#a valid and proportionate response

[rosetta-j-stone]

Me: <finally finishes writing another song, has some fun/useful things arrive in the post, re-watches two great films back-to-back>

Minor inconveniences at work: <happen>

Me:

[cherrixpie]

HOW NOT TO DATE A SLYTHERIN

part three of five

↬ being harry potter's sister wouldn't make dating theodore nott any easier - which was why you tried to hide it. only, theo was starting to get reckless with your secret.

↬ sfw; angst + hurt/comfort; wc: 3.0k; cw: none; secret relationship trope, potter!reader, griffindor! reader

thank you for all the supportive comments! wait for part four for the big showdown...

The streets of Hogsmeade were blanketed in a soft layer of snow, the air filled with the mingling scents of spiced cider and chocolate wafting from the shops. You tugged your scarf tighter against the biting wind, walking beside Harry while Ron and Hermoine trailed just behind, arguing about the practicality of enchanted earmuffs. The (way too) early christmas decorations hung from every storefront, casting warm, golden light onto the snow-covered cobblestones, and the faint sounds of caroling witches and wizards drifted down from somewhere near the Three Broomsticks.

“Can we stop at Honeydukes before we head back?” Ron asked, cutting off a string of heated reasons for her argument by Hermoine who glared at him darkly. “Honestly, Ron, that is your biggest concern? Buying chocolate frogs?”

Sharing a glance, both you and Harry rolled your eyes at their bickering. You chose to defend Ron, partly because if he hadn't proposed the trip to Honeydukes, you’d have. “It’s a valid concern. Not everyone can survive on determination and revision schedules, Hermione.”

The only response you received was a long sigh, audible even over the whistling wind. When a particularly strong squall almost knocked him against a house front, Harry cursed, glowering at the restless sky. “If the weather stays the same ‘til tomorrow's game, we’ll be knocked off our brooms before we can make Malfoy lose.”

Now it was your turn to roll your eyes at him. “Don't you mean, before we can win? Honestly, Harry, I think you’re approaching this very unproductively.” Ruffling a hand through his unruly hair, you smiled at his grim huff. “On the other hand, if petty hostility makes you fly better-”

“You’ve done this a lot lately,” Ron cut you off, earning another pissed look by Hermoine. “Defending them snakes.”

You had? Not that you had noticed, but yes, you may have subconsciously been a little defensive when your friends had badmouthed the Slytherins, seeing as you were dating one of the most sensitive and thoughtful people you knew, who happened to also be a Slytherin. “I am merely advocating for proportionality,” you mumbled, but your voice was picked up by a gust of wind, carried to the wrong ears.

You heard them before you saw them- a drawled out voice from behind, having the four of you turn on your heels. “Advocating for proportionality, are you, Potter? How very noble. I’m sure the world is thrilled to hear another Potter lecture.” A large group of Slytherins had been approaching from behind, unnoticed by all of you. Though shielded by green-bronze scarfs, you could make out the faces of your Slytherin classmates, as well as some sixth years. Flickering over the group, your eyes found Theo's and they locked in silent understanding. If you weren't mistaken, he gave you a little wink, but that might just as well have been a product of your imagination.

“That's rich,” Harry snarled back, ignoring your tugging at his robes to keep going. “Coming from you, Malfoy, who loves to hear himself talk so much he gets himself friends as silent listeners that applaud everything he says!”

Sensing an approaching conflict, you quickly counted the heads of the Slytherin group- you were looking at a four to ten ratio.

Red shot up into Malfoy’s cheeks and you caught a movement of his hand, sliding towards his wand. “Better be careful talking like that, Potter, didn't your parents ever reach you not to pick fights when you’re outmatched? Oh, wait,” he laughed gloatingly and you buried your hands in your brother’s robe in a preventive manner. “Guess they didn't have the chance before they were blown to bits!”

But your warning glare didn't only fix Harry, you had caught a dangerous look in Theo’s eyes as well. As if he had felt his eyes on you, he returned your gaze and his expression softened slightly. You breathed a sigh of relief. Crisis averted.

“LISTEN HERE, YOU TWAT!” Ron bellowed from next to you, shaking his clenched fists. Both you and Hermoine shot forward to hold him back, but you made the fatal mistake of letting go of your livid brother, who barged at Malfoy, not even bothering to pull out his wand. His fist collided with his face the moment Ron followed hot on his heels, tackling a surprised Zabini.

“Merlin,” Hermoine muttered and pulled out her wand. Neither of you got to join in the brawl, though, because a very exasperated Theo had strode forward, separated Blaise and Ron and jinxed both Drace and Harry in one move, making both of them jump back and stumble. Some of his friends groaned at him, deprived of the easy victory, but his infamous death glare brought upon them silence in an instant.

Before they could cause any more trouble, you ushered Ron and Harry back on their feet with Hermoine's help, hastily steering them away from the group.

“Hey, Potter!”

Both you and Harry turned around, but the Slytherin sixth year that had spoken was looking at you. “Spare us the moral superiority in the future. You’re as self-absorbed as your little Gryffindor gang. The way you talk, it’s no wonder you don’t have many friends outside Gryffindor. Who could stand you?”

Ouch.

The hurt must have been visible in your features for a second, because his friends howled and patted his shoulder in appreciation. Harry tensed under your grip, but you tightened it and pulled him along as you walked away, Hermoine and Ron hot on your heels.

The whistles and cackles of the group followed you all the way to Honeydukes. Neither of you spoke, Harry seemed to be fuming and you didn't dare say anything to set him off.

“Are you even listening to me?”

