In case you live under a rock, heres what I'm talking about.
ok I know he's not a zoo, but this has erased all doubt in my mind that there are at least a few supremely wealthy and powerful zoophiles somewhere out there.
This guy had it made. He's a multi millionaire with a 'perfect' family life and yet he still couldn't shake his persuasion. Literally all he had to do for the rest of his life was pretend to be normal. But thats how powerful sexual attraction is, and its mainly what people dont understand. They look at his money and power and thought this guy had it all, but what they fail to understand is how difficult his life was for him to live behind this facade.
Jared cracked, and he's now in jail solely because of his sexual attraction. After god knows how many years of being a paedophile he couldnt stop himself any longer and despite knowing the risks basically threw his dreamy life away just to satiate this one small yet incredibly powerful part of his psyche.
Honestly I find this case pretty fascinating and I feel it goes some way to proving these rare sexualities actually aren't all that rare in the first place. It definitely goes some way to prove that you cant cure sexuality. Not with money, not with family, not with anything.
Just wondered if this story resonated with anyone else?
It did, a little. Though I found some of his actions reprehensible (paying for sex with young boys and bragging about it to friends...), I'll acknowledge some sympathy for his feeling unusual sexual feelings and then acting on them when given the opportunity.
There is at least one public zoophile who was wealthy at some point: Doug Spink. Of course, he made his money first by drug smuggling and then through investment later, and I don't think he has much wealth currently (went to jail basically for refusing to comply with probation conditions). I want to believe there are much better examples out there, but they have every reason not to go public with it.
I figured this goes without saying so didnt bother adding anything about the morality of what he did.
In regards to Spink, no, he doesnt count as a powerful zoo. He's not even in the same ballpark as some of the zoos whom we still have no idea about. I'm talking about the silicon valley CEOs who run their dogs around Duboce park with everyone else and smile to their neighbours. The kind of people who no one would have any idea they were a zoo. Those wealthy people are having to put up the exact same facade as you or me.
Uhm, isn't the way he tells the story that he first made a lot of money investing, then lost it all and then turned to drug smuggling to finance his lifestyle with his farm and his animals and everything?
Anyway, he had a lot of money at some point, but he never really went into any position of being a person of public interest or of real power.
Think bigger. Imagine for example Putin - uncompromising brutal president at day, Buffy's bitch at night - wouldn't that be something?
also I'm glad I'm only posting with tor here :)
I did wonder why you were willing to analyse that malware link a few days ago… :)
Being "Buffy's bitch" would be no good because it would indicate that it is a fetish. We need people who have legitimate and exclusive RELATIONSHIPS with animals- not just boinking your "pets." Unless if we want to consider bestiality to be some form of 'pet care.'
So if you're turned on by being sexually submissive your sexuality is not real?
Isn't the point of what we are talking about here that it would be good to have people of prominence and world stage importance to turn out to be zoophile/zoosexual people? I would think the point of that would be that it could raise awareness about the legitimacy of this sexual orientation. But I tend to think of a "sexual orientation" as meaning something like to who or what someone connects with at such an emotional, spiritual and romantic level and when we connect in this way it is natural for us to wish to engage sexually with the desired others of our affection. That's what I think is the essence of what sexual orientation is really speaking about. Zoophilia (and we should really probably be using the term zoosexuality), I feel, is supposed to be understood by others to be a LEGITIMATE sexual orientation- considered to be as legitimate as heterosexuality and homosexuality etc. Sure, we all have "fantasies" and we all lust but kinkiness is just kinkiness. A fetish is just a fetish. It is nothing to parade around. A sexual orientation is a thing about a person that the rest of the world will see glimpses of. It is like a skin color, it is like a race, it is like a religion- it is a bigger aspect of one's identity. ..... If Putin is married to a woman, can he be a zoophile? He may feel that he's attracted to animals, but does he have relations with them and his human wife? Isn't that like an "open relationship" or a sort of polygamy? Basically when you talk about being turned on by submission, I'm saying that there's a difference between "sexy fun time" and the more serious sexual orientation which is an issue of who you love and who you are concerned with MAKING love to.... I don't know if I've explained these concepts perfectly. That's a work in progress if I haven't.
Well, it's not like I made a well thought out and well worded argument either.
