Looks Like Jared May Be A Sick F**K...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Potbelly is the best of the sandwich shops IMO.

Their oatmeal chocolate chip cookies are amazing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I never was a Quizno's fan cause I'm really not into bread that crunches more than the chips on the side.

As sandwiches go though, WhichWich makes the best sandwich I've ever had in my life at this point. Pricey for a sandwich IMO but downright amazing. Firehouse can make a reasonable facsimile but again you do pay the price for it.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Naming a sandwich place 'Potbelly' is like naming a strip club 'Blue Balls'. No one wants to be reminded of the likely outcome of visiting a place of business.

There was one close to my DC office...line would be 40 or 50 deep from 11:30-1. Midtown NYC probably 20-30 deep. So except for them, of course.

What I used to love about Quiznos was the little bar with all the pickles, banana peppers, jalapenos, etc for you to serve yourself. I used to eat about 10 cups of the pickle chips alone. Haven't been to one in years though.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Their oatmeal chocolate chip cookies are amazing.

I did two orders with students in the spring and was so disappointed at how few choose the Oatmeal Chocolate Chip cookies.

[EagleFan]

Wawa is much better than Subway...

[Logan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Wawa is much better than Subway...

Wawa is much better than pretty much everything.

[thesloppy]

I am amazed by Subway's saturation, there's a million of 'em. Especially considering that there seem to be very few people who actually enjoy Subway. They've managed to build quite a brand based on being the most common denominator of fast food....offending the least amount of people, while appealing to nobody, but convenient to everybody.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Subway's 6-inch vegetarian sandwich is great for healthy eating on the run.

My favorite sandwich shop is a local joint called Ike's. They've got a huge selection of sandwiches named after local celebrities. Some of them created by the celebrities themselves. The quality is fantastic, though.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am amazed by Subway's saturation, there's a million of 'em. Especially considering that there seem to be very few people who actually enjoy Subway. They've managed to build quite a brand based on being the most common denominator of fast food....offending the least amount of people, while appealing to nobody, but convenient to everybody.

Same reason Starbucks and McDonalds are so prevalent. May not be the best, but you know exactly what you are going to get. That's what is amazing to me, as to how well the quality control works across so many locations. The variation from store to store is little to none.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am amazed by Subway's saturation, there's a million of 'em. Especially considering that there seem to be very few people who actually enjoy Subway. They've managed to build quite a brand based on being the most common denominator of fast food....offending the least amount of people, while appealing to nobody, but convenient to everybody.

Jon can probably speak better of this, but I imagine that "Jared" and "$5 footlong" have to be two of the most successful marketing campaigns in fast food history (or even beyond that industry).

[ISiddiqui]

I really think its being the healthiest of fast food options that has really propelled them (of course you can make it ridiculously unhealthy). There are local sandwich shops here and there, but people know what they are getting at Subway and that it's generally ok.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Jon can probably speak better of this, but I imagine that "Jared" and "$5 footlong" have to be two of the most successful marketing campaigns in fast food history (or even beyond that industry).

I think maybe the biggest lesson from $5 (which was intended to replace Jared as the campaign centerpiece but ended up running concurrently with him) is how several factors can come together to create a much more effective promotion.

The story is summarized briefly in this article but essentially they wanted to replace Jared and latched onto something that some franchisees were already doing on a limited basis independently. From there the $5 price point met the catchy jingle & the pair collided with the economic downturn ... and one of the most impactful ad campaigns of the 21st century did its thing.

I think they may also find themselves eventually bitten by their own success, at least if I'm any anecdotal evidence. The $5 promotion is SO a part of their brand & image that, since the prices increased last fall, I basically feel ripped off every time I've been in since. And every little bit they inch (no pun intended) closer to other chains in price point, the less likely I am to buy their rather generic product vs something that is more enjoyable.

[Logan]

Agree with your last paragraph. And from franchisee deals I've seen, when they do end up running the $5 promos, it cannibalizes sales from higher price point items instead of bringing in new (old) customers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Same reason Starbucks and McDonalds are so prevalent. May not be the best, but you know exactly what you are going to get. That's what is amazing to me, as to how well the quality control works across so many locations. The variation from store to store is little to none.

I also think they've benefited a bit from people eating healthier. I know if I'm in a pinch and need something quick, I'll lean toward Subway because I can get something that is healthier than a burger and fries.

[thesloppy]

The "healthy" thing probably has worked greatly in their favor, as they're the only fast food chain that most people think of in those terms, no matter how many salads or wraps or whatever McDonald's or Wendy's put on their menu. That market still seems relatively untapped, as lots of traditional fast food joints have tried to add healthy alternatives to their menu, but there are plenty of folks who won't even go into those places on principle, which still leaves Subway as practically the only (omnipresent franchise fast food) option for vegetarians/"healthy" eaters.

[cartman]

That, or there is a massively untapped secret pedophile sandwich market that Jared has helped them reach.

[BillJasper]

At least it doesn't seem like he was messing with little kids...

