Did You Swim Nude In High School?
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#876 Mar 27, 2013
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right.
It could have happened. check out Zuiko's child-porn site. If you can overlook the heart-breaking, exploitive, depraved photos of nude schoolchildren in the shower without becoming sick to your stomach, you will find several vintage news articles, which appear to be authentic, from the Midwestern United States that seem to verify the practice of forcing boys to strip for swim classes during that period.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#877 Mar 27, 2013
Molly is so excited over her fiction about Zuiko she is accepting her untruths - her envy, jealousy over the thought is causing her to up-chuck. Lay off the Braino !! Least she has her tank top embroidered with "gay boy lover" to wipe up her mess ....
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#878 Mar 27, 2013
coyote wrote:
Molly is so excited over her fiction about Zuiko she is accepting her untruths - her envy, jealousy over the thought is causing her to up-chuck. Lay off the Braino !! Least she has her tank top embroidered with "gay boy lover" to wipe up her mess ....
Not fiction. I believe those articles that are posted amid the child porn on Zuiko's site. Don't you?
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#880 Mar 27, 2013
You're a faithful pet to ZuikiCheekz, Tinkerbell. If you could meet, I'm sure you'd bring him his slippers. And his slips.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#881 Mar 27, 2013
Not a chance pal! That parking space is reserved solely for Molly with her Ph.d, Ivy League educ. and principled service to her country.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#882 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> It could have happened. check out Zuiko's child-porn site. If you can overlook the heart-breaking, exploitive, depraved photos of nude schoolchildren in the shower without becoming sick to your stomach, you will find several vintage news articles, which appear to be authentic, from the Midwestern United States that seem to verify the practice of forcing boys to strip for swim classes during that period.
It is your graphic descriptions of vile, depraved homosexual acts that makes people sick to the stomach.
Only a hypocrite pervert like you would see such a site as pornographic. And to make you even more of a hypocrite and an idiot you are suggesting others to check the same site which you condemn.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#883 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Not fiction. I believe those articles that are posted amid the child porn on Zuiko's site. Don't you?
Keep on making an idiot of yourself. It is not my site, and it is not child porn. Only someone with a depraved mind like yours sees it as porn.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#884 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Envious of a lonely, embittered, physically sagging, nasty-assed self-loathing, homophobic homosexual ex-leather bar stripper and nude face dancer who now dresses up as Carol Channing and Barbra Streisand to earn a living in sordid gay bars? Lol. Yeah, and I'm envious of everyone who suffers from full-blown AIDS,too.
More projections from Mollymon the homosexual pervert....hahaha...
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#885 Mar 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep on making an idiot of yourself. It is not my site, and it is not child porn. Only someone with a depraved mind like yours sees it as porn.
It's 2013. Photos of naked children are child porn, and posting or distributing them on the internet is criminal these days. A dozen guys, aged 21 to 68, were arrested in New Jersey last month for passing photos just like yours on the web. As a volunteer in an organization that helps police to ferret out online child predators, I worked on the case and am familiar with the laws. You're in denial. And any man who passes,around photos of naked underaged boys is demented--not those who find it offensive, abusive, and dangerous.
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#886 Mar 27, 2013
Zuiko, Why would a grown man like you want to look at photos of nude children, of schoolboys in a gang shower, at the pool, or wherever they happened to pose for the photographer? What is your interest on those photos? And why post them here? Answer that, and let's see who is depraved. Any adult of either sex who isn't repulsed and heartbroken upon seeing those photos is sick. As is anyone who would defend "such a low scum".

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#887 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> It's 2013. Photos of naked children are child porn, and posting or distributing them on the internet is criminal these days. A dozen guys, aged 21 to 68, were arrested in New Jersey last month for passing photos just like yours on the web. As a volunteer in an organization that helps police to ferret out online child predators, I worked on the case and am familiar with the laws. You're in denial. And any man who passes,around photos of naked underaged boys is demented--not those who find it offensive, abusive, and dangerous.
If you think they are illegal tell that to Google, not me, you idiot. It is not my site or my pictures.
What is ILLEGAL is condoning the rape of young girls on the Internet, such as you have done. I hope the police are looking into you.
Bob