You weren't, and you looked at Hermoine apologetically. Instead of listening to whatever your friend had to say, your gaze had gotten lost somewhere at the Slytherin table. Particularly fixed on the dark haired boy in between Riddle and Malfoy, with the face of a brooding storm. Even from the far end of the great hall, you knew the expression as not simply his moodiness but simmering anger, meticulously controlled.

“I’m sorry,” you said sincerely and fixed your attention on Hermoine. “What were you saying?”

Sighing, Hermoine flipped open the evening edition of the daily prophet. Some snowflakes were still caught up in her hair, relics of your visit to Hogsmeade. “You’re awfully distracted. Is it because of what that idiot Langley said?”

“Who?” you asked, even though you knew exactly who she meant. His comment had hurt you, but it was nothing you wouldn't get over. No, what held your attention in a vice-like grip that felt oh so gentle was your dear secret boyfriend who, at this exact moment, rose from his seat at the Slytherin table, undoubtedly going for a smoke to the astronomy tower.

Hermoine passed your question over, opting to pretend to read the newspaper as you could feel her careful eyes on you. “He’s in the hospital wing, you know? Langley, I mean.”

“Did he choke on his spite?” You asked absentmindedly, swirling your fork through your soup as your eyes followed Theo leaving the Great Hall. The elegance of his long strides, his upright posture, the bounce of his dark curls. It was probably as good a time as ever to realize that you were utterly and irreversibly in love with that man.

“He got hexed, nobody knows by whom. But they contemplated sending him to St. Mungos, seems like he was hexed within an inch of his life,” Hermoine explained and a realization dawned on you. An image flashed before your waking eye- Theo's expression when you had shoved Harry away. You did believe him capable of hexing Langley into St. Mungos. But you also believed him capable of a high level of intelligence that was missing from this situation.

“Was he?” you asked in a neutral voice and Hermoine nodded, no longer pretending to be interested in the newspaper. “Rumor has it that Nott hexed him, but no eye witnesses have confirmed it to the teachers. Too scared of him and his friends, probably.”

You gave up on your fruitless attempts to transport the soup to your mouth. Abruptly, you stood up and shouldered your bag with a little more force than necessary. “I think I’m going to head to the astronomy tower, I still need to finish some star charts for Professor Sinistra.”

The heavy wooden door of the astronomy tower slammed open when you marched through forcefully, the sound echoing through the chilly, starlit space. Theo didn't flinch as you slammed your bag onto the ground. He was, of course, already there, leaning against the stone wall, cigarette perched between his fingers, the ember glowing faintly in the dark. It illuminated his face that was calm, almost indifferent. But the sharp line of his jaw gave him away. He’d been waiting for this.

“You’re unbelievable, you know that?” you snapped, marching toward him with a heaving chest, partly from your run up the stairs, partly of fury. “What were you thinking, hexing Langley in broad daylight, in front of half the school if you can believe the rumors? Are you trying to get us caught?”

Theo exhaled slowly, smoke curling around his face like a shield. “You’re welcome, by the way,” he said, voice low and infuriatingly composed. “That guy deserved worse for what he said to you.”

You’d be lying if his dangerous dark eyes and the gravely tone of his voice didn't do something for you, paired with the fact that he had sent someone to the Hospital wing for you. But that wasn't the point right now. “You were reckless, Theo. What will your friends think? That you just snapped on a whim and decided to hospitalize the guy you hung out with?”

“They’ll trust that I have my reasons,” Theo said smoothly, making not attempts to step closer to your heaving form or meet your eye.

“And what if they believe that reason is me?” you challenged him. When he looked up, your eyes locked and the intensity of his gaze knocked the breath right out of your lungs.

“Then they do,” he simply said, making you gasp in protest. With a flick of his wrist, golden embers rained from his cigarette. “It would not be the end of the world. You wouldn't care, would you?” His gaze grew sharper and you felt utterly disarmed. “You only care that your brother and your Griffindor friends don't find out you’re dating a Slytherin.”

“I know where you’re going with this,” you pressed through pursed lips. “And it's not fair. If you were ready to admit to everyone you’re seeing the Chosen One’s sister, you’d already have.”

The force with which Theo stepped forward caught you off guard. Stopping in front of you, he leaned down and a cloud of smoke pulled you in. “I’ll do it,” he whispered to you, watching your reaction closely. “I’ll go right now and shout it from the fucking rooftops.” Crooking his head, he took a step back. “But you wouldn't want that, would you?”

You didn't answer, because you knew he was right. It was you who was trying to keep this relationship quiet, but it wasn't like you didn't have your reasons. One of them being how your friends would react, sure, but since Theo’s father was a death eater, the Order could see you as a liability as well.

Theo called your name and as if on command, you looked up at him. The cigarette lay glowing on the floor, he hadn't even bothered to smother the embers with his boot. “Are you ashamed of me?” There was a guarded vulnerability in his voice. So rare that you could do nothing but stare at him for a few seconds. Theo waited patiently, but he watched every little change of expression.

“I’m not,” you finally managed to say after you found your voice. You took a pleading step towards him, but he took one back as if on chance. “Are you sure?” he asked and a hint of bitterness laced his composed voice. “Because from where I’m standing, it looks like you’re fine with me being your dirty little secret.”

“You’re- you’re not-,” you stammered, your insides were squeezing painfully with the look he gave you. “Theo, you have to understand my situation here! I mean, you didn't even attempt to! You don’t understand what it’s like, Theo. I can’t just… parade this around. Harry, Ron, Hermione-they’d never let it go. And don’t get me started on the rest of Gryffindor!”

