Modesty: It's for Boys, Too
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
MaltaMon

Glendora, NJ

#95 Aug 15, 2014
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have nothing to hide or to be embarrassed about why would you feel the need to surf anonymously from internet cafes and to have software that cleans your hard drive, which I doubt would hide anything from the resources the police have at their disposal?
Pedo Bobbie can't possibly offer a logical response to that. He's too stupid to appreciate that he's just admitted publicly, and has explained in no uncertain terms, why he will be investigated. Too stupid to realize that none of the precautions he just acknowledged that he takes against the possibility of being caught is effective in hiding any online activity from the police. None. I am glad to see him acknowledge, however, that he attempts to hide from the authorities. It speaks volumes about his true motive, which isn't posting for the benefit of Phil or me.
Phil

Godstone, UK

#97 Aug 16, 2014
Bob wrote:
I don't have to offer a response, but will anyway, just prove you two losers wrong (again). I purchased a used laptop at a flea market. The flea market was a legal, sanctioned event in Hudson which has been there for years. The seller didn't ask for my name, and he gave me a legal cash receipt. Apparently the laptop had been salvaged and repaired. It wasn't stolen. Incognito and Inprivate are legal applications on all computers; to make use of them to surf is not illegal. I purchased disc cleaning software from Staples, also legal. To surf the net in an internet cafe or donut shop is legal, millions do it every day.
I don't "hide from the authorities", I protect my privacy, just like millions of others do, legally, every day.
Which brings us back to the perpetually unanswered question: what law have I broken?
And my motive? To mock two pathetic old fag-tarts, who claim they are not pedophiles, but return every day to read Gay Pedophile Fantasy Smut.
Mock?
Is that what you think you are doing?
Oh,dear.
You are going to have to try much harder.
All you do is embarrass (and reveal more of) yourself with every post but you are too up yourself to notice.

My computer is used at home.
I use a 'brand name' ISP.
I don't try to (or need to) clean anything on it.
I don't surf incognito as I have nothing to hide.
I don't post 'jokes' about child abuse.
Anybody is welcome to look at my Topix history and any history for that matter.

Can you say the same?

In good time you will have the opportunity to try to convince others of your 'motive'(despite mine and Maltamon's posts showing the exact opposite to what you claim), that your posts are not illegal, why you post such content and why a grown man should want to.
I won't have to.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#101 Aug 16, 2014
Bob wrote:
Phil, surfing in a coffee shop, using Incognito, with a second-hand computer, and keeping my disc free of clutter with software from Staples is LEGAL,
Can you get your boring, tiny mind around that fact?
I don't have to justify to anyone why I protect my privacy.
I eagerly await your next post, which will presumably be posted using your full name, and include your home address and telephone number.
And the same for MaltaMon: since he has nothing to hide, I presume he'll ditch that ridiculous handle, and start posting under his real name.
What Pedo Bob is saying is that any sordid, depraved, sociopathic activity which demeans and debases children and celebrates on the printed page their sexual violation, abuse and torture is legal, and as long as it's legal, it is normal, adult and manly.
MaltaMon

Norristown, PA

#102 Aug 16, 2014
And that he takes extraordinary evasive steps to elude detection by the authorities--none of which is effective, incidentally, against the technology that the police of any small Canadian town, much less that of the nation's second-largest metropolis,employs routinely--surely does NOT suggest that this "man" believes that he has anything to hide.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#103 Aug 16, 2014
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text>
What Pedo Bob is saying is that any sordid, depraved, sociopathic activity which demeans and debases children and celebrates on the printed page their sexual violation, abuse and torture is legal, and as long as it's legal, it is normal, adult and manly.
And is justified as long as Bob constantly lies to himself (and others) that he writes for the benefit of others.
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#104 Aug 16, 2014
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text>
What Pedo Bob is saying is that any sordid, depraved, sociopathic activity which demeans and debases children and celebrates on the printed page their sexual violation, abuse and torture is legal, and as long as it's legal, it is normal, adult and manly.
What I'm saying, moron, is I have broken no law.
And what I'm also saying, moron, is whatcha gonna do about it, huh?