Maybe it sounded derogatory when I didn't mean it? I don't mean BDSM-style humiliation. I mean it more in the way of following your partner's lead and being focused on fulfilling his wishes.
I actually think it's a bit weird how reserved zoo communities are about this. Go to lgbt / gay communities and people are talking about these aspects of their sexuality openly and nobody questions it like that. It's probably because they are already more accepted, but still...
Yeah, I thought you meant it as BDSM humiliation. As for zoo communities being reserved, I just am not sure if animals would get into something that we humans understand as "kinky." I'm not sure if animals even have such a concept. They seem to be a type of folk that do things if it feels good but I don't know if they ever think that things are "kinky" and therefore want to do those things.
You're correct. Because animals never get beyond "instant gratification". If they're hungry, they eat. If thirsty, they drink, and if horny, they fuck, the male cums ASAP, and it's over and life goes on. The only non-human that seems to go beyond that somewhat is the Bonobo ape. Since they have every form of sex imaginable, in every position, with any gender and age combination.
I think that's because those communities are all mature, adults. Adults who have RL experience. Whereas here in many of these zoo forums, there are LOTS of kids who have zero experience IRL and are just fantasizing what it will be like if they ever get to actually have sex. Kids with no real world experience and often not mature enough to understand how the world works.
Who does? Don't tell me you still think we zoophiles can go mainstream someday by pleading "we were born that way" do you?
Well, do you think that we were not born this way?
I believe we were born with the inclination. In that, we are able to think of non-humans in a sexual way. As in fact many other animals do of other animals, especially if their own kind is not available.
But I don't think we'll ever be able to use the same argument that being born this way as homosexuals do, will gain us mainstream acceptance. Especially as long as religion rules the world.
Same. As everyone of us should. Take a lesson from Fogel, cover your tracks as best you can and you won't end up like him.
I only get on this Reddit account for discussing things zoophile, while on a dedicated drive, running Linux, encrypted, through TOR. And I never discuss my proclivities with anyone I know IRL. I'm not positive that makes me totally safe, but I'm a damn sight safer than Fogel was. He seemed to give zero fucks who knew.
I'd say he's in jail because he was in possession of a bunch of child porn and had sex with a bunch of kids.
true, but he didnt just keep all that stuff for shits and giggles. He had it because that was the only media that could satiate his desires.
...for him personally, maybe. Maybe there were plenty of other ways he could have 'sated' his sexual desires, but instead he preferred to push out of mind the harm child porn does to its victims so he could consume it.
I'm not really disagreeing or arguing with you here, I just think it's important to separate the sexual attraction to children from child abuse/rape. The demonization of pedophilia doesn't help anyone.
right, but im trying not to go down the rabbit hole of 'what he did was wrong'. Yes its obvious, theres not really any point in talking about it.
Im much more interested in how someone can have the world on a plate and still chuck it away. How he did it isnt really important in this topic.
There is — enough people act as if the absence of condemnation is inherently approval. And that insufficient condemnation is approval.
One must wonder what is going on in his mind. Did he think sex with underage prostitutes was ok since he was paying for it? Since others were obviously buying their services too? He obviously had no thoughts to consider what might happen if he was caught. Because if he had, he would have been a LOT more careful and not discussed the subject with other RL people or shared pics and videos etc. That was his downfall.
I wish I had multiple Reddit accounts so I could upvote this multiple times.
I´m not sure what exactly I am reading right now...we´re talking about kiddie porn, right? We´re talking about a guy whose only difference to a "normal" pedo/child abuser (remember him spending money on underage sex; abuse does not necessarily demand violence or force...money suffices ) is his swollen purse and bank account. I don´t care why exactly he chose to turn to kids and also give a shit about his motives. Maybe it was boredom because he already had "everything". A fancy, expensive car?