A humorless laugh escaped his throat. “You’re an idiot.” Flinching at his tone, you took a step back, but he stalked towards you predatorily. “Do you think you’re the only one who is under pressure here? Last time I checked, the people you answer to aren't ruthless murderers.”

He was right, you knew he was right. But there was a small, defiant part of you that just didn't want to accept it. “Just because you’re ready to tell them doesn't mean I am. They all see me as this perfect girl. I don’t get to make mistakes.”

This goddamn raised eyebrow that managed to stun anyone to silence appeared on his beautiful face. “And I’m the mistake, is that it? Great to know where I stand, Potter.”

“I didn't say that!” you protested, running your hands through your hair in frustration. Theo smiled bitterly. “You didn’t have to. You’d rather keep this quiet, pretend it’s not happening, because being with me doesn’t fit your perfect Gryffindor image.”

Anger started to bubble up in your chest once more and you clenched your fists, infuriated by his seemingly indifferent calm. “You think this is easy for me? Sneaking around, lying to my friends? If they found out about us, they’d never trust me again!” Your breath got caught in your throat as your voice grew quiet. “You don’t get it, Theo. I can’t afford to mess this up. People expect me to be perfect, and being with you… it’s not the safe choice. But it’s my choice, okay? Doesn’t that mean something?”

With an abrupt turn, Theo walked towards the railing and turned his back to you. A ruffle, a click, a soft golden glow and finally, a cloud of smoke rising from his figure as if he was burning from the inside. His voice was so hushed you had trouble understanding it, drawing closer but still keeping your distance. “You know, for someone so stubborn, you’re really bad at fighting with me.”

“That’s because I don’t want to fight with you.” you said imploringly, taking tentative steps toward him. Though he most certainly noticed even the most quiet of sounds, he didn't turn around. A long sigh left Theo’s lips and a large puff of smoke rose up to the stars. “Neither do I.”

“I’m sorry, okay?” you asked, fiddling with your fingers. “I know I’m not handling this the way you deserve.”

Finally, Theo turned around to you and you were taken aback by the sudden vulnerability in his expression. Theo’s features were often closed off, hard to read, unmovable. But now, his eyes were heavy with emotion- a mix of regret and sadness, though a light smile played along his lips. “I’m not asking for perfect. I’m just asking for you to … trust me.”

You closed the distance between you and Theo exhaled the last puff of smoke into the chilly night air before he stepped on his cigarette. His arms reached for you and you almost threw yourself into them. You hated fighting. Once around you, his hold tightened and you felt your face pressed up against his warm chest. The tremble of an exhale left your lips as you closed your eyes and relaxed in his hold. “I do, Theo. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I wouldn’t be doing this- any of this- if I didn’t think you were worth it.”

You only got a soft rumble of his chest in response. His smell surrounded you, clouded you, and you thought to yourself you might get addicted to cigarettes if he kept smelling like them. “This might be a bad time for stuff like that, but… I've never felt like this about anyone.”

When you lifted your head from his chest, you found him already looking at you. And you had to appreciate how he must have turned down every wall he had so carefully constructed around himself to look at you with such a raw expression. “Me neither,” he almost breathed, locking your fingers. He shook his head disapprovingly. “Tesoro, your hands are ice bricks.”

“Why don't you kiss them better, then?” you asked hopefully, relieved to see a smile appear on his face. Theo brought your locked hands up to his lips and pressed slow, gentle kisses to the back of your hand. The soft tingle that followed his touch warmed your whole body.

“We’re going to have to actually talk about this, you know.” he said and you nodded slightly.

“I know. Just… not tonight.”

tag list: @annaisabookworm @empath-bunny @k0z3me @slutfordpr @aespaslut @kiarst @the-oracle-at-delphinitely-not @fakem0net @sammyreid @tulipsc @yasmin-oviedo @lazycrazyme

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/767420735500271616/so-the-thing-with-content-is-that-is-literally?source=share

The thing that makes the jellyfish hat content is that it is an object containing paper mache, fabric, cardboard, and the assorted accoutrements of jellyfish hat-making (the optional but popular add-ons go listed here in your head).

and implies that the container is more relevant in this specific context than the thing contained

No. that's not an implication. That's a thing you're making up in order to have an excuse to get angry about someone using a word you don't like, but it's not true. If I say, "I dumped open the contents of the box onto the floor", it is very easily discerned by most readers I am looking for something specific that is within the contents of that box. It is insanity to insist that the word content = the container being the most important thing on Earth. If I write "he opened the small box, revealing its' content: a single, small wedding ring" and you think the box is the focus, I just flat-out don't know what to tell you.

Setting that aside: holy shit, please calm down. I'm a bit busy with organizing resources for my local trans community at the moment but I promise you, there are worse problems than someone using a word you don't like. There was an election this year - don't know if you noticed - that impacts real people. Looking at all your anon and off-anon replies, the thing I keep thinking is, "Holy shit, who fucking cares? There are actual issues going on in the world right now!"

The fact that something I sent in during a ten minute snack break at work and quickly forgot about lives rent-free in your head to this degree days after it was said is highly, highly concerning. I cannot convey enough to you how much I did not mean to set off an episode in you, and at the same time, I am also very genuine when I say this may be a hill you're willing to die on, but it's not a hill I'm willing to kill you on. I kill people on important hills and jellyfish hats ain't it, chief.

