gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
I didn't realize he was married and the father of two.
14 year olds? The younger the better? Jesus...
There was a 14 year old?
I didn't realize he was married and the father of two.
14 year olds? The younger the better? Jesus...
There was a 14 year old?
I'm not sure if he actually was with a 14 year old, but he told a 17 year old girl he paid recently that he would give her money if he could find him someone that was 14/15 and that the younger they were the better.
Is that a text message, or is that on tape, or do we just have her word to go on? Honest question.
Is that a text message, or is that on tape, or do we just have her word to go on? Honest question.
Read the article above. It's disturbing. The head of his foundation shared videos of kids...some as young has 6. Jared is paying $100k to over a dozen kids he had relations with.
Going to throw up now...
Read the article above. It's disturbing. The head of his foundation shared videos of kids...some as young has 6.
Jared is paying $100k to over a dozen kids he had relations with.
Going to throw up now...
Agree, the 13 and 14 year old girls thing is really fucked up. I mean, especially since he was "looking" for those type. Definitely a sick pervert bastard, but the 6 year old?
He should get life, he's a predator, kinda disturbing they made a deal with him (they seemed to have enough to nail his ass anyways). He can be out in 5 years, doing the same old shit.
Doesn't sound like something he's just going to walk away from, either. I mean, he had all the money he needed, he was successful, and he still couldn't control himself.
Wait, so Jared was involved with the 6-year old too? Or was that a different guy?
I don't know what he did.. I can't say. If he actually paid for sex with 14-year old girl, he should do hard time; not life though. Anything with someone who is 6, I'm in agreement with you there.
No, he's fucked for life, regardless.
I'm just not sure what he actually did, rather than what he's been accused of and copped a plea to.
I'm having trouble with how some of you are okay with the statutory rape part..
I find it no coincidence that a full-grown adult who was paying legally underage kids to have sex with him would also be sketchy enough to be involved in porn of kids even younger.....
To me, if you're sketchy enough to lure underage chicks, you're sketchy enough to dabble even further over the moral line.
Jared did it and many other douchey 20+ year olds have as well.
It's been explained upthread, but I don't mind explaining it further.
The age of consent in Ohio is 16 years old. That means sex with a 16 year old is not a crime in Ohio. You might think it's creepy, but it's legal. Beyond that, the larger point is that, IMHO, a 16-year old can consent to sex. I did, at a much younger age, and I knew full well what the fuck I was doing.
If a 40-something dude is seeking to have sex with 18-year olds, yep, that's creepy, but.. I don't give two shits. If those girls are 16, and 17, and he's paying them to have sex; I find that creepy as fuck, but, not criminal behavior.
If someone has sex with a 17-year old girl he meets in a bar (happens more than you might think), I don't think he should be called a "rapist." I think the distinction of rape here is absolutely fucking absurd and offensive. I say that as someone who has dealt first-hand with a child rape case and whose best friend was a child rape/porn victim.
I don't either.. I agree with you, I think it's definitely telling and if they've got him in a text message than he should be prosecuted for whatever law that is that he broke. But all of this: "he paid for sex with 16 and 17-year olds" isn't important to me. So what? He's a creep. That in itself doesn't define a "rapist."
The 14-year old talk, the 6-year old child porn; that's what turns the tables for me, not Fogle fucking a 17-year old girl.
I don't know what you mean by underage. I'm thinking you mean 16/17-years old here? If that's the case, then I think that's problematic.
Yeah, I think you're meaning girls who are 16-17-years old having sex with 20-somethings. I have no problem with that at all. It's been going on since forever. It's no one's business but theirs, and it's not criminal behavior in most states as far as I know.
tl;dr, statutory rape laws protecting 16 and 17-year old minors are ridiculous. Rape laws that imprison peers for having sex due to a slight age difference are also ridiculous.
I read upthread and this, but I'm bolding this because I feel like it's where I differ in opinion.. I think the statutory laws (in the states that have them) are there because I believe there's a causal relationship between hawking for vulnerable teens and being open to going younger.
Follow this with me for a second...
A guy meets a girl at a club. This club (like many) requires men are 21+ and women are 18+. He's 24. He meets a girl there and she has a pink wristband. She says "I'm 20!" She's gorgeous. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is what she looks like:
They have a great time, end up making out in a cab on the way back to his place, have some more drinks, they fuck. She gets up after, says she's late and has to get back and takes off.
They continue texting for a few days and she says "I need to tell you something." He's like, "oh.. fuck.. here comes the I have herpes/AIDS line." She says "I'm not really 20." "Well, how old are you?" "I'm 17.. is that cool?"
Whatever his decision at this point, it's irrelevant. He's now committed, in your eyes, rape. He raped a child.
So, this can go one of two ways. No one finds out, or the cops find out and press charges. This "creepy 20-something" in your view gets jail-time and put on a list, forever, that says he's a pedophile, rapist, and predator. He's no longer allowed to use smartphones, computers, or the internet.
The State has determined that he has committed rape, and therefore his life is effectively over.
Now, using your logic here, this is justified, not because the 17-year old couldn't consent; and not because it is indeed rape - but instead - because you believe that someone who might have sex with and is attracted to a younger woman has a preclusion to having sex with children. Therefore, it's irrelevant if they've actually raped anyone, they are a threat and we should simply assume they've done so preemptively.
Now honestly, am I misunderstanding your position?