Hahahahahaha!
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#105 Aug 16, 2014
MaltaMon wrote:
And that he takes extraordinary evasive steps to elude detection by the authorities--none of which is effective, incidentally, against the technology that the police of any small Canadian town, much less that of the nation's second-largest metropolis,employs routinely--surely does NOT suggest that this "man" believes that he has anything to hide.
I take no "extraordinary steps to elude detection", I just protect my privacy, which I have a right to do, just as millions of other people do every day, using the same legal methods that I use.
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#106 Aug 16, 2014
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
And is justified as long as Bob constantly lies to himself (and others) that he writes for the benefit of others.
Phil, if you have nothing to hide, why do you post using only your first name? Please post again with your full name, and include your address and phone number.
Otherwise, people will think you're hiding something.

(You're certainly not hiding the fact that you're a pathetic old pedophile, who returns every day to read smut that he claims to have no interest in reading.)
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#107 Aug 16, 2014
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I take no "extraordinary steps to elude detection", I just protect my privacy, which I have a right to do, just as millions of other people do every day, using the same legal methods that I use.
Is that so,? And how many of those "millions of other people" post gleefully depraved fantasies about children being sexually abused by sick adult sociopathic predators, as you do? How many of those millions write and post of stripping "the Spiderman briefs" off twelve year-old boys and violating them anally? How many of those millions of others endlessly mock the victims of child sexual abuse with their online posts on Topix? You're delusional, Pedo Bob.
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#108 Aug 16, 2014
I don't know.But what I do know is that you and Phil read gleefully depraved fantasies about children being sexually abused by sick adult sociopathic predators, and you and Phil read about stripping "the Spiderman briefs" off twelve year-old boys and violating them anally. and you and Phil read tales mocking the victims of child sexual abuse.
The only delusional ones are you and Phil, MaltaMon, if you think it isn't obvious that you visit Topix to read what DJW and I post.
MaltaMon

Fredericksburg, PA

#109 Aug 16, 2014
MaltaMon
Dorval, Canada
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#1Jan 15, 2014

Recently, my 13-year-old son began lifting weights after school. As a result, he has developed large, well-defined buttocks. Anxious to show off his new muscles, he asked me if we could go shopping for a swim suit—a request that I immediately denied. "Why not?" he argued.“Because modesty isn’t just for girls,” I replied.

Now, before I go any further, let me stress that I do not proclaim to be any kind of authority on modesty like CaDad —I simply did what I thought was best for my son. I fully acknowledge that there is a wide range of opinions about how and when to address modesty issues with our children. Some parents choose to dress their kids in garment-friendly clothing from the beginning. Others allow more freedom until their children become teens. And some choose not to wage the wardrobe war at all, allowing their children to wear whatever they like. But this experience has caused me to reflect on how well I am teaching boy about modesty.

This is a good reminder that modesty is about much more than the length of our bathing suits, but this is often where the focus lands—especially when it comes to the wardrobe choices of girls and women.(I can’t help but notice that a girl can be thoroughly criticized for showing her knee caps, even though I see plenty of boys and men showing theirs.) So, what is considered modest dress for guys?

As the father and rapist of a boy, I have taken the stance that “what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander.” If young women have been counseled to cover their buttocks, then I think my boys should follow that same counsel. I have also talked with them about practicing good grooming and good manners and keeping their pants on while playing sports or mowing the lawn—out of respect for themselves and others around them.

Pedo Bob, The above is the post with which you inaugurated this thread of yours about young boys and nudity. That may be legal, but is it the stuff that a responsible, caring, mature adult of either sex would think of, much less write and post? The answer, of course, is 'No!'. You're a very sick guy, Bob. No normal, well-adjusted adult who cares about children would write and post this sort of thing. But you wouldn't know that, Pedo Bob, because you're not a normal well-adjusted adult. You have no experience as one. So why should any of us expect you to get it? You clearly feel this way about children, and as long as you're not caught raping or otherwise abusing a child sexually, to write this sort of depraved, insane bullshit is "normal". It may be YOUR 'normal', Bobbie. But it's not normal.

Oh, and I suppose that if your tale of posting only from internet cafes is true, you clearly have spent all of this day at the cafe.
MaltaMon

Shartlesville, PA

#110 Aug 16, 2014
And by the way, Pedo Bob, what the hell is "garment-friendly clothing"?