Text reveals Subway’s Jared paid 16-year-old for sex: report | New York Post

[Suicane75]

Just reading the linked article, I don't see anything illegal except for the paying part. Even the part about the underage cousin could mean 16-18. Guy likes em young, who cares.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

At least it doesn't seem like he was messing with little kids...

Text reveals Subway’s Jared paid 16-year-old for sex: report | New York Post

Best I can tell from the story & some Googling, under state law about all he'd be guilty of legally might be something related to prostitution ('cause of the alleged $100 payment). Age of consent is 16 and there's no "close-in-age" restriction on that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Just reading the linked article, I don't see anything illegal except for the paying part. Even the part about the underage cousin could mean 16-18. Guy likes em young, who cares.

Well, as corporate spokesmen go he's probably toast because of the perceptions of it but legally this sure looks like much ado about nothing.

[Suicane75]

Oh yes, he's done as far that goes. I wouldn't categorize it as a shame, because I'm sure he's done OK for himself, but in a broader sense it's another black mark on the way our society treats sex and peoples personal lives. This guy likes to bang young (but as far as we know, legal girls) and his career, such as it is, is over. Meanwhile half of todays pop artists have songs, pretty much aimed at teens, specifically dedicated to various sex organs and acts, and everyone seems to be cool with it.

[Suicane75]

On the other hand, gives the charges leveled against his associate, it's not that big a leap to wonder if this gets seedier.

[lighthousekeeper]

gross

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, as corporate spokesmen go he's probably toast because of the perceptions of it but legally this sure looks like much ado about nothing.

Whether it is legal or not, I'm not interested in buying sandwiches from a middle-aged man that bangs high school students. Being a middle-aged man who has a now adult daughter, I would've frowned on a middle-aged man trying to have sex with her at 16. I don't care whether it was legal or not.

[Autumn]

a Florida woman who worked as a TV journalist tipped the feds that Fogle told her he thought “middle school girls are hot.’’

I wouldn't go so far as to say "much ado about nothing." The guy admits to having sex with a 16 year old, which in some states would be a crime itself, and supposedly said the above, which to remind you would be describing 11-14 year old kids. I think there's a pretty good chance that someone thinks something much worse is happening than has been uncovered so far.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Oh yes, he's done as far that goes. I wouldn't categorize it as a shame, because I'm sure he's done OK for himself, but in a broader sense it's another black mark on the way our society treats sex and peoples personal lives. This guy likes to bang young (but as far as we know, legal girls) and his career, such as it is, is over. Meanwhile half of todays pop artists have songs, pretty much aimed at teens, specifically dedicated to various sex organs and acts, and everyone seems to be cool with it.

I would much rather have my 16 year old daughter listen to some song about a rich guy's penis, than have that rich man offer to pay her to touch his, whether legal or not. I don't think that's a sign of a messed up society.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I would much rather have my 16 year old daughter listen to some song about a rich guy's penis, than have that rich man offer to pay her to touch his, whether legal or not. I don't think that's a sign of a messed up society.

That wasn't the point I was making.

[Autumn]

I believe the point you were making is that we'll shame a man out of his job because of his sexual interest in younger women, yet at the same time we have a culture that glorifies sex even in entertainment meant for teens. Is that right?

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I believe the point you were making is that we'll shame a man out of his job because of his sexual interest in younger women, yet at the same time we have a culture that glorifies sex even in entertainment meant for teens. Is that right?

Yup.

[Suicane75]

I understand the point you're making too, though I'm not sure I'm of the same opinion, but then again I don't have kids. Fucking glad about that too.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, as corporate spokesmen go he's probably toast because of the perceptions of it but legally this sure looks like much ado about nothing.

As a father of a girl that's only 2 1/2 years younger than that, I can assure you that it is very, very much ado to me. I would fucking kill that dude if he came with 100 feet of my kid.

[Suicane75]

Listen, if you've got a 16 year old daughter, I'd wager to guess that 70% of the men who look at her are probably thinking things you don't like, even if they're the nicest guys in the world.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Listen, if you've got a 16 year old daughter, I'd wager to guess that 70% of the men who look at her are probably thinking things you don't like, even if they're the nicest guys in the world.

Thinking and doing are two distinctly different things.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Listen, if you've got a 16 year old daughter, I'd wager to guess that 70% of the men who look at her are probably thinking things you don't like, even if they're the nicest guys in the world.

That doesn't make it right.

I've never understood the whole teen obsession. It's gross. People that even look up teen porn are sick fucks. That includes every single one of you on FOFC who does it. It's despicable.

[Schmidty]

Sorry, I just get really mad about this stuff. I have a bad history of being abused. Maybe I'm misplacing my anger. I don't know.

[Suicane75]

No, I get where you're coming from. I'm just saying that if 16 is the age of consent, he's not doing anything wrong by trying to engage a 16 year old. Of course I'd want to beat the fuck of him if it was my daughter, or any girl of that age I had a relationship with.

[thesloppy]

Yeah, I mean that's the whole point of the age of consent, and although the thought instinctively grosses me out too, the Devil's advocate within me says the idea that us old men should (even as fathers) dictate what is right/wrong/creepy with any woman's (legal) sexual activity once she becomes an adult is its own flavor of misogyny and double standard.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I mean that's the whole point of the age of consent, and although the thought instinctively grosses me out too, the Devil's advocate within me says the idea that us old men should (even as fathers) dictate what is right/wrong/creepy with any woman's (legal) sexual activity once she becomes an adult is its own flavor of misogyny and double standard.

But at 16, they aren't adults.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But at 16, they aren't adults.

I'm sorry: "legally competent to consent to sexual acts". The point remains unchanged.

Compare the attitude and outrage in this thread to those in the "hot child molester" thread if you want hard evidence of our cultural double standard. The outrage in these situations is presented as some sort of protective paternal instinct, but at least part of the underlying message is that women are too stupid/naive/frail/horny to be responsible for their own sexuality, and will give it away, or have it taken from them the instant that a man's not watching.

[stevew]

I'm like 99% sure my maternal grandmother got married at age 16 and my grandfather was in his mid 20s or so.


However in this case I'm sure a 16 turning tricks has probably had a horrible life and has been abused since birth. Sexual preferences are an odd thing, but I'd wager if Jared did it once, he did it 200 times.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Whether it is legal or not, I'm not interested in buying sandwiches from a middle-aged man that bangs high school students. Being a middle-aged man who has a now adult daughter, I would've frowned on a middle-aged man trying to have sex with her at 16. I don't care whether it was legal or not.

But isn't that pretty much what I said?

That it was a spokesperson career ender but that legally it doesn't appear to be much IF this is all there is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

very, very much ado to me

My reference was to the legal ramifications of what's in the story.

Legally in Indiana patronizing a prostitute appears to be a Class A misdemeanor, that up to one year & a $5,000 fine. That's before we even look at the timeline since the category has a two year statute of limitations on being prosecuted.

[bhlloy]

Middle aged dude paying for a 16 year old is clearly in the "sick fuck" category to me, not giving a shit about the legality of it. And that's even before we get to the smoke without fire parts of the story (associations with accused pedophiles, the comment to the journalist, the fact that the feds thought it necessary to raid his house in the first place)

I'm somewhat shocked at the general reaction to this. Would have thought this would have almost 100% condemnation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

the fact that the feds thought it necessary to raid his house in the first place)

That's one of the more curious pieces of all this to me after reading the article linked today. Either the feds have way more than that bit OR somebody got led down a primrose path into thinking they had way more that than OR there really wasn't anything for the feds to get involved with in the first place.

I felt like the article was pointing to that text exchange as some sort of "smoking gun" type of information (yeah, I know, not the most credible of sources in the link NOR the source they attributed the info to) and THAT contributed to making the legal aspect of this even more interesting suddenly. Basically I got a "ah ha, gotcha" vibe from the article ... but there's not much in terms of criminality to be gotcha'ed about.

I'm somewhat shocked at the general reaction to this. Would have thought this would have almost 100% condemnation.

I think the legal aspects are a valid topic {shrug}. His career is over, that is pretty much a given I think, but contrary to the original thoughts when the item first broke it doesn't look like there's any jail time coming ... IF that article contained what was supposed to be the big reveal.

I'm just commenting on the article that was linked, there isn't anything I've said meant to even give an indication of whether he's innocent of anything else, guilty of anything else, or anywhere in between. Hell, as my wife said earlier, I always figured he was gay so I'm more surprised that there appear to have been females involved than I am by anything else that's come out so far.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Middle aged dude paying for a 16 year old is clearly in the "sick fuck" category to me, not giving a shit about the legality of it. And that's even before we get to the smoke without fire parts of the story (associations with accused pedophiles, the comment to the journalist, the fact that the feds thought it necessary to raid his house in the first place)

I'm somewhat shocked at the general reaction to this. Would have thought this would have almost 100% condemnation.

If there's one thing I've learned: People will argue against ANYTHING on the internet. Being a contrarian is the pseudo-intellectual's way of feeling special.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

If there's one thing I've learned: People will argue against ANYTHING on the internet. Being a contrarian is the pseudo-intellectual's way of feeling special.

Or they just have different opinions.

[thesloppy]

I think it's pretty clear that this discussion moved into the generalities/details surrounding the case, with several posters clarifying that they think Jared is a creep and the details/context of this particular instance are gross and illegal (and I agree, for whatever little that's worth to anybody).

Dare I say that there's room for a weird double standard for young women's sexual activity within American culture AND that Jared Fogle is a creepy dude who shouldn't be using his fame and resources to hire teenage prostitutes.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

If there's one thing I've learned: People will argue against ANYTHING on the internet. Being a contrarian is the pseudo-intellectual's way of feeling special.

No they won't.

[Shkspr]

The most important question here is: with his career in shreds and likely unable to work out his frustrations with sex, does Jared turn to food to ease his pain?

How much does Jared weigh two years from now?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Autumn

No they won't.