It's wild to spend my time IRL trying to help people figure out what to do if our state makes it illegal for them to get HRT in-state and then pull up my phone and see someone this pressed about the word "content". Surely your life also has an important issue you could spend time on? No one is having a particularly good time right now. Maybe focus on a thing with literally any relevance to your quality of life whatsoever? I know that sounds glib. However, having had manic episodes where one thing someone said to me sent me over the edge, I'm not being glib. I really mean it when I say that redirecting your focus onto something important helps snap you out of it. It's how I got myself out of it before I was able to get medicated for my Bipolar Disorder. I take zero joy in seeing someone forth at the mouth because one person said one word and that made them spiral. I really do apologize, and I can see that this panic is a very real, valid emotion on your end. But 'valid' here is used only in the sense of 'I believe you when you say you feel panicked', not 'the panic is a logical, proportionate response to the trigger'. (As a side note, after this many anon and off-anon messages indicating fixation and extreme emotional overinvestment, I don't want anyone saying I misused the word trigger. This is not a proportionate response to someone using one word you dislike.)

The jellyfish hat contains materials needed to construct a hat. It doesn't need ads or legal agreements in order to contain cardboard, paper mache, etc. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Likely, you are taking your anger at something that actually matters and redirecting it onto this, a thing that does not matter. I'm not saying that in judgment - we all do it - but I am not going to be replying to this further. You may have a desire to use other people's words as an excuse to spiral but you'll have to find someone else to use the reason you're losing your shit.

The hat contains the materials needed to construct a hat. It's not that deep.

--

[rosetta-j-stone]

Similar energy

[ENG SUB] Short behind the scenes moment with Bojan, Tomi and Jana, from @/backstagezjano IG story ✨

Watch full translated podcast on YouTube here:

[thorniest-rose]

Hi everyone,

A lot’s happened over the last few days and I know that I’ve been under a lot of scrutiny and the subject of conversation, so I wanted to take a moment to talk about it with you. I didn't address it last week when I was told that people in the fandom were posting about me and sharing screenshots of my blog. This was to protect my mental health, but now I want to share my own thoughts.

It's really hard not to lash out in situations like this because of how much it hurts. To go through something like this is shocking and humiliating, it rips the ground up from under your feet. But I didn't want to go on the attack because I knew how much worse that would make things. No matter how opinionated I am, conflict makes me feel sick and makes me want to hide. So instead of lashing out, I've done a lot of thinking over the past few days, not just about what's happened to me, but about things I've done and what could have led to this.

Firstly, I want to apologise to everyone whose feelings I may have hurt when I posted certain things in the past. I want any space that I cultivate to be a happy, positive one for the people who spend time here and at times I think I’ve unintentionally created an atmosphere that has felt combative or alienating. I honestly never consider myself to be a well-known writer or someone whose voice has reach in the wider fandom. No matter how many followers I have or how many people read my fics, I always see myself as a girl just spending time on her tumblr, but that's naive and I should have recognised that in a shared space, all opinions are seen and have an impact. 

Discourse is my least favourite thing about interacting in fandom and there have been times where I’ve let myself be drawn into it. That doesn’t mean it’s ever okay to look down on what other people enjoy and I really regret posting those things now because that’s not who I am as a person. Expressing displeasure and other negative feelings isn’t what I want to engage in and I should remember how easy it is for flippant, spur of the moment comments to be taken out of context. Saying things like “I don’t like this” even on my own blog is immature and beneath me and I’m genuinely sorry.  

I am also in no way any sort of authority on how these characters are written, no one is. A fandom is for everyone. I’m passionate and vocal in my own space because I treat my tumblr as a slumber party with my friends, but in my enthusiasm, there have been times where it seems like I’m saying my characterisations are the only valid ones. I don’t think that’s the case at all, and I genuinely love and admire the creativity in this fandom. I’ve said this before, but just because I have preferences doesn’t mean I want every characterisation to be the same as mine because that would become extremely dull. I believe that any and all interpretations should have an audience.

However, while I take responsibility for the things I've said on my blog, the things that have been said about me in response have been extremely spiteful and damaging. I never wanted a war with anyone. I should know better than to court discourse in such a volatile fandom, even inadvertently. To take issue with me and what I said is fine, I accept the criticism and apologise; at times my comments have been juvenile and mean-spirited. But a group of people targeting me, screenshotting my posts, calling me names and attacking what I write isn’t proportionate at all and encourages a wider pack mentality. I think we should all remember that there is an actual person behind the screen reading the things that we post and that our words can cause real harm. It’s easy to dehumanise an avatar and a username. And I think it speaks to a rot at the heart of fandoms that so many people find pleasure in fighting and where feelings can fester into hatred and vitriol.

I am outspoken and passionate about what I love. I sometimes bristle at things I see that don’t gel with my ideas or at a misjudged tone, and I post about them instead of seeing the bigger picture and moving on. It’s a flaw and something I’m working on, to be more open and less reactive. I don’t want fighting or tension, and I don’t want rivalries. I also don’t ever want to make people feel like their characterisations are wrong/invalid/unworthy or that they themselves don’t belong and that I’m some kind of fandom queen bee trying to ice them out. While that’s genuinely never been my intention, I can see how things have been taken that way and I’m sorry for that too.

Again, I’m sorry to everyone I’ve hurt or alienated with comments that I’ve made. I always want to be kind and compassionate. And while I don’t think what’s happened over the past few days is OK, I can see the bigger picture and why things I’ve said, or the atmosphere I’ve cultivated, has planted seeds of resentment. I've also unblocked the person who's been posting about me, if they want to reach out to talk privately.

I know there are people reading this who have been following me for the past four years, and in that time have seen me struggle, and fall down, and make mistakes, but hopefully grow and learn from those mistakes too. I’m so grateful to you all.

I’m going to take a break from tumblr for a week or so, to spend time away from socials, to connect with friends and other passions and focus on self-care. And to write, of course, because I’ll always be writing, whether it’s here or elsewhere.