Idiot.
MaltaMon

Châteauguay, Canada

#111 Aug 16, 2014
This thread about young boys and nudity. It may be legal, but is it the stuff that a responsible, caring, mature adult of either sex would think of, much less read? The answer, of course, is 'No!'. But Phil and I are very sick, Bob. No normal, well-adjusted adult who cares about children would read this sort of thing. But we don't care, Bob, because we're not normal well-adjusted adults. We feel this way about children, and as long as we're not caught raping or otherwise abusing a child sexually, we can read this sort of depraved, insane bullshit all we want.
Both Phil and I love it, it's why we visit Topix, and will continue to visit Topix as long as you and DJW are posting what we want to read.
Phil

Châteauguay, Canada

#112 Aug 16, 2014
On behalf of myself and MaltaMon, Bob, thank you to both DJW for what you write. It helps us two lonely old men pass the time.
When you're a lonely old pedophile like myself, living in a grotty retirement flat in Manchester, there's not much else to do but watch Coronation Street or surf the internet for tales about little boys.
I like little boys. Ever since I raped MaltaMon's little boy, I've wanted them more and more. You and DJW fill a void in my day.
Thank you.
Phil

Godstone, UK

#114 Aug 27, 2015
"But what I do know is that you and Phil read gleefully depraved fantasies about children being sexually abused by sick adult sociopathic predators"

"...and you and Phil read tales mocking the victims of child sexual abuse"

Bob, who writes this stuff that we alledegly read?
Which supposedly adult male spends his time dreaming them up and posting them?
Bob

Montréal, Canada

#115 Aug 27, 2015
You don't "allegedly" read posts. You respond to them, which presumes that you read them.
Idiot.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#116 Aug 27, 2015
Bob wrote:
You don't "allegedly" read posts. You respond to them, which presumes that you read them.
Idiot.
You didn't answer the question, Bob.
Why is that?
Ashamed and embarrassed?
Not that it matters.
Your post I quoted is yet another confession.
Bob

Montréal, Canada

#117 Aug 29, 2015
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question, Bob.
Why is that?
Ashamed and embarrassed?
Not that it matters.
Your post I quoted is yet another confession.
Yeah, whatever, Panty-waist.
The Maltamon

Barcelona, Spain

#118 Aug 30, 2015
A headteacher accused of having sex with two underage boys in the late 1980s was a "sexual predator who exploited the situation she was in", a jury has heard.

Anne Lakey, 55, from Stanley, County Durham, denies 13 counts of indecent assault said to have occurred over a three year period in the late 1980s.

Caroline Goodwin, prosecuting, told Teesside Crown Court: "You are going to hear about two young boys who are now adults who each were sexually abused by a woman older, more mature and in a position of trust and responsibility.

"Her conduct towards them demonstrates, in the submission of the Crown, that here was a sexual predator who exploited the situation she was in."

Lakey is accused of repeatedly having sex with one boy when he was 13 or 14 and another when he was 15. Neither can be identified for legal reasons.

The prosecution alleged the complainants have not been in contact with each other as adults, were of similar ages at the time and the "indecent assaults" happened in similar circumstances. "The single common denominator, say the Crown, is the defendant," Miss Goodwin said.

At the time Lakey was a teacher and the alleged offences represented a "gross breach of trust," the court heard.

On another occasion he was sitting talking to her when she was in the bath. She got out, wrapped herself in a towel, then lay naked on the bed and he followed her, the court was told.

He was in his school uniform when he then lost his virginity to her, Miss Goodwin said.

After that they had sex regularly, the prosecution said, once or twice a week. On one occasion her husband almost caught them and the teenager was terrified.

That fear eventually led him to decide to break off the relationship, Miss Goodwin said.

But before that, she rang his school and pretended to be his mother to explain he was off sick, the jury heard.

In December 2012, when he was on the internet, he came across Lakey's picture and saw on a blog that she stated her "raison d'etre was to give young people the best start in life", the court was told.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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
IBM P8010-004 Dumps Updated 2016 Quick Tips to ... 10 hr Zuiko 2
The state of nature at Sumerhill? (Apr '14) 10 hr Zuiko 27
News Let them volunteer 10 hr Zuiko 1
News Carroll Daybook 10 hr Zuiko 1
Father bathing teenage daugher (Feb '13) 10 hr Zuiko 151
Women Reporters In Education & Work (Mar '12) 10 hr Zuiko 340
News FBI raids home of ex-College Board official in ... 10 hr Zuiko 3
More from around the web