Subway Jared in trouble?

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:04 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Something seriously disturbs me about the connection between a celebrity pedophile getting caught and legalizing prostitution. You all realize Jared would only ask the legal prostitutes if they could find him younger fare and videotape their children?
It's possible to have more than one topic being discussed in a thread. No one thinks legalized prostitution would make the Jareds of the world stop being a problem. Rip is talking about his life on the street as a drug dealer and meth user. Surely you don't think this is tied to Jared's pedophilia somehow, do you?

Rip always talks about how he is a really skinny guy. And Jared lost a whole lot of weight as Subway's spokesperson. There, connection made, for those that like conversations to really flow nicely.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:09 pm

Freyland wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Something seriously disturbs me about the connection between a celebrity pedophile getting caught and legalizing prostitution. You all realize Jared would only ask the legal prostitutes if they could find him younger fare and videotape their children?
It's possible to have more than one topic being discussed in a thread. No one thinks legalized prostitution would make the Jareds of the world stop being a problem. Rip is talking about his life on the street as a drug dealer and meth user. Surely you don't think this is tied to Jared's pedophilia somehow, do you?
Rip always talks about how he is a really skinny guy. And Jared lost a whole lot of weight as Subway's spokesperson. There, connection made, for those that like conversations to really flow nicely.

Not only that, I am a Hoosier...........

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:28 am

wonderpug wrote:This Ask Me Anything with a Nevada brothel worker gives a lot of insight into what the legalized prostitution life is like.

I learned about it by watching all those Cathouse videos done by HBO about the brothel
run by the slightly large bald white man whose name I can't remember right now.

I love the part where they have to run the credit card multiple times for different dollar
amounts when it goes into the thousands of dollar range.

Man goes home with thousands of dollars debt on his maxed out credit card.

For those prices masturbation is like you've won the lottery, without the credit card debt.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:29 am

Rip wrote:
Freyland wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Something seriously disturbs me about the connection between a celebrity pedophile getting caught and legalizing prostitution. You all realize Jared would only ask the legal prostitutes if they could find him younger fare and videotape their children?
It's possible to have more than one topic being discussed in a thread. No one thinks legalized prostitution would make the Jareds of the world stop being a problem. Rip is talking about his life on the street as a drug dealer and meth user. Surely you don't think this is tied to Jared's pedophilia somehow, do you?
Rip always talks about how he is a really skinny guy. And Jared lost a whole lot of weight as Subway's spokesperson. There, connection made, for those that like conversations to really flow nicely.
Not only that, I am a Hoosier...........

So, you were in the movie Hoosier's?

Which one were you, the tiny guy that hit the free throws or the alcoholic assistant to the coach?

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:10 am

Oh man, this thread. OO has reached a new low. Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports? Suggesting that one of the most relevant concerns of this whole fiasco is that the girls ended up getting paid twice? Wow.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:38 am

Dirty pervert Jared.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 8:06 am

Zarathud wrote:Something seriously disturbs me about the connection between a celebrity pedophile getting caught and legalizing prostitution. You all realize Jared would only ask the legal prostitutes if they could find him younger fare and videotape their children?

It's not that disturbing if you consider the hopeful outcome of legalized prostitution would be regulations which would help to bring such things to light more readily, resulting in less of a chance of child prostitution.

The videotaping of young children though has nothing to do with that and is just f'ing creepy.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:40 am

Canuck wrote:Oh man, this thread. OO has reached a new low. Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports? Suggesting that one of the most relevant concerns of this whole fiasco is that the girls ended up getting paid twice? Wow.

Not so new a low to generalize the whole of OO by one person's inane remarks.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:13 am

I'll gladly step up and take credit for the remarks on the minors getting paid twice. I said it, yes I did.

I did not mention anything about pro sports or any remarks comparing prostitution and sports. Nope...
not me.

What I don't get, what I don't understand is WHO in the FBI thought it was a good thing to continue letting Jared pay for and get sex from minors after it was reported by the female confidant to Jared turned FBI informant.