Well, I´ll go out and buy me a Ferrari this afternoon.´ Sex?Well, I can literally buy anything the "Supermarket of Fucks" has to offer. Now that I´ve bought the car and stocked up on dildos,porn and hookers....hm.....basically today is like yesterday...I´m getting bored....what could I do and desire to make my life exciting and thrilling again??? I can have everything legal, so...let´s try something illegal, hopefully I can leave behind the terrible feeling of boredom...at least, temporary..until I find another thing that´s more exciting...´How can anyone consider it a good idea to mix kiddie porn and paying minors for sex with zoophilia? The community is desperately trying to clearly separate itself from anything kiddie related for ages now and one of the common accusations from the antis thrown in into a debate is "Those who abuse animals also will abuse kids someday,if they´re not already do both anyways." So, every slight bit of understanding for Fogle and his deeds is totally inappropriate here. Showing too much of it could confirm anyone "normal", any outsider reading this that the antis are right.
I do not bear any admiration, any understanding, any tolerance for Fogle and people like him. Kiddie porn is based on real abuse, as is paying for sex with young boys who maybe are addicted to heroin and need to sell their "services" to get the next fix. I do not want to be compared to him as a zoophile. Just because the three last big taboo sexualities (zoo-,pedo- and necrophilia) are commonly frowned upon by society, that doesn´t mean I have to sympathetic automatically. I despise every act of abuse, only because that topic is core business for zoophiles...do or don´t we abuse animals? So I consider it necessary for us to take a clear and undisputable stance against any kind of abuse, be it Fogle´s "adventures" and wankflix or more "normal" heterosexual rape. No force, no abuse....for a genuine zoophile, there´s absolutely no way to not distance himself from these two categorically. For a genuine zoo, the whole pedo-minefield with its moral traps is only avoided by taking a morally decent stance against this.
Everything in our arguments pro zoophilia will fall in the eyes of JoeAverage. We as a zoo community should really practice what we preach others, especially in this case.
Oh, good, let's compare ourselves to a child molesters.
I have slight empathy for him, but no sympathy. If you're a pedophile, you should know you're hurting kids by having sex with them. There's no research that indicates anything similar about adult animals. That's why I don't consider people like us to be the same level as child molestors and rapists.
Because we're not.
Some people need to control their urges and seek therapy; Other people don't. I believe we fall under the latter catagory while pedophiles fall under the former.
As a side note, I thought it would be pretty obvious that money has nothing to do with sexual preferences. Sure, if you offered me a million dollars I could probably control myself for the rest of my life, but that's because I'm not zoo exclusive. Maybe Jared is only attracted to kids. That sucks for him, but he still shouldn't have been touching them.
I agree 100% with what you said about zoo's being different then peds.
Probably does, to an extent. Money is power, power is correlated with sociopathic traits, and I'm sure I remember hearing or reading that power increases sexual appetite while reducing perception of risk.
Is pedophilia even an actual real orientation? I think a lot of these "pedophiles" are really just people who are simply perverted and their interest is simply in being perverted. Jared's case, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do with a legitimate inborn attraction. He would be living an entirely different life, if that were the case. It's never about LOVE with these people because I notice they are always into doing the most sexually perverted thing imaginable. Which suggests to me that the people are simply perverts being perverts. He deserves all the bad press he's getting because he has revealed to the world that he is a dingaling dingdong with piss poor integrity. I believe his case has NOTHING to do with true heartfelt spiritual and emotional attractions to younger people. He appears to just be an evil, perverted individual. Guys, if you are way too much into "sick" stuff... For example, you are way more into doing things that are simply noted as kinky rather than care and concern for your PARTNER and LOVED ONE you are nothing more than a simply perverted individual. Is it bad to be a sexual pervert? Not necessarily, if you ask me, but it's nothing to admire or look up to in a person. In my view, he isn't a "pedophile," he's just a Giant Pervert.
I suspect that "orientation" is an irregular verb: I am kinky; you are a pervert; he's being charged under section 65 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Pedophilia is as much of a real orientation as zoophilia is. There are undoubtedly people out there who desire a loving relationship with children, just as there are zoophiles who desire a loving relationship with their animal partners. There are also bad eggs in each camp, and there are certainly pedophiles who are into "the most sexually perverted thing" possible, and there are zoophiles who do it for the taboo.
I'd venture to say that its reasonably well informed to conclude that children cannot consent to a sexual relationship, so I imagine that pedophiles who care about children dont act on their urges and try to find harmless ways to "get it out". The media never reports on "good" pedophiles, because they would hemorrhage money the instant they do, and would probably go out of business. The same is true of zoophiles.