See you all soon,

Brooke 💕

[evidence-based-activism]

Men Underestimate and Women Overestimate Their Own Sexual Violence

Time for an excellent new (2024) article "Gender Differences in Sexual Violence Perpetration Behaviors and Validity of Perpetration Reports: A Mixed-Method Study".

What this study did:

This study asked 23 men and 31 women to "think out loud while privately completing [the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP) survey] and to describe (typed response) behaviors that they reported having engaged in on the SES". The researchers asked anyone who "reported no such behavior ... to describe any similar behaviors they may have engaged in". They then analyzed differences in the quantitative responses (numerical values on the SES) and the qualitative responses (written descriptions and think-aloud audio).

What this study found (broad strokes):

Men’s sexual violence (SV) perpetration was more frequent and severe than women’s

Men’s verbal coercion was often harsher in tone and men more often than women used physical force (including in events only reported as verbal coercion on the SES)

Women often reported that their response to a refusal was not intended to pressure their partner or obtain the sexual activity*

Two women also mistakenly reported experiences of their own victimization or compliance (giving in to unwanted sex) on SES perpetration items, which inflated women’s SV perpetration rate

Quantitative measurement can miss important qualitative differences in women and men’s behaviors and may underestimate men’s and overestimate women’s SV perpetration

*This phrasing is poor (in my opinion) the authors are emphasizing genuine differences in men and women's reported behavior for ambiguous situations (not just their internal intent). Specifically, women would endorse responses for behaviors that (most) people would not actually consider a form of sexual violence. For example, women often indicated that the behaviors they were reporting were all pre-refusal (i.e., the women stopped and respected when their partner said no/told them to stop). Other "seducing" behaviors (e.g., kissing/touching) were also reported by women because their partner ultimately refused. Men did not report these types of behaviors, which the authors suggest is possibly because women may be more likely to remember experiences where they wanted to engage in sex with someone who did not because this violates social norms. It's also possible that men are more likely to consider these behaviors acceptable provided they stop when refused. (Ironically this suggests that the anti-feminist hyperbole that people will start recording "normal sexual interactions" as violence ... has only affected women.)

Lots more details below the cut (I use a mix of - unmarked - quotes and paraphrasing):

Quantitative data

The overall prevalence of sexual perpetration of significantly inflated due to intentional over-sampling of likely perpetrators (particularly female perpetrators). This is reasonable because the authors are interested in examining differences among self-reported perpetrators, not in establishing incidence/prevalence rates.

Even without taking the qualitative aspects into consideration (i.e., looking only at the quantitative data), men reporting SV perpetration reported more frequent offenses than women (re-offended more often). Men were also more likely to report more severe acts of violence (per the original tactic-act, the tactic specific, and sexual act specific continua).

Differences in severity identified via qualitative analysis

Men’s verbal coercion was more often stronger; more deceptive, persistent, or intimidating; or otherwise harsher in tone (e.g., "She kept refusing to do anything with me. I remember saying to her “just cause you’re on your period doesn’t mean I can’t get head.” I then remember repeating my intentions with her and almost gaslighting her and making her feel that she must not love me."). Proportionally more men described continually asking or persisting after repeated refusals, getting angry, telling lies, making false promises, and trying to make their partner feel guilty.

Women’s verbal coercion was predominantly expressing disappointment or pouting after a single refusal (e.g., “I got upset and said whatever and rolled over the opposite way”)

Also a difference in intent that could only be identified in the qualitative data. 35% of women who perpetrated explicitly said they had not intended to pressure their partner, change their partner’s mind, or obtain the sexual activity after their partner refused (e.g., "I respected him not trying to do anything further, though, and did not attempt anything further."). No men explicitly said they had not intended to pressure their partner or obtain the sexual activity and [men] more often than women explicitly said that they had intended to (e.g., "I think it was one time where I just kept pressuring . . . Didn’t happen, but the pressure was there, that’s for sure. I definitely asked more than a couple times.")

A few of women’s SV perpetration behaviors appeared more like attempts to advocate for equity in their own sexual pleasure or to stick up for themselves in response to a partner’s coercion (e.g., "I really love receiving oral sex. But sometimes my partner ignores that and directly goes to the penetration. So, I stop him and make him do it because I also feel like being properly aroused to get a better sexual experience.")

False negatives

Some participants that did not mark any of the perpetration items still described similar experiences. Most were not coercive (e.g., asking and “respecting” a refusal, clarifying an unclear refusal) but a couple were clear false negatives. There appears to be an issue with some behaviors not clearly fitting into any of the described categories (e.g., Even the physical force SES items refer only to more extreme force (holding down, pinning arms, having a weapon).)

There were many more cases where a less severe offense was marked (i.e., coded as a true positive for perpetration but for incorrect offense in severity analysis). Specifically, men reported only verbal coercion but then described physical behaviors, so the tactic report was incorrect or incomplete (e.g., "We were experimenting with different things and I did not necessarily ask for their consent before putting my finger in their butt." was coded by one man as verbal coercion).

False negative may have occurred, in part, because behaviors that were themselves no different than those performed in consensual sex were not adequately captured. This is a problem given that previous qualitative research has also found that initiating or going ahead with penetration without asking or following a refusal is a common SV perpetration behavior used by men (i.e., this type of behavior may be recorded as either a false negative or a less severe offense in quantitative scales).

When women reported verbal coercion only, but then described initiating sexual acts without asking, they almost always initiated non-penetrative sexual acts in contrast to men who more often described penetrative sexual acts without asking.

The SES may underestimate use of physical force and, especially, men’s rape and attempted rape.

False positives

Some participants reported perpetration on the SES that their description showed was not forceful, coercive, or engaged in without consent or following a refusal. Men explained that they did not engage in the behavior, misread or misinterpreted the SES question, or clicked the wrong response. Some women reported these same problems, but two "were reports of victimization or giving in to unwanted sex" (i.e., mistakenly reported victimization as perpetration).

Notably, three out of the four men with false positives reported other instances of SV perpetration on the SES whereas two of the four women with false positives did not report other perpetration and, therefore, inflated women’s perpetration rate.

Taken together, our analysis of false negatives and false positives suggests that the SES likely underestimates men’s SV perpetration and overestimates women’s perpetration.

This doesn't even account for instances reporting no intent to perpetrate (as described above). But the fact that many women reported no intent may further support the conclusion that women overreport or are more likely to remember and report because their coercion violates social expectations

Verbalized thought processes

In general, most participants appeared to understand and interpret the SES as intended

But there was evidence that the distinction between attempted and completed acts on the SES may be unclear for some respondents (e.g, one woman said "I also don’t understand what they mean by “tried.” Like does this mean that . . . You simply spoke to them, and they said no? Does this mean that you were engaged in an act and they pushed you off? Or does this mean that something disrupted you? So, this question doesn’t seem very clear to me.")

Second, participants used different items on the SES to report having used a specific category of tactic that is not mentioned in the measure. For example, some participants described kissing and sexually touching their partner without asking to try to arouse them and reported this as verbal tactics to obtain non-penetrative sexual contact. This may have underestimated attempted and completed sexual coercion (because the intent was to engage in penetrative sex). It may also have overestimated non-consensual non-penetrative sexual contact category (the most frequent category for female offenders) since research also finds that partners often use nonverbal cues including kissing and touching to communicate about sexual interest.

There was also confusion about the meaning of “getting angry” or "showing displeasure". Some participants (particularly women) indicated these could refer to internal feeling as opposed to external expression or be a “normal human reaction to . . . feeling rejection” that does not necessarily include a purposeful attempt to manipulate.

Other problems: (1) confusion on if intoxication only applied to alcohol, (2) too many tactics listed in a single question resulting in confusion, (3) participant frequency estimates were rough estimates likely contributing to a significant underestimation problem, (4) participants wouldn't endorse items that specified "without consent" even if they later described coercive behaviors suggesting different phrasing may be needed, (5) participants reported shock at the severity of the tactics asked about, which may indicate SV is not normalized among non-perpetrators or may indicate that less severe tactics are not being captured

Concerning (4) above: Other research indicates that while conceptually narrower, asking about behaviors done after someone resisted or indicated “no” (i.e., post-refusal persistence) results in higher rates of self-reported SV perpetration than asking about behaviors done without consent or when the other person did not want to.

Citation: Jeffrey, Nicole K., and Charlene Y. Senn. “Gender Differences in Sexual Violence Perpetration Behaviors and Validity of Perpetration Reports: A Mixed-Method Study.” The Journal of Sex Research, Feb. 2024, pp. 1–16. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2322591.

[glitzreyasblog]

i’ve recently read this (https://www.tumblr.com/glitzreyasblog/736516471255121920/%F0%9D%90%A0%F0%9D%90%A5%F0%9D%90%A2%F0%9D%90%AD%F0%9D%90%B3%F0%9D%90%AB%F0%9D%90%9E%F0%9D%90%B2%F0%9D%90%9A-%CA%9A-%E0%B9%91-%E1%95%B1%E1%95%B1?source=share) post of yours. but i just simply feel like ‘what if it takes too long?’, i’m still working on my mindset and leaving my limiting beliefs behind, any tips for this one? —🎀

hello, reader! if you want to see the post anon referenced in the ask, click here :)

hi anon, welcome to my blog and thank you for your ask!

alright, first, I’m guessing you’ve already fulfilled yourself/decided you have it. so if you already gave it to yourself, already experienced it, why would you ask yourself “what if it takes too long?” how could it take too long to arrive if it’s already here?

once you’ve given it to yourself, it is done. It’s here. There’s no waiting. It’s not “coming soon” it’s already yours in this moment. you literally gave it to yourself so how can you not have it?

you need to shift the focus away from the 3D, the 3D should never be a source of confirmation or validation. just because you don’t have the physical manifestation doesn’t mean you don’t have it period. focusing on when it will materialize is basically you prioritizing the 3D. Don’t do that, don’t put the 3D on any sort of pedestal.

its great that you want to improve your mindset, I’m all for it and I’m delighted you came to me for my opinion. :) please keep in mind that thoughts don’t mean a thing. thoughts do not manifest. so you could have a hundred and one thoughts running around your brain talking about how it’s “taking too long” and still be able to manifest. once you’ve decided you have it, you have it, so trust that. one thought won’t be able to take it away from you.

here are some resources ♡

“The time it takes your assumption to become fact, your desire to be fulfilled, is directly proportionate to the NATURALNESS of your feeling of already being what you want to be... of already having what you desire.”

stick to the end result

“Hold fast to your ideal in your imagination. Nothing can take it from you but your failure to persist in imagining the ideal realized.”

if I am then I will be

"the bible gives it as three days; the duration is three days for response in this world. if i now assume i am what I want to be, and if i am faithful to it and walk as though i were, the very longest stretch given for its realization is three days."

if you don’t have it in the 3D…

[rosetta-j-stone]

recording new music NEXT WEEK???

i'm okay i'm okay I'm totes okay

[ukrfeminism]

5 minute read

A woman was sexually harassed by a firefighter as he responded to a blaze at her home, as he asked her 'why are you single?' and suggested he call around again after his shift had finished. 