According to all the reports, this pay for sex from minors happened 14 times. FOURTEEN!!!!

They HAD to know of more than a few of these encounters once the informant told them. Once
the female informant told them the FBI started monitoring his movements.

How many times does it take before the FBI considers they have enough evidence to prosecute?
2, 3, 5, 10, 14???

This case shows me something with their system of bringing people to justice is severely
messed up.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:08 pm

It's highly unlikely the FBI allowed it to happen.

No matter how much they wanted an arrest they couldn't have allowed it to happen. Fairly sure that would be a crime itself.

I would guess/hope all encounters happened before the FBI knew anything.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:13 pm

JSHAW wrote:I'll gladly step up and take credit for the remarks on the minors getting paid twice. I said it, yes I did.

Did you correct this inaccuracy? The $100K is to pay for therapy and counseling, not a new Corvette.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:15 pm

Canuck wrote:Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports?

No one did that. Prostitution was compared to pro sports; underaged was not part of the comparison.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:30 pm

Jeff V wrote:
JSHAW wrote:I'll gladly step up and take credit for the remarks on the minors getting paid twice. I said it, yes I did.
Did you correct this inaccuracy? The $100K is to pay for therapy and counseling, not a new Corvette.

When there's a doctors bill for the therapy, then I'll believe that they actually GOT the therapy.

Unless the money is being put into an account, which the individual minor's parents DO NOT have access to, THEN I'll believe the money actually WENT towards and is going to be paid for therapy.

If each individual minor's parent is cut a check for the $100K, then it will be up to the parent how
the money get's spent.

IF it happens this way, I'm not naive enough to believe that it won't be spent for recreational therapy, such as a vacation for the family, a spending spree for the kid to help them forget about jared, etc...and a trip or two to see the therapist to talk about issues the minor might be going through.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:43 pm

Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:04 pm

Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?

The side of the story we might never hear is from the minors.

Because they're minors their identities are withheld, and unless they each individually come forward with their stories we probably won't ever know if they were forced, or willingly went on their jared hookups.

I'm not sure how court documents work when minors are no longer considered minor's when they
reach the age of adults. Even at that point the government might have all the Jared files sealed and
the details would still be under wraps.

At this point I wonder if someone like Oprah, Dr. Phil, or some other network interviewer
is looking to interview one or more of the individuals and get their side of the story.

Until they speak out, or do an interview, we'll probably never know how they wound up in a room
with stupid jared.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:53 pm

Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?

I don't get this. The high side of minors? Who the freak cares if they are on the high side, it's still statutory rape any way you slice it. Wether they consent or not is not relevant. This thread is so full of wtf now.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:01 pm

I'm not seeing why it's a concern how much of that $100k gets spent on therapy. For one thing, it's an arbitrary amount. For all anyone knows, each minor will get 'enough' therapy at the $5k level, then the rest is gravy. OR maybe to get enough therapy each minor needs somewhere in the range of $500k and so even full $100k spent on therapy will accomplish nothing.

I think it's more about making Jared pay in various ways for what he did, including financially, than getting these girls to spend the money on therapy.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:12 pm

gameoverman wrote:I'm not seeing why it's a concern how much of that $100k gets spent on therapy. For one thing, it's an arbitrary amount. For all anyone knows, each minor will get 'enough' therapy at the $5k level, then the rest is gravy. OR maybe to get enough therapy each minor needs somewhere in the range of $500k and so even full $100k spent on therapy will accomplish nothing.

I think it's more about making Jared pay in various ways for what he did, including financially, than getting these girls to spend the money on therapy.

For me, this thread is just a conversation, my thoughts and opinion on the matter.

Personally, I think the $100k is very lowball amount, and arbitrary or not the dollar amount SHOULD
have been higher, like in the million dollar for each minor. 14 million total, TAX FREE!

You just said making him pay, including financially. Then the lawyers should have upped that amount in the million dollar range per victim. Don't want to pay that, want to have some in the bank when you get out, then they SHOULD have said PAY IT or do 15+ years.

Of course I'm not a lawyer, not do I want to be one on the internet. That's just how I feel about the matter.

I feel bad for the 14 because the "arbitrary" amount looks very cheap to me, and they let Jared skate
way too easy on the financial portion of the deal.

Now...if it's that he's close to being broke and the 1.4 million is all that's left in his bank account, then it's appropriate and he's broke when he get's out of jail.

For those concerned with what they consider the "wtf" factor of comments made in this thread, let me say this, for myself. When I post something here, on this forum, I'm not agonizing and scrutinizing over every little nuance and item that's typed. It's what I'm thinking at the time of writing it. It's train of thought...it's what I'd say if I was sitting with you or anyone else, at a bar, over drinks, and we were just throwing our thoughts out there and chit chatting.

In years later I've gone back to threads I've participated in and said to myself "what the hell was I thinking at this time???" Different things affect me at different times. I could be mad or angry or
pissed off at something unrelated to what I'm posting about, and the outcome is what get's submitted when I hit the submit button.

If you have a problem with my thoughts or opinions, that's on you. Deal with it, or don't.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:47 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?
I don't get this. The high side of minors? Who the freak cares if they are on the high side, it's still statutory rape any way you slice it. Wether they consent or not is not relevant. This thread is so full of wtf now.

It's not statutory in all states. I'm 100% down with taking child molesters off the streets, but the idea that one is or is not a pedophile based upon one's address fails the common sense test.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:13 pm

geezer wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?
I don't get this. The high side of minors? Who the freak cares if they are on the high side, it's still statutory rape any way you slice it. Wether they consent or not is not relevant. This thread is so full of wtf now.
It's not statutory in all states. I'm 100% down with taking child molesters off the streets, but the idea that one is or is not a pedophile based upon one's address fails the common sense test.

On a topic like statutory rape I generally don't side with the most lenient of laws in another state. I wouldn't think another state saying 16 is ok is going to change my mind. This guy is a predator pain and simple.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:57 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
geezer wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?
I don't get this. The high side of minors? Who the freak cares if they are on the high side, it's still statutory rape any way you slice it. Wether they consent or not is not relevant. This thread is so full of wtf now.
It's not statutory in all states. I'm 100% down with taking child molesters off the streets, but the idea that one is or is not a pedophile based upon one's address fails the common sense test.
On a topic like statutory rape I generally don't side with the most lenient of laws in another state. I wouldn't think another state saying 16 is ok is going to change my mind. This guy is a predator pain and simple.

I look at each case. Ive seen 14 year olds tried as adults yet Ive seen a guy who was 19 put in jail for statutory rape of a girl was was 2 weeks away from 18. I dont find these wishy washy laws fair at all.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 8:02 pm

Statutory rape is not one of my favorite concepts. It makes minors universally incapable of consent, regardless of whether any individual minor is actually capable of giving consent.

I accept that it is necessary to protect those who are not mature enough to make their own decisions, but from what I've seen, that is rarely what it is used for.

/edit - and yes, I realize I'm going to get jumped on for that opinion. Questioning that wrongness of anybody under 18 having sex seems to one point that people tend to go vehemently black-and-white on.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 8:03 pm

Daehawk wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
geezer wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?
I don't get this. The high side of minors? Who the freak cares if they are on the high side, it's still statutory rape any way you slice it. Wether they consent or not is not relevant. This thread is so full of wtf now.
It's not statutory in all states. I'm 100% down with taking child molesters off the streets, but the idea that one is or is not a pedophile based upon one's address fails the common sense test.
On a topic like statutory rape I generally don't side with the most lenient of laws in another state. I wouldn't think another state saying 16 is ok is going to change my mind. This guy is a predator pain and simple.
I look at each case. Ive seen 14 year olds tried as adults yet Ive seen a guy who was 19 put in jail for statutory rape of a girl was was 2 weeks away from 18. I dont find these wishy washy laws fair at all.