When you boil it down to the very basic, zoophiles and pedophiles arent so different situationally, and I find that your post displays more than a few unfounded assumptions, and a gross level of intolerance akin to that which many of your posts so desperately seek to dispel. Read your post again, and replace pedophilia with zoophilia, then see how you would feel about what you said.
I've just expressed my general take on pedophilia. It doesn't mean that I'm right about it or completely understand it. And it is kind of hard to express what I mean by the distinction that I make between perversion and non-perversion. I don't really understand pedophilia especially since I personally have no pedophilic feelings/ am not a pedophile. I don't understand why that would be legitimately appealing to anyone. Kids? Ew. Pedophilia is really a more complex issue than it seems. I'm not so sure if it is so true that kids can't consent to sex. While we all wish to distance zoophilia from pedophilia, let's remember that homophiles wish to distance themselves from zoophiles... I think there are ways in which some sorts of pedophilic relationships could be morally acceptable. And legal age of 18? How arbitrary can you get, really? Some acts of sex with children I think are really truly evil but I think there may be some rare cases where it may be perfectly good and okay and maybe we shouldn't come in between the two lovers.
The real factor is, that each country and society decides for itself what age, they consider a person to be sexually mature enough to consent to sex. I think Yemen is the only country that has no such law. Otherwise, the age of consent varies widely around the world. In many Muslim countries, 9 is legal. 12 is not uncommon, even in Mexico and some European countries.
Then there's the factor of, at what age did you start thinking about sex and sex with others? For me that was in 8th grade, which was what, age 12? And that was middle school, which is one of the comments that got Fogel in trouble, that he thought middle school girls were hot. Well ofc they are hot, if you're also a middle school kid. But MOST of us grow up and our sexual attraction grows and matures with us. In some cases, such as Fogel's, it seems they never lose their initial attractions, maybe because they were too shy at the time to have relationships with their then, same age fellows? Maybe that's what drives these pedos. Trying to get now, what they couldn't get back then?
I don't think most people are like this. I find horses attractive, but I don't plan on ever having sex with them. It just isn't worth it. People like Jared obviously have impulse control problems.
I guess I should add a thing here stating that I am 100% not a pedophile, just in case anyone was wondering.
I really wanted to talk about why he did what he did. Like it or not there are a few similarities between us and pedophiles just how there are similarities between pedos and normal heterosexuals. In regards to us, both our sexualities are illegal and socially unacceptable yet both still have people who risk it all to indulge in them. Same with the LGBT crowd a few decades ago.
Just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this thing apart from 'pedos r bad'.
Fogle was a fool. Plain and simple. If he had any smarts at all, he could have taken sex vacations to countries where the legal age of consent was closer to the range of his intended objects of affection. That he thought he could get away with it here in the USA, simply because he was rich, shows him for the idiot he is.
I'll also add, Jared's in jail because he took pictures, and swapped them around with other people he knew IRL. Because that's how he got caught wasn't it? He was not arrested with an underage prostitute, of which there are many according to the media. He got arrested because his friend got caught somehow and data on the friends computer led to Jared. The damn fool wasn't even smart enough to use TOR, or an encrypted drive etc. He really was that much of an idiot. He didn't get rich because of his smarts you know, lol.
[deleted]
I think we shouldn't be even talking about pedophilia on this board, much less with a tone that may be construed by the knee-jerk reaction crowd as non-condemning.
I think we can talk about sexualities, we can talk about defense of paraphilias in terms of what's harmful, when it needs professional help, how to defend yourself when someone wrongly accuses you of something like pedophilia, but lets not draw comparisons. Remember that /r/zoophilia is on reddit, meaning it may easily be the first exposure that many people have to the very concept.
As for my opinion Jared? He's an asshole that should have got help before he lost everything. Now he lost everything and perpetuated a horrible exploitation of chioldren. It's as much as issue of addiction as sexuality. It may equally be viewed as someone with an addiction to a fetish that he couldn't control. Addictions are actually much, much harder to overcome, and having success and wealth enables one to continue their addiction, not discourages.
There's plenty of people with dangerous paraphilias that seek help, get therapy or just choose not to act on it because they know it's wrong. (indulging in child-porn is acting on it, it's not victimless.)
Meanwhile, I have close experience with addiction and know that an addict will create really bizarre rationalizations to sustain their habit.