The mother of one said the Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service watch manager's "predatory" and "insidious" advances left her feeling “really uneasy” at a time when she was at her most vulnerable – alone in the house with her daughter and dressed only in a dressing gown. 

The woman, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals, was prompted to speak out about the incident for the first time after learning the man had since been promoted.

“He was behaving like he was drunk in a bar, being quite laddish and strutting around the house,” the now-46-year-old told The Independent. 

“He kept commenting on me being a single parent. He said it at least three times. One time he turned to his colleague and said, ‘Oh, she’s single.’ Later [asking] ‘So, why are you single?’”

It comes after an HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) report, published in March, warned discrimination, bullying and harassment were rife in fire services after a review uncovered incidents in which firefighters “acted out a rape” and used the n-word.

In response, The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) on Wednesday launched a drive to tackle “decades of harassment, bullying and discrimination” in the fire service following multiple damning reports. The union pledged to create its own set of reforms, as it slammed failures as going “right to the very top of fire service management”.

Describing her experience in 2016, the woman said she was with her then-six-year-old daughter when a fire broke out in her garage at night. 

Neighbours alerted the fire service after spotting the flames and the pair escaped the blaze safely. But the unwelcome advances of the fire officer began when the watch manager and two other fire officers went into her home to do safety checks.

“He was looking at photos on my walls and commenting on what my friends looked like,” she said. 

“He offered to call round after his shift. He didn’t imply anything but to check on me - but it just felt a bit odd. I wouldn't imagine that is protocol.

”It felt really unprofessional, and the fact that he was the watch manager left me feeling really uneasy.”

The woman said she minimised her experience at the time but someone who witnessed what happened later approached her to raise concern, saying: “He was really inappropriate with you.” 

The woman said this validation of her experience encouraged her to make a formal complaint.

The station manager later visited her home to take down details of what had happened and she received a letter of apology letter from the watch manager. 

Although, rather than an admission of guilt, she said it was phrased in a way that implied “sorry if I made you feel that way”.

Beyond that letter, the woman said she does not know if any other action was taken. 

The man is still working at Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service and, according to his online profile, has since been promoted. 

That knowledge made the woman "hope I never ever have another fire”.

Alex Waller, chief fire officer and chief executive of Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service, said of the woman's case: “A station manager swiftly investigated the complaint in line with procedure and found the watch manager's behaviour fell short of our expected behaviours and values. Proportionate action was taken and he apologised to the complainant.”

Reacting to the woman's case, HM Inspector of Fire and Rescue Services Roy Wilsher told The Independent “the public should be able to trust fire and rescue staff implicitly”.

“There is no room in any service for someone who behaves inappropriately or perpetuates toxic culture,” he added.

The HMICFRS has called for greater transparency on sexual harassment within the service, telling The Independent that no official body currently collates figures on such complaints and called on the Home Office to do so. 

Most individual fire services appear not to publish the information either, although the London Fire Brigade began doing so in November after a separate independent review found it was “institutionally misogynist and racist”.

The National Fire Chiefs Council confirmed to The Independent that while a national code of ethics was published in 2021 there is no independent national body that deals with issues raised about the fire service. Instead, each service acts as its own employer with its own disciplinary procedures, dealing with issues internally.

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack revealed the union will launch its own set of standards on equalities and will hold fire services to account against these. He added it will launch a nationwide poster campaign aimed at changing the conversation around discrimination in the service.

The Home Office told The Independent it was “carefully considering the [HMICFRS] report’s deeply concerning findings”.

[yupuffin]

My previous "Alhaitham is great, actually" post discussed my read of Alhaitham as an understanding, trustworthy man who operates on the principle that emotion and logic are both valid and informative ways of knowing. I wrote said post back in 3.1 and I believe that overall my points held up well into the progression of the 3.2 Archon Quests.

[obviously, spoilers ahead for the 3.2 Archon quests--specifically Chapter 3, Act 5]

I've seen it pointed out, rightfully so, that Alhaitham's role as the strategist behind the "overthrow the Akademiya" mission is a strong indicator of his shrewdness, one of the most immediately obvious aspects of his character.

I'd also like to point out two other aspects of his character that I think his role in the plot as an actor emphasizes: his understanding of others' perspectives, and the deep trust he shares with his teammates. Genuine, convincing acting--like Alhaitham pulls off--requires both of these factors.

Of course, by formulating the plan of attack and casting each "actor," Alhaitham already demonstrates a deep understanding of his teammates on a logical level (the "shrewdness" mentioned earlier). As an actor in the plan, Alhaitham draws a lot of attention as the primary antagonist of the Grand Sage Azar, the the team's main target for subjugation. Alhaitham is just one component of a staged "scene"--one intricately designed to elicit a highly specific series of subsequent responses from Azar in order to succeed.

For the "scene" to reliably execute its intended function, Alhaitham has to anticipate Azar's thought process, feelings, and reactions--or, what Alhaitham might call in his own words, Azar's "behavioral logic," of which emotion is a key part--with pinpoint accuracy, which is not an easy feat. Alhaitham then has to compose his own role as Azar's antagonist (and, to a lesser extent, that of the Traveler and Paimon) with meticulous attention to that behavior logic. It's a multi-layered process that wouldn't be possible if Alhaitham didn't harbor a deep understanding of how "behavioral logic," in all its nuances--purely rational and otherwise--functions.

(Reusing this screenshot from my last post for emphasis.)