Ch√Ęteauguay, Canada

#888 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> It's 2013. Photos of naked children are child porn, and posting or distributing them on the internet is criminal these days. A dozen guys, aged 21 to 68, were arrested in New Jersey last month for passing photos just like yours on the web. As a volunteer in an organization that helps police to ferret out online child predators, I worked on the case and am familiar with the laws. You're in denial. And any man who passes,around photos of naked underaged boys is demented--not those who find it offensive, abusive, and dangerous.
And yet (according to MollyMon) I have supposedly raped a boy, posted graphic details on line, and have circulated child-porn, yet I have yet to be arrested.
We are all still waiting for MaltaMolly to come up with some plausible explanation for this.
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#889 Mar 27, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet (according to MollyMon) I have supposedly raped a boy, posted graphic details on line, and have circulated child-porn, yet I have yet to be arrested.
We are all still waiting for MaltaMolly to come up with some plausible explanation for this.
We are indeed.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#890 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Zuiko, Why would a grown man like you want to look at photos of nude children, of schoolboys in a gang shower, at the pool, or wherever they happened to pose for the photographer? What is your interest on those photos? And why post them here? Answer that, and let's see who is depraved. Any adult of either sex who isn't repulsed and heartbroken upon seeing those photos is sick. As is anyone who would defend "such a low scum".
Your twisted lies and implications do not convince anyone. I did not post any photos such as you claim, I only posted a link to an article on this subjrct, which is a Google site by the way.

Now tell us your interest in condoning the abuse of young girls? You have been asked this question by several posters here and always avoided to answer. I have always answered your manufactured accusations, ridiculous as they may be. Now it's your turn to answer.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#891 Mar 27, 2013
You didn't answer my question, Zuiko. And the interest I have is in YOU and those like you whose interest in children crosses the line into the sexual. I want you guys punished. You are the one who found the photos and posted them. Pictures of naked children constitute child pornography, which means that you are a distributor of child pornography. Even in Arizona, a couple had their daughters removed from their home for over a year before child-pornography charges against them were dropped. Their offense? They had a photo of their daughters, aged 12 and 9, wrapped in abundant bath towels, with only their lower legs and their heads and shoulders exposed. The testimony of the girls, assuring the authorities that the photos were innocent, was required for the charges to be dropped and the girls returned to their parents. Now, with standards such as that--and don't forget the guys arrested in NJ last month for posting photos such as those that you posted... and those charges will NOT be dropped.. those men are going to prison--you should be very afraid for your future. It will do you no good to pretend that my interest is other than it is--to see that guys like you end up incarcerated and our children protected from monsters such as you and your friends on this forum. The facts are clear. You posted the photos. They are images of children who are completely nude. It may have been legal to take those photos fifty years ago, but today it not only is illegal to take them, it is illegal to have them on your hard drive, in your drawer, or under your friggin' mattress. You are a sexual offender. It's only a matter of time until the law catches up to you and labels you as such for life. Have fun attacking me for having attacked you and for having drawn attention on this forum to what you did. Why you would believe that those photos are innocent in this day and age is an indication of how you regard children: they can be naked for you if that is what you desire. Isn't that how you see it? Read the current edition of the New Yorker, about a teacher who abused his students. You're no different. You're a criminal. And a terribly, terribly sick man, Zuiko. Say whatever you wish--and you will; that much is certain--but whatever you say will not erase what you have done. It won't change the facts. It won't replace the truth.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#892 Mar 27, 2013
I project she will not Zuiko, reason being she is not able. Possibly pigs could fly if they had` wings but they do not. Possibly Molly could answer if she had said answer, but she does not ,same ting!- Tinker
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#893 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
You didn't answer my question, Zuiko. And the interest I have is in YOU and those like you whose interest in children crosses the line into the sexual. I want you guys punished. You are the one who found the photos and posted them. Pictures of naked children constitute child pornography, which means that you are a distributor of child pornography. Even in Arizona, a couple had their daughters removed from their home for over a year before child-pornography charges against them were dropped. Their offense? They had a photo of their daughters, aged 12 and 9, wrapped in abundant bath towels, with only their lower legs and their heads and shoulders exposed. The testimony of the girls, assuring the authorities that the photos were innocent, was required for the charges to be dropped and the girls returned to their parents. Now, with standards such as that--and don't forget the guys arrested in NJ last month for posting photos such as those that you posted... and those charges will NOT be dropped.. those men are going to prison--you should be very afraid for your future. It will do you no good to pretend that my interest is other than it is--to see that guys like you end up incarcerated and our children protected from monsters such as you and your friends on this forum. The facts are clear. You posted the photos. They are images of children who are completely nude. It may have been legal to take those photos fifty years ago, but today it not only is illegal to take them, it is illegal to have them on your hard drive, in your drawer, or under your friggin' mattress. You are a sexual offender. It's only a matter of time until the law catches up to you and labels you as such for life. Have fun attacking me for having attacked you and for having drawn attention on this forum to what you did. Why you would believe that those photos are innocent in this day and age is an indication of how you regard children: they can be naked for you if that is what you desire. Isn't that how you see it? Read the current edition of the New Yorker, about a teacher who abused his students. You're no different. You're a criminal. And a terribly, terribly sick man, Zuiko. Say whatever you wish--and you will; that much is certain--but whatever you say will not erase what you have done. It won't change the facts. It won't replace the truth.
So you are also interested in Large, whose interest in 13 year old girls crosses the line into sexual?
Have you reported him?
Do you want him punished?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#894 Mar 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
You didn't answer my question, Zuiko. And the interest I have is in YOU and those like you whose interest in children crosses the line into the sexual. I want you guys punished. You are the one who found the photos and posted them. Pictures of naked children constitute child pornography, which means that you are a distributor of child pornography. Even in Arizona, a couple had their daughters removed from their home for over a year before child-pornography charges against them were dropped. Their offense? They had a photo of their daughters, aged 12 and 9, wrapped in abundant bath towels, with only their lower legs and their heads and shoulders exposed. The testimony of the girls, assuring the authorities that the photos were innocent, was required for the charges to be dropped and the girls returned to their parents. Now, with standards such as that--and don't forget the guys arrested in NJ last month for posting photos such as those that you posted... and those charges will NOT be dropped.. those men are going to prison--you should be very afraid for your future. It will do you no good to pretend that my interest is other than it is--to see that guys like you end up incarcerated and our children protected from monsters such as you and your friends on this forum. The facts are clear. You posted the photos. They are images of children who are completely nude. It may have been legal to take those photos fifty years ago, but today it not only is illegal to take them, it is illegal to have them on your hard drive, in your drawer, or under your friggin' mattress. You are a sexual offender. It's only a matter of time until the law catches up to you and labels you as such for life. Have fun attacking me for having attacked you and for having drawn attention on this forum to what you did. Why you would believe that those photos are innocent in this day and age is an indication of how you regard children: they can be naked for you if that is what you desire. Isn't that how you see it? Read the current edition of the New Yorker, about a teacher who abused his students. You're no different. You're a criminal. And a terribly, terribly sick man, Zuiko. Say whatever you wish--and you will; that much is certain--but whatever you say will not erase what you have done. It won't change the facts. It won't replace the truth.
Bla bla bla...going into overdrive, are we Molly? I already answered your questions concerning my posts, so I don't know what the rest of your rants have got to do with me. I do not retract anything of what I posted. If you have any proof that they are illegal or pornographic in any way, be my guest and prove it.
You of all people talking about abuse and criminal activity when you have condoned the abuse of young girls. No wonder you want to remain silent about it and refuse to answer. Your deflection posts do not erase your proved guilt as abuser of the lowest kind.
Chris

