+ TooSchoolForCool Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said: There is no evidence that Wolf is suffering from mental illness, let alone that it was exacerbated by porn and social media. Let's not speculate about things for which there is no evidence. The causes of pedophilia are not well known. Physiological models are investigating the potential relationship between hormones and behavior, particularly the role of aggression and male sexual hormones. Early research is underway exploring possible neurological causes. There is some evidence that pedophilia may run in families, though it is unclear whether this stems from genetics or learned behavior. Pedophilia | Psychology Today WWW.PSYCHOLOGYTODAY.COM Pedophilia is an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children. It is a paraphilia, a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on objects... @KensingtonHomo I can speculate all I want especially when we are discussing a narcissist, on steroids, engaging in compulsive and sometimes illegal behavior for fame and fortune. Edited June 30 by TooSchoolForCool soloyo215, pubic_assistance and caliguy 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ KensingtonHomo Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 11 minutes ago, TooSchoolForCool said: I can speculate all I want especially when we are discussing a narcissist, on steroids, engaging in compulsive and sometimes illegal behavior for fame and fortune. I'm not remotely defending Wolfe, as evidenced by every other post I've made here. Rather, I'm defending the mentally ill, who are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. The evidence we have indicates that Wolfe traded this horrible media with other people while having the presence of mind to try and keep himself anonymous. He ran his own site and channel and chose his scene partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big-n-tall Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) What I'm starting to read online is definitely in witch hunt territory. In that, there are people linking anyone who's worked with AW as either knowing he was doing this or partaking. Vilifying other porn actors who worked with him in the past is shameful. People keep secrets from even their closest friends/family. I read some guy write that someone should make up of a list of every porn actor who's worked with him and go investigate/go after each and everyone. Until evidence is found that the other porn actors, who worked with him the past, comes out people need to stop the finger pointing. I know it's human nature to gang up but sometimes it's just ridiculous. Edited June 30 by big-n-tall + m_writer, pubic_assistance and Bokomaru 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingAround Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 The government has his electronic devices. They know who's been buying and asking for this stuff. They will go after his associates and customers don't worry. + KensingtonHomo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ nycman Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 hour ago, José Soplanucas said: we can assume the case is proved. I don’t think you understand how "innocent, until proven guilty" works. I do think it’s odd that they seem to be bringing a VERY narrow case against him. Either there isn’t more to charge him with (doubtful), or he’s just a small fish in a much larger investigation and they’re just applying enough pressure to get him to flip without playing their full hand (likely). Either way, what will be will be. “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” —Buddha thomas, + BenjaminNicholas, TonyDown and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyDown Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 12 minutes ago, nycman said: I don’t think you understand how "innocent, until proven guilty" works. I do think it’s odd that they seem to be bringing a VERY narrow case against him. Either there isn’t more to charge him with (doubtful), or he’s just a small fish in a much larger investigation and they’re just applying enough pressure to get him to flip without playing their full hand (likely). Either way, what will be will be. “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” —Buddha Sadly, "truth" is more and more a rare commodity, including some wild accusations in this thread. The internet has no editor and little fact checking. Hopefully "truth" will survive. For some it might be too little, too late pubic_assistance and + KensingtonHomo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ KensingtonHomo Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 11 minutes ago, nycman said: I don’t think you understand how "innocent, until proven guilty" works. I do think it’s odd that they seem to be bringing a VERY narrow case against him. Either there isn’t more to charge him with (doubtful), or he’s just a small fish in a much larger investigation and they’re just applying enough pressure to get him to flip without playing their full hand (likely). "Innocent until proven guilty" is about the law, not public opinion. I do not think Wolfe should be imprisoned or punished if the government cannot prove its case against him. That said, many of us noticed his content's direction and found it creepy. He apparently choked a "scene partner" unconscious and then had sex with him. That's rape in my view. They're not bringing a narrow case against him. We don't yet know what the charges are. It could end up being hundreds of counts of possessing and distributing child pornography. There have also been young men coming forward to say he was abusive toward them. This could be the tip of the iceberg. And if they have cast a net to find his accomplices, the FBI most likely already has information on them. They found Wolfe through someone he was exchanging videos with, so that person is also going down. + José Soplanucas, pubic_assistance and Medin 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingAround Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 (edited) Let me repeat: It's COMMON in federal cases to initially bring narrow charges just sufficient to arrest and hold the person. As they go through his iPhone, computer, apartment etc., they will collect more evidence. With that will almost certainly come more charges in a superseding indictment. This is how it works. This is STANDARD. Edited June 30 by LookingAround + goosh69, jojolaca, Johnrom and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ KensingtonHomo Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 hours ago, LookingAround said: Let me repeat: It's COMMON in federal cases to initially bring narrow charges just sufficient to arrest and hold the person. As they go through his iPhone, computer, apartment etc., they will collect more evidence. With that will almost certainly come more charges in a superseding indictment. This is how it works. This is STANDARD. I don’t know why you’re quoting me as if we’re disagreeing. 🤷🏻♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingAround Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 (edited) 44 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said: I don’t know why you’re quoting me as if we’re disagreeing. 🤷🏻♂️ Sorry I quoted the wrong post. We aren't disagreeing. You and I don't think have ever disagreed. I've edited my post to remove the quote and will let my post stand and speak for itself. (It was for a couple of posts above yours but my comment is fine on its own). Edited June 30 by LookingAround + KensingtonHomo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maninsoma Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) Any speculation about what will happen to Austin Wolf is just that. There's a fairly recent case involving a guy in his early twenties who had sex many times with a 16 year old, filmed it, and posted it on Only Fans and Just For Fans. The guy fled to Puerto Vallarta from Kansas and was working under an alias until he was arrested and sent back to the US to face charges. Despite having many videos of him and the victim having sex, he was allowed to plead guilty to "attempting" to create child pornography. I don't think he's been sentenced yet, but apparently he faces a minimum of 15 years in prison with a maximum of 30 years. I know the allegations against Wolf that are public so far only involve him distributing and receiving child pornography, not producing it himself, so I didn't bring up the above case to say they are equivalent. I just thought it might offer some insight into how the government might prosecute someone in Wolf's circumstance. Edited June 30 by maninsoma pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloKyle Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, maninsoma said: I know the allegations against Wolf that are public so far only involve him distributing and receiving child pornography, not producing it himself, so I didn't bring up the above case to say they are equivalent. I just thought it might offer some insight into how the government might prosecute someone in Wolf's circumstance. He does face a minimum of 5 years for what he's charged with currently. My guess is he'll get 10 years if convicted. He's not just charged with simple possession. He's charged with possessing and also distributing it so it's not going to be the minimum 5 years. Edited July 1 by BuffaloKyle marylander1940 and Johnrom 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 On 6/29/2024 at 9:38 AM, soloyo215 said: Recently I posted about me being an advocate for children exploitation, espcaily males. This makes me feel outraged because like it or not, it gives the haters of gay men amunition to repeat the same garbage that they have for centuries. However, I am glad that although it took a child (at least one) to get sexually assaulted, one more pedophile, and possible the rest in his circle, are being charged. I can easily see the recipient of his communications using the "I only received it and deleted it as soon as I saw what it was" defense. Also this is a great example of how online communication is easily traced by the police, though their resources to trace evryt single illegal activity are not enough. I hope for the wellbeing of those children who were put to harm, and I really hope that their parents were not in it with him (as many times has happened). Sad news all around. Yes, unfortunately we all are going to pay for the actions of a few. The word groomer has been used in this site (of all possible places) many times. soloyo215 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 17 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said: I'm not going to post the screen grabs, but PA is engaging in apologia for Wolf. That you cannot see that is troubling. If you WOULD grab a few screens of my comments, you'd find that I EXPLAINED how he may have gone down a rabbit hole for financial gain. I certainly didn't defend the distribution of kiddie porn. Thats why nobody (but you) sees it. Your hatred toward me is exposing your own issues. Stick to the subject and stop the personal attacks @KensingtonHomo There's a difference between distributing porn with underage youth and actually producing it. Neither are acceptable, but let's see how this plays out in the court before we go trashing everyone and everything connected to him. Edited July 1 by pubic_assistance grammar Harryinny, marylander1940 and + azdr0710 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ Coolwave35 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 4 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: There's a difference between distributing porn with underage youth and actually producing it. I don’t think there is a difference. LookingAround, Medin, Kevin U and 1 other 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maninsoma Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 9 hours ago, BuffaloKyle said: He does face a minimum of 5 years for what he's charged with currently. My guess is he'll get 10 years if convicted. He's not just charged with simple possession. He's charged with possessing and also distributing it so it's not going to be the minimum 5 years. My point is that at this time, we don't know what charges (if any) Austin Wolf will eventually be found guilty of. The other guy was able to plead to one "attempted" charge even though the government found scores of porn videos he produced where he was with the 16-year-old and then sold online. His actual, not attempted, actions were documented on camera. If that guy was able to plea down, it's entirely possible that Wolf could be able to do so as well. Then again, the videos described in the article regarding Austin Wolf are clearly beyond what this other guy produced. They clearly involved prepubescent kids, not older but still not legal teens, and it sounds like at least one was a brutal rape scene. Maybe prosecutors are less inclined to give someone an opportunity to plead to lesser charges when the content involved is clearly much more depraved. pubic_assistance and + glennnnn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soloyo215 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 20 hours ago, TooSchoolForCool said: The causes of pedophilia are not well known. Physiological models are investigating the potential relationship between hormones and behavior, particularly the role of aggression and male sexual hormones. Early research is underway exploring possible neurological causes. There is some evidence that pedophilia may run in families, though it is unclear whether this stems from genetics or learned behavior. Pedophilia | Psychology Today WWW.PSYCHOLOGYTODAY.COM Pedophilia is an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children. It is a paraphilia, a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depends on objects... @KensingtonHomo I can speculate all I want especially when we are discussing a narcissist, on steroids, engaging in compulsive and sometimes illegal behavior for fame and fortune. Hard sell for me. I am done with the obsession of blaming everything to some kind of mental disease. Nope. How about this silly little thing named ACCOUNTABILITY. musclestuduws, + KensingtonHomo, marylander1940 and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maninsoma Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, soloyo215 said: Hard sell for me. I am done with the obsession of blaming everything to some kind of mental disease. Nope. How about this silly little thing named ACCOUNTABILITY. I won't go into much detail because I took this class several years ago and cannot say that I have all of the details memorized, but I attended a training from a psychologist with decades of experience in research and treatment of child sex perpetrators and the most surprising thing she said was this: A large percentage of men experience sexual arousal when shown sexually suggestive images of children. She basically said the difference between the men she treated and those she didn't was not the physiological impulse but rather the control of those impulses. Edited July 1 by maninsoma pubic_assistance and + José Soplanucas 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viewing ownly Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 This will be a fascinating court case, no doubt. Did the minor intentionally deceive his age like Traci Lords did? Since this individual was from a foreign country, was the age of consent acceptable where the filming took place, but illegal in the U.S.A.? Around a couple of years or so ago, I remember Austin doing a scene with a height challenged individual (perhaps this is who this case may possibly be revolving around, I don't know). For most, it is incredibly uncomfortable watching something that looks like it is tremendously inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ BOZO T CLOWN Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 11 minutes ago, viewing ownly said: This will be a fascinating court case, no doubt. Did the minor intentionally deceive his age like Traci Lords did? How can a 10-year old possibly deceive anyone into believing that he is 18 years old? That is not "fascinating". That is ridiculous. BTC MikeBiDude, TorontoDrew, Kevin U and 6 others 1 4 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ KensingtonHomo Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 16 minutes ago, viewing ownly said: This will be a fascinating court case, no doubt. Did the minor intentionally deceive his age like Traci Lords did? Since this individual was from a foreign country, was the age of consent acceptable where the filming took place, but illegal in the U.S.A.? Around a couple of years or so ago, I remember Austin doing a scene with a height challenged individual (perhaps this is who this case may possibly be revolving around, I don't know). For most, it is incredibly uncomfortable watching something that looks like it is tremendously inappropriate. Did you even read the articles? It's not about the content he produced. He had and exchanged pornographic images of children as at least as young as 10. + goosh69 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viewing ownly Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 14 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said: Did you even read the articles? It's not about the content he produced. He had and exchanged pornographic images of children as at least as young as 10. I did not. I only saw the headline and the comments on the sixth page, which mentioned a 16 year old, not a 10 year old. + KensingtonHomo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingAround Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 36 minutes ago, viewing ownly said: I did not. I only saw the headline and the comments on the sixth page, which mentioned a 16 year old, not a 10 year old. And an infant. Why not read before you post. marylander1940, Johnrom, maninsoma and 6 others 2 1 1 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ BOZO T CLOWN Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, viewing ownly said: I did not. I only saw the headline and the comments on the sixth page, which mentioned a 16 year old, not a 10 year old. Here are the actual charges. Note the following ([Wolf] telegram owner = Austin Wolf): Page 2, paragraph 6.c: The review of Phone-1 further revealed that Target Telegram User-1 and the user of the [Wolf] Telegram Account exchanged approximately 200 videos and images containing child pornography on Telegram between March 24, 2024 and March 28, 2024. These videos depicted children as young as infants. Page 2, paragraph 6.d "..on or about March 24, 2024, the user of the [Wolf] Telegram Account sent Target Telegram User-1 dozens of videos containing child pornography, including a video with the file name “sdpa_gay_niño_de_10_años_atado_y_violado_por_adulto2_1.mp4” which translates, in substance and part, to“sdpa_gay_10-year-old_boy_tied_and_raped_ by_adult2_1.mp4.” The video shows a child of approximately 10 years old bound, beaten, and raped by an adult man." These charges, if true, are not fascinating. They are disgusting and abhorrent. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1358681/dl BTC Edited July 1 by rvwnsd Given name redacted Kevin U, LookingAround, viewing ownly and 4 others 3 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 5 hours ago, Coolwave35 said: I don’t think there is a difference. Morally perhaps not but legally there is a difference. More serious charges can be brought against those who actually produced the porn using underage actors. pubic_assistance, Openmindedlatino and marylander1940 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts