phoney" .... dunno...
MaltaMon

Mullica Hill, NJ

#30 Dec 23, 2012
Coyote Comedian, DJ doen't read the shit he posts before he posts it. That much is quite obvious.
MaltaMon

Mullica Hill, NJ

#31 Dec 23, 2012
And did he know that he posted a link to child porn? If he did, he must remove himself from this network immediately as a complete hypocrite, an abuser of children, and a criminal.
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#32 Dec 24, 2012
coyote wrote:
<quoted text> What about the female reporters ?? Also; I feel DJ should read some of the blogs he posts as the one about the young lady's examination may be "phoney" .... dunno...
The story about the nine year-old girl's medical exam, with all its extraordinary detail culled from the narrator's alleged memory, is most definitely a phony. It's fiction. It is perhaps easy for one prone to gullibility to be drawn in by "her" (i don't believe that the fiction writer is really a female) tale, until one realizes that "she" recalls every held breath, every bitten lip, every spreading labia. It's chilling to think that an adult male composed this sordid tale for entertainment. And DJ just keeps 'em coming. But he's really crossed the line with the child pornography link that he posted. If he doesn't explain himself, and very, very soon (ie, as soon as ge wakes this morning), he will be reported to the web master and to Scotland Yard. And I will do the reporting. You can count on it, Deej, you old boy lover, you.
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#33 Dec 24, 2012
Not interested in offering an explanation? DJW, you should have tried. I had hoped, for your sake, that you simply posted the link without checking it out (although the text you published along with it makes it obvious thay photos of naked children are displayed on the site to which the link directs your readers). But rather than respond, as a mature adult would (although a mature adult would never have posted a link to a site containing child pornography), you choose ro remain silent. It will have been a big mistake, my friend. You had an obligation to ecplain yourself. And you had last evening and all day today to do that. Night has already fallen in Britain; it is late December, after all. The only good thing about your exposure of those kids in the photos is thar by posting them you have exposed yourself: you have revealed as fact what sone of us have suspected about you all along.
MaltaMon

Emmaus, PA

#34 Dec 25, 2012
DJW, As I wrote on another post, I was late to contact my friend at SY. So you have a reprieve of several days. Kindly use it to explain your posting of that child porn link. Take this opportunity to let us know if it was an unwitting error.
DJW

Southampton, UK

#35 Dec 26, 2012
This is not pornography. pictures of chilhood nudity are not porn. I refer you to your own legal system! Maltamon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_v._Ohio

Even if the First Amendment did not categorically forbid the government to ban the possession of child pornography, Osborne argued that the Ohio statute under which he was convicted was overbroad. A ban on speech is "overbroad" if it outlaws both prohibited speech as well as a substantial amount of legitimate speech.

The statute, as written, banned depictions of nudity, and the Court had previously held that nudity was protected expression.

But the Ohio Supreme Court had held that the statute only applied to nudity that "constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals, and where the person depicted is neither the child nor the ward of the person charged" with violating it.
Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court had required that the defendant had to know that the images depicted children before being convicted of possession of child pornography. By narrowing the scope of the statute in these ways, the Ohio Supreme Court had sufficiently tailored the law only to those images most harmful to children.

However, the Court reversed Osborne's conviction because, after reviewing the record of the trial, it observed that the State did not present evidence that the images were "lewd" within the meaning of the statute.

Because lewdness was an essential element of the crime, the State had not satisfied its obligation to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maltamon nudity is protected expression. The russian pictures depicted UK scouts fishing and playing by the sea in the early 1970's.

Why I dont approve of the scout leader taking such pictures in 1974, they are non - sexual in nature, do not show physical or sexual abuse and are not lewd or lascivious in nature.

Therefore they dont breach the Protection of children Act 1977 or Sexual Offences Act 2003 either.

My argument is the scout leaders should have had more respect for the children at the time and not forced nudity on them or required them to wear no pyjama bottoms while sleeping.