This is essentially an extension of the point I established in my first "Alhaitham propaganda" post, about how Alhaitham, while a highly logical and realistic person, also recognizes and respects the role of emotion in the formation of a person's perspective. Furthermore, I use Azar only as a case study; while he's a more prominent example of Alhaitham demonstrating his recognition of emotional processes, of course, I think this understanding can apply more generally to Alhaitham's character, in other situations as well (for example, harking back to the offscreen conversation with Shani in Aaru Village).

Which brings me to the second point about Alhaitham I want to make in this post: the trusting relationships he forges with other people. After all, my initial inspiration for "Alhaitham propaganda" was the widespread suspicion of Alhaitham, and the almost universal anticipation of his potentially malicious intent or ulterior motives--suspicion that I don't believe is entirely groundless, but I think undermines some aspects of Alhaitham as a character and his role in the Sumeru storyline.

In particular, I'd like to point out a notion about acting that I think is important: it necessitates a very deep and solid trust among fellow actors (and between actors and a director and/or other teammates, when applicable). Essentially anyone who's done it can assert that acting is a daunting task; authentic, convincing acting, especially with high emotional intensity and impact--for which I believe the scene in Azar's office qualifies--requires proportionally great vulnerability on the actor's part, so it's imperative that the actor irrevocably trusts everyone involved in the production to make a performance seem genuine.

This is especially relevant for Alhaitham's role in the "scene," as he suddenly and thoroughly reverses the calm, collected demeanor he has invariably demonstrated to the other characters so far and appears to "go berserk," flying into a fit of rage, raising his voice far above the usual volume and charging at Azar with brute, terrifying force that betrays the finesse he's previously seen wielding in combat. Of course, Alhaitham's physical vulnerability in this scene (being captured and knocked out) is also a factor. Such a drastic performance with potentially grave consequences would not be possible if Alhaitham did not have complete faith in his fellow actors--and in turn, if his teammates did not also trust him.

Incidentally, this scene takes place under a delicious layer of reverse dramatic irony, as, at this point, while all of the protagonists involved are aware, it hasn't yet been explicitly stated to the player that the entire scene has been scripted in advance as part of Alhaitham's plan, and Alhaitham's "frenzy" is completely fake--further necessitating that Alhaitham's acting must be thoroughly convincing, as it must fool not only Azar, but also the player beyond the fourth wall. It's only at the end of the scene that it's revealed that every word and action that took place in Azar's office was "all part of the plan."

Alhaitham has asserted himself that he doesn't make empty promises, and that he doesn't have complex motives beyond "I do what I want and I oppose whatever opposes the simplicity and stability of my mundane life," so, in my opinion, his demonstration of the mutual trust he shares with the other characters, as well as of his willingness and capability to understand others' perspectives in all their complexities, should be more than sufficient to conclude that he is a reliable and trustworthy character.

And yes, I do still think he's beautiful, and I do still love him, even though he scared me half to death. He's amazing.

[rosetta-j-stone]

Today in "the brainrot, she is real"...

Local Lux newspaper headline: "Schengen s'enflamme pour les JO..."

Me: A valid and proportionate response to our boys TBH

Rest of the headline: "...de Paris"

Me: Oh right JO also has other meanings, such as Jeux Olympiques

[rosetta-j-stone]

Seconds later:

Tinder Date Runs Off with Slovenian Band

"I can't even blame them" says @genericeurofan

introduced my tinder date to joker out, all is well

[gladstones-corner]

On Baneful Magics

I'm going to kick the hornet's nest again today.

Many magicians hold to an ethical code whose basis is some variation of "harm none". Many, like me, do not. I believe that if we all lived by our True Will, there would be no need for baneful magics. However, reality paints a different story. Thus, persons may need to protect themselves or retaliate against someone who has done them harm. These are valid uses of baneful magics.

Despite this belief, I do not condone using baneful magics as a standard response to situations. There are several qualifications I feel must be met before I will perform such an action:

Harm: any harm is valid, though it should be above the level of annoyance unless it is a persistent annoyance over a long enough period.

Proportionality: the desired outcome of the magics must be in proportion to the harm done.

Damage: the magician takes care to not cause collateral damage; note that this does not include emotional fallout from the desired outcome.

Sacrifice: the beneficiary (on whose behalf the magician casts) must be willing to sacrifice something proportionate to their desired outcome.

If these four conditions are met, I reserve the right to perform baneful magics at my discretion.

Speaking of which, most baneful magics fall within three categories: jinxes, hexes, and curses. Jinxes are at the lowest step of the ladder. They generally inflict discomfort rather than pain--often cast in passing when reacting to an inconvenience. For this reason, the sacrifice needed is usually small. However, the harm done with a jinx is rarely worth the time or effort.

Curses, on the other hand, sit at the top of the ladder. They are often premeditated and inflict great pain upon the target. These last until a specified time (often indefinitely) and require great preparation and sacrifice. These should be reserved for the gravest transgressions, as the energy and commitment required is absolute. As Peter J. Carroll once said in Liber Null, "the protagonist who is psychologically unprepared to do these things physically will not accomplish them psychically." (Carroll, 2022, 107). In other words, to lay a death curse you must be capable of murder yourself. Something to reflect on, anyway.

Hexes sit in the middle. They typically last until the target has learned a desired lesson or otherwise changed their ways significantly. Because hexes are contingent upon this outcome, they are usually proportionate to the harm done by default. Because they are also in the middle of the pack, so to speak, they tend to have a palatable sacrifice to outcome ratio. All of these factors make hexes easier to stomach for beneficiaries or magicians who may bristle at the thought of using baneful magics.

At the end of the day, what matters are intentionality and mindfulness. Slinging baneful magics for every inconvenience is not only a waste of resources, it also sets