When "Zuiko" was "Sir Arthur", He Ins...
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#189 Jul 28, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you haven't. Painting a nude male model would be more than your depraved mind could handle.
I can picture it now:
Professor: "MaltaMon, the model is 45, why do you keep drawing him as a 12 year old boy with an erection getting a bare bottom spanking?"
MaltaMon: "I can't help myself."
But you said that I did. Which is it, Pedo Bob? Are you committed to simply winging it with every silly-ass statement you post? Please, let me move ahead with my Zuiko History.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#190 Jul 28, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Sir Arthur, Dec 10, 2010
The Inaugural Post on thread "We Should Mandate That Boys Swim Naked Always!"
"You are right, boys should be made to swim nude everywhere. Swimming trunks look ridiculous and out of place on boys up to teen age.
That's how it was done in the old days, and this custom should be brought back for boys."
For reference:
http://www.topix.com/forum/education/TVJPLQJQ...
Let us never forget that Sir Arthur is none other than our angry, defensive, lying little old gay ex-stripper and former sit-his-bare-ass-on-your-face- for-tips boy, Zuiko. Defend your above statement, Zuiko, expressing your desire to see all young boys swim completely nude.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#191 Jul 28, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Sir Arthur
Dec 2, 2010, same thread:
"Isn't that a bit conservative? And why should the genders be separated for swimming, if there are responsible adults to oversee them?
Admittedly girls should keep a bit of modesty while boys should be totally nude. It also makes boys behave better and not be so rowdy at pools if they are nude."
http://www.topix.com/forum/education/TVJPLQJQ...
Defend this one,,Zuiko.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#193 Jul 28, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Proof that Zuiko, AS Zuiko, posted Child Pornography--ie, gratuitous photos of young boys entirely nude, which is the definition of child pornography in 2013--but which he denies are pornographic:
Feb 26, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Jesus Christ! You deny posting the link that you posted just last week to a site that displays photos of boys who are stark naked???!!!??? Are you friggin' serious, ZuikoSomething? The site that we all discussed after you'd posted it on these threads AND which you defended earlier today as "historic" (sic)? You ARE a liar!
Zuiko:
"It is YOU who is a liar and a malicious bast*rd. The link I posted was not photos of naked boys as you claim, but of documented newspaper clippings after YOU asked for proof that it ever happened. After you were shown the proof you came up with this excuse to cover up your defeat and ignorance.
And YES, if there are any photos on the same site they are historic photos which are all publicly available on respected photo libraries, including Library of Congress, as I have already explained to you. Which is another sign of your crass ignorance. "
"Library of Congress". Give us a break. I suppose that those recent color photos of nude boys and all those lurid stories, such as the one featured about the mother who uses her young nephew, whom she has forced to go completely nude on the beach, to instruct her daughters and nieces in male anatomy are ALL from the Library of Congress! Defend that, Zuiko.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#194 Jul 28, 2013
"If" there are "any" photos. Lol!! Again, you avoid tge truth, and the truth is obvious as well as available to any and all who click your link to the site. Indeed, you KNOW that the site you posted is simply FILLED with hundreds of photos of completely naked boys. All of them "historic"? Do you REALLY believe that you have convinced anyone? Since when does a well-adjusted, mature heterosexual middle-aged man find this sort of stuff--photos of naked boys-- normal or interesting to look at and want to post publicly? Since when are nude children studied in history? I was a history major in college. Never saw a single one of these naked boys, or,any others, until you posted them here, you perverted old homosexual pedophile freak.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#195 Jul 29, 2013
Nothing but imbecility and homosexual projections come out of your posts, queer Molly.
MaltaMon

Whitehall, PA

#196 Jul 29, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
Nothing but imbecility and homosexual projections come out of your posts, queer Molly.
Huh?!? Lol. I beg your pardon. They are YOUR posts, my dear flaming fibbing faerie.. All I've done is re-post them as a reminder of who and what you really are. And you can't defend them.
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#197 Jul 29, 2013
(from "naked school swimming")
http://www.topix.com/forum/education/TU6OVI5K...

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,318

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#11 Apr 3, 2013

MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> And you, DJW, who posted a link to hundreds of disgusting child-porn photos should be removed from here. You have posted hundred of photos of naked boys and of very young, pre-pubescent boys in skimpy underwear briefs and posed erotically for some slime-bag paedophile photographer. You have promoted the sexual abuse and exploitation of children by depicting them either completely nude or posed for sex. You're a hypocrite. You're sick. You're a sociopath. You're a paedophile. Get the f**k out of hear, you f**ked-up scumbug.

Zuiko wrote:

Scumbug?
YOU accusing others of starting a thread about nude boys swimming when you yourself started several of them? The usual hypocritical and projectionist statements from Molly the pervert.

(Pathetic, isn't it? We all see the evidence to refute all of Zuiko's mendacious, hyper-defensive claims. He's just embarrassed, humiliated, scared. The last thing he wants to be is what he is: a homosexual pedophile)
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#198 Jul 29, 2013
(and more of the same from the same thread)

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,318

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#15 Apr 3, 2013
Judged:
2
1
1
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You're an honest-to-goodness sociopath. You are the only one here (besides DJW) who has actually downloaded child pornography and posted it here. That is what is "very true", ZuikiKiddiePorn. And that is a matter of record.

Zuiko wrote:

More lies as usual. If you think a Google site about nude swimming is child pornography you should tell that to them, not me, moron. But you obviously know more than Google what is child pornography. Get some help, Molly.

("a Google site". Lol. Google is a search engine. That 'google' disclaimer is phony, and you know it. You posted child pornography and you cannot justify it, so you attack, attack, attack. But the evidence is there, mon vieux. You sleazeball pederast)
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#199 Jul 29, 2013
(Obviously, before I realized that Zuiko and DJW were the same individual posting from Britain)

MaltaMon
Philadelphia, PA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#17 Apr 4, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
More lies as usual. If you think a Google site about nude swimming is child pornography you should tell that to them, not me, moron. But you obviously know more than Google what is child pornography. Get some help, Molly.

MaltaMon wrote:
You are a child pornographer. You have proven that. And you're afraid to accept it publicly. Why blame Google? How else would child-porn collectors like you access child pornography without Google? Have you found a way yo bypass the need for a search engine? Even those who use your own posted links to child pornography had to use a search engine to find Topix. You're a horse's back side, you know. And more stupid than anyone else here, with the possible exception of your fellow child-pornogrphy enthusiast and online distributor, DJW.
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#200 Jul 29, 2013
(from " Did You Swim Nude In High School?", early "DJW", aka "Zuiko", obsession with naked weigh-ins for school-aged wrestlers)

DJW
Weston-super-mare, UK
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#20 Dec 22, 2012
Judged:
1
1
1
MaltaMon wrote:
Still want our genitals to shrink,... "if they haven't already"? Guess your appeal, replete as it was with exculpatory pre-conditions, has failed to elicit the avalanche of naked boys you sought.

DJW wrote:

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 ...
djw

Bath, UK

#201 Jul 29, 2013
Maltamon you are the Queen pederast of these forums. Stop perpetuating male discrimination in Primary schools. You Fine Frazzle and "Contraceptive" phill must be held accountable!
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#202 Jul 29, 2013
(More from DJW/Zuiko on why the nude photos he posted on Topix are not child pornography. Unfortunately, there are two things wrong with the case he cites:(1) It's an Ohio case--not a Federal case. It's decision applies only in Ohio, which has about three percent of the US population), and (2) the decision does not include the sorts of photos DJW/Zuiko posted)

Imagine this statement from a "man" who steadfastly maintains his heterosexuality and who insists that he's a "normal" middle-aged male:
"Pictures of childhood nudity are not porn."

DJW
Bridgwater, UK
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#35 Dec 26, 2012
Judged:
2
1
1
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?
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#203 Jul 29, 2013
(Even though it was Christmas time, I felt compelled to reply to DJW. What I said then still applies):

MaltaMon
Lancaster, PA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#37 Dec 26, 2012
Judged:
1
1
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.
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#204 Jul 29, 2013
Although I was wrong about one thing: He WASN'T through. He's still here. Let's get rid of him.

MaltaMon
Lancaster, PA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#37 Dec 26, 2012
Judged:
1
1
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.
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#205 Jul 29, 2013
(Zuiko as "FortySomething" during a rather acrimonious discussion in which he, Zuiko, argued that it was normal for a mother to administer a bath to her physically and mentally healthy teenaged sone):

FortySomething

Since: Sep 10

336

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#84 Jan 11, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You need another punchline. The medication line has lost its hilarity with so much repetition. Bathing a teenager who is not disabled is just perverted. If he is not disabled and wants Mummy to bathe him, Mummy should take him to a psychiatrist. And if she sees nothing wrong with bathing her teenaged son, she needs to see a shrink herself. And everybody who isn't sexually dysfunctional--as well as many who are--would fail to understand your logic. Some things are wrong, my friend, and they are always wrong. A kid who is toilet-trained should bathe himself. Normally, a boy reaches that milestone long before his teens. And I ask again, what if the parent giving the bath were male and the teenager he's bathing were female?

FortySomething wrote:

That is a stupid question and is not worthy of a response. If you don't know the answer to that you should not be included in this adult discussion.

Being on medication is no joke. You have my sympathies.
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#206 Jul 29, 2013
(Xavier from New York then weighed in):

Xavier
New York, NY
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#85 Jan 11, 2013
Judged:
2
1
1
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a stupid question and is not worthy of a response. If you don't know the answer to that you should not be included in this adult discussion.
Being on medication is no joke. You have my sympathies.\\

Xavier wrote:

It's not a stupid question at all, but a very apt one.If the claim is going to be made that a mother bathing her teen son is appropriate, then the question becomes: what about a father bathing his teen daughter?
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#207 Jul 29, 2013
(and another from Xavier to zuiko, who makes sense)

Xavier
New York, NY
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#100 Jan 12, 2013
Judged:
2
1
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
Not you as well! I find it hard to believe that an adult is this modern world does not know the difference between men and women. I you are challenged in some way that makes it difficult for you to know, then I apologize.

Xavier wrote:

What is this difference between men and women that makes it ok that a mother bathe a teen son but not ok that a father bathe his teen daughter? Unless you think a father bathing his daughter would be a sexual thing, there's no reason to be opposed to it if you're for mothers bathing teen sons.If you do indeed think it's sexual for a father to bathe his daughter, you're indicting all men as sexual deviants who cannot be trusted with their own children and painting all mothers as saints who can do no wrong and would never abuse their own child,a view that is absolutely ridiculous.Women are people too.There's bad women, there's good women.Some women are violent;some women are not violent.Some women are pedophiles;some are not pedophiles.Some women abuse their own children sexually;some women don't abuse their own children sexually. Is it really necessary for someone to point that out to you?
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#208 Jul 29, 2013
Syntax error: Xavier makes sense--NOT Zuiko!!! Sorry.
MaltaMon

Milton, PA

#209 Jul 29, 2013
Zuiko, as FortySomething, posting child pornography. Note that one of the sites is his favorite. He's posted it as DJW, as Zuiko, and, of course, as FortySomething. It's that infamous "historical" site containing more photos of totally naked young boys than any pedophile would need to get off.

FortySomething

Since: Sep 10

336

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#104 Jan 13, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Found these as well. You'll be glad to here that they are more relevant to the topic.

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/126690/7072072

https://sites.google.com/site/historicarchive ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-v ...

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
it-pruefungsfragen 1Z0-144 zertifizierung, 1Z0... 2 hr itpruefungende 1
VMCE_V9 Exam Fragen, VMCE_V9 zertifizierung 2 hr itpruefungende 1
Did You Swim Nude In High School? (Dec '12) 19 hr Wear No Costume 2,718
C2150-606 IBM Security Guardium V10.0 Administr... Fri bonnieyaker 1
70-765 Provisioning SQL Databases practice test Fri bonnieyaker 1
Latest Microsoft 70-410 Exam Braindumps Fri deenanna 1
Cisco CCIE Wireless 400-351 CCIE Wireless train... Fri Arnulfo 1
More from around the web