Where do you stand on this issue?
Censored By T-O-P-I-X-com

Kingsport, TN

#36 Dec 26, 2012
DJW wrote:
This is not pornography. pictures of chilhood nudity are not porn. I refer you to your own legal system! Maltamon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_v._Ohio
Even if the First Amendment did not categorically forbid the government to ban the possession of child pornography, Osborne argued that the Ohio statute under which he was convicted was overbroad. A ban on speech is "overbroad" if it outlaws both prohibited speech as well as a substantial amount of legitimate speech.
The statute, as written, banned depictions of nudity, and the Court had previously held that nudity was protected expression.
But the Ohio Supreme Court had held that the statute only applied to nudity that "constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals, and where the person depicted is neither the child nor the ward of the person charged" with violating it.
Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court had required that the defendant had to know that the images depicted children before being convicted of possession of child pornography. By narrowing the scope of the statute in these ways, the Ohio Supreme Court had sufficiently tailored the law only to those images most harmful to children.
However, the Court reversed Osborne's conviction because, after reviewing the record of the trial, it observed that the State did not present evidence that the images were "lewd" within the meaning of the statute.
Because lewdness was an essential element of the crime, the State had not satisfied its obligation to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maltamon nudity is protected expression. The russian pictures depicted UK scouts fishing and playing by the sea in the early 1970's.
Why I dont approve of the scout leader taking such pictures in 1974, they are non - sexual in nature, do not show physical or sexual abuse and are not lewd or lascivious in nature.
Therefore they dont breach the Protection of children Act 1977 or Sexual Offences Act 2003 either.
My argument is the scout leaders should have had more respect for the children at the time and not forced nudity on them or required them to wear no pyjama bottoms while sleeping.
Where do you stand on this issue?
More CFNM fiction from this sick perv.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#37 Dec 26, 2012
There are dozens of posed nude and "underwear shots" of underaged boys on your site. And plenty of comments posted by viewers that render crystal clear the purpose of the site and the disposition of its content. That you arrogantly and dismissively justify it as technically legal in the US-which it isn't, by the way, not at all--is all that a civilized adult needs to know to determine what sort of child-abusing monster-predator you are. Your posting of that link to child pornography and your justification of it that says, in effect, "Hey, I've posted here a link to literally hundreds of nude photos of underaged boys, but I did so legally. And I did so notwithstanding months of my over-the-top protests about the nudity of boys in places and in situations that are secure from this sort of exploitation. Well, you're as naked today as those boys in the disgusting, exploitive, and illegal images you promote, DJ. And you're through.
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#38 Dec 26, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
There are dozens of posed nude and "underwear shots" of underaged boys on your site. And plenty of comments posted by viewers that render crystal clear the purpose of the site and the disposition of its content. That you arrogantly and dismissively justify it as technically legal in the US-which it isn't, by the way, not at all--is all that a civilized adult needs to know to determine what sort of child-abusing monster-predator you are. Your posting of that link to child pornography and your justification of it that says, in effect, "Hey, I've posted here a link to literally hundreds of nude photos of underaged boys, but I did so legally. And I did so notwithstanding months of my over-the-top protests about the nudity of boys in places and in situations that are secure from this sort of exploitation. Well, you're as naked today as those boys in the disgusting, exploitive, and illegal images you promote, DJ. And you're through.
"Your posting of that link to child pornography and your justification of it that says, in effect, "Hey, I've posted here a link to literally hundreds of nude photos of underaged boys, but I did so legally. And I did so notwithstanding months of my over-the-top protests about the nudity of boys in places and in situations that are secure from this sort of exploitation"

True.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#39 Dec 26, 2012
Censored By T-O-P-I-X-com wrote:
<quoted text>
More CFNM fiction from this sick perv.
See what I mean, Censored? Give 'em enough rope...
Manny

Chicago, IL

#40 Dec 27, 2012
NO! Looking back at it, I wish we had. We even had enclosed individual showers with opaque glass doors. On top of that most of the boys never showered before swimming or after gym class.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
All TestDumps fake! 16 hr Elena 2
News Jaguar shot 22 hr Panther Had Its Life 4
Summer a bummer 22 hr Pastel Has Its Li... 5
News Consider Homeschooling with ADD (Jan '13) Sat Paddling has its ... 10
News Florida teens still behind national average on ... (Aug '08) Sat Paddling has its ... 20
Spankings and forced nude swim classes should b... Sat Paddling has its ... 5
News In the fight against sexual assault, this schoo... Sat Paddling has its ... 4
More from around the web