Dallas, TX

#895 Mar 28, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Pennsylvania. No pool in Jr High. High school pool opened in 1972, and wr were all required to take swimming for one of the two weekly phys ed periods throughout the ,'72-'73 school year. We didn't swim nude. At the start of each weekly session, each boy was issued a black nylon tank suit that he had to put on after a quick shower; the suit was more full-cut than a speedo and we returned it for laundering after each session. Classes were single-sex, as with all phys ed classes. For two of the academic year's quarters--the last two, as I recall--our swimming teacher was a female. That was when the local Catholic HS started using our pool regularly as part of its taxpayer-funded program. They added a teacher to the staff and shifted the teschers around. But we were all wearing suits, the required unsexy suits, including the teacher, and neither she nor the male instructor of the first semester was permitted in the locker room. The boys athletic director supervised us there, distributed and collected the swim suits. And no female students or other faculty of either sex ever used the pool during our class time. The instructors were all certified lifeguards, so nobody else was there. It was kind of boring with both instructors. Very glad the state required it at the time. along with Driver Ed The objective was safety. Very untittilating story. But that's exactly as it was. Once, the basketball team went skinny dipping in the pool after practice, and they were all suspended for three days, which included a forfeit of the next game and no Varsity letters. That very strict policy against nudity in my coeducational, urban public school is why I find some of the stories posted on here implausible. Most of them in fact. Yours is sensible.
So basically you can't comprehend what the original poster was asking... since your experience relates a lack of encountering nude swim classes. Well done.
MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#896 Mar 28, 2013
Chris, If you'd read my later posts you might have discovered that I had admitted to error on this topic. Instead, you reacted to my initial post and ignored everything else, as if I had said nothing more than that. As you say, my resourceful, fair-minded and fastidious correspondent, "Well done!"

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
The state of nature at Sumerhill? (Apr '14) 2 hr Summerhill Takes Cup 28
News Let them volunteer 2 hr Decent Jerusalem ... 2
News Carroll Daybook 3 hr Carolls Improper ... 2
Sir Arthur, Where Art Thou? (Mar '12) 3 hr King Arthur 116
Father bathing teenage daugher (Feb '13) 3 hr Bob 152
Women Reporters In Education & Work (Mar '12) 3 hr Paula Hatten In L... 341
News FBI raids home of ex-College Board official in ... 3 hr Bob 4
More from around the web