You see a lot of wishy washy in this case? This isn't an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend. This guy's sick.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 8:26 pm

If you think underage sex with Jared can be fixed by just $5,000 of therapy shows you're pretty damn uninformed about the cost of therapy and the amount of mental issues you have before (let alone after) participating in underage prostitution.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 8:44 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
Daehawk wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
geezer wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Yes 16 and 17 is minors and against the law but come on..16 and 17 is high side minors. I haven't read it all. Were they forced to do these acts with the pervert?
I don't get this. The high side of minors? Who the freak cares if they are on the high side, it's still statutory rape any way you slice it. Wether they consent or not is not relevant. This thread is so full of wtf now.
It's not statutory in all states. I'm 100% down with taking child molesters off the streets, but the idea that one is or is not a pedophile based upon one's address fails the common sense test.
On a topic like statutory rape I generally don't side with the most lenient of laws in another state. I wouldn't think another state saying 16 is ok is going to change my mind. This guy is a predator pain and simple.
I look at each case. Ive seen 14 year olds tried as adults yet Ive seen a guy who was 19 put in jail for statutory rape of a girl was was 2 weeks away from 18. I dont find these wishy washy laws fair at all.
You see a lot of wishy washy in this case? This isn't an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend. This guy's sick.

Oh no question with this guy. I already called him a pervert. Im just questioning if they were forced or not. At 17 I dont think for most that they are anything but adult making their decisions. I know the hell I was. At 16 I would have slept with a 30 year old woman and been fine with it. But ya him and his buddies are all dirty.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:39 pm

Even if they are making their own decisions, he, as an actual adult, should know that he is exploiting their circumstances. He's enabling them to live this lifestyle, which he knows good and well is not every young woman's dream occupation. So in that respect, I'm not sure it really matters whether or not they were in it willingly or unwillingly.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:46 am

YellowKing wrote:Even if they are making their own decisions, he, as an actual adult, should know that he is exploiting their circumstances. He's enabling them to live this lifestyle, which he knows good and well is not every young woman's dream occupation. So in that respect, I'm not sure it really matters whether or not they were in it willingly or unwillingly.

My thoughts exactly.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:37 am

It doesn't really matter if the girls were 16 or 17. He said himself "the younger the better" which means he probably would have been over the moon with an 11 year old. The man is a monster.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:57 am

Canuck wrote:Oh man, this thread. OO has reached a new low. Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports? Suggesting that one of the most relevant concerns of this whole fiasco is that the girls ended up getting paid twice? Wow.

I compared prostitution to specific pro sports. Underage was not part of that comparison.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:30 am

Zarathud wrote:If you think underage sex with Jared can be fixed by just $5,000 of therapy shows you're pretty damn uninformed about the cost of therapy and the amount of mental issues you have before (let alone after) participating in underage prostitution.

I was excited to have sex at 16, and I don't think I would have needed therapy if I had sex with a 35 year-old woman. Just sayin' ... these kids aren't at an age where man-tits and a penis are going to traumatize them.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:39 am

Canuck wrote:Oh man, this thread. OO has reached a new low. Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports? Suggesting that one of the most relevant concerns of this whole fiasco is that the girls ended up getting paid twice? Wow.

That's bullshit. I'm sick of people only skimming shit and then paraphrasing what's being discussed. prostitution was compared to pro sports. One person has voiced a query about the girls getting paid twice.

Wow right back.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:43 am

Chrisoc13 wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Even if they are making their own decisions, he, as an actual adult, should know that he is exploiting their circumstances. He's enabling them to live this lifestyle, which he knows good and well is not every young woman's dream occupation. So in that respect, I'm not sure it really matters whether or not they were in it willingly or unwillingly.
My thoughts exactly.

The problem is that we are trying to quantify something that should be qualified. We've decided as a culture and society that kids become adults on a specific day. The day before, statutory rape. The day after, legal. Worse, we can't even agree on what day that change should occur.

I am in no way advocating for leniency or changes to statutory rape laws, I'm simply reminding those who are adamant about the atrocity of underage sex that it is a mostly artificial and arbitrary distinction, no matter how icky the topic might be.

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:43 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Canuck wrote:Oh man, this thread. OO has reached a new low. Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports? Suggesting that one of the most relevant concerns of this whole fiasco is that the girls ended up getting paid twice? Wow.
That's bullshit. I'm sick of people only skimming shit and then paraphrasing what's being discussed. prostitution was compared to pro sports. One person has voiced a query about the girls getting paid twice.

Wow right back.

I only skimmed your post, but yeah, you'll get sick if you eat shit that came out of a bull.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:51 am

wonderpug wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Canuck wrote:Oh man, this thread. OO has reached a new low. Comparing underage child prostitution to pro sports? Suggesting that one of the most relevant concerns of this whole fiasco is that the girls ended up getting paid twice? Wow.
That's bullshit. I'm sick of people only skimming shit and then paraphrasing what's being discussed. prostitution was compared to pro sports. One person has voiced a query about the girls getting paid twice.

Wow right back.
I only skimmed your post, but yeah, you'll get sick if you eat shit that came out of a bull.

I personally think the idea of making shit-skimming a pro sport is repulsive, even if they get paid twice for it.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:51 am

When I was in high school, my sex-ed class had 3 pregnant girls in it. There were plenty of girls that were promiscuous going in (13-14). It's hard to believe a girl who does half the school football team is suddenly going to be traumatized because they had sex with someone over 18. I knew some girls who frequented night clubs at 16. Arbitrary laws don't necessarily protect the people they are ostensibly written for, but are effective at creating more unsuspecting criminals (Jared can't claim this as he pointedly sought out such girls).

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:59 am

Jeff V wrote:When I was in high school, my sex-ed class had 3 pregnant girls in it. There were plenty of girls that were promiscuous going in (13-14). It's hard to believe a girl who does half the school football team is suddenly going to be traumatized because they had sex with someone over 18. I knew some girls who frequented night clubs at 16. Arbitrary laws don't necessarily protect the people they are ostensibly written for, but are effective at creating more unsuspecting criminals (Jared can't claim this as he pointedly sought out such girls).

I wasn't even going to touch this topic. The idea that sex between a minor and an adult automatically means the minor requires massive amounts of therapy is begging the question.

Sure, yeah, some might be traumatized. But let's be clear. It's sex. While they can't legally consent, they certainly can and probably did actually consent. I fail to see how agreeing to participate in something that we are biologically programmed to do at puberty automatically means trauma and therapy. They may be victims in the legal sense, but I don't know and don't assume anything about them being victimized into traumatic sex acts.

And I'd like to remind everyone that it's OK to discuss these concepts, and just because I'm not frothing at the mouth about torturing Jared to death does not mean I support him or sex with minors, or prostitution of minors or even prostitution itself.

It's an emotional topic, but it's emotional for different people in different ways. If it was as clear as people like to believe it is, there wouldn't be any discrepancy in the laws across the country, or world.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:00 pm

Amazingly, I don't recall a single girl being pregnant in my time in high school. I assume there were, and I just didn't notice and/pay attention. I can't imagine that I had any in my classes though, because that would be hard to miss.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:06 pm

Chris Hardwick puts it well from a comedy standpoint.

It's all close-captioned screenshots from his show with a bit of language. I believe his show is on Hulu, but I'm not willing to endure that gauntlet to get you the video.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:10 pm

YellowKing wrote:Even if they are making their own decisions, he, as an actual adult, should know that he is exploiting their circumstances. He's enabling them to live this lifestyle, which he knows good and well is not every young woman's dream occupation. So in that respect, I'm not sure it really matters whether or not they were in it willingly or unwillingly.

He went searching for them. They were his target. It's not a matter of them looking older in a bar and having a fake ID that showed they were older. He actively was pursuing only under age poon tang.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:12 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Amazingly, I don't recall a single girl being pregnant in my time in high school. I assume there were, and I just didn't notice and/pay attention. I can't imagine that I had any in my classes though, because that would be hard to miss.

Many school districts have separate schools/programs for kids who they don't want in the regular classes. I know the two big ones here do, and have for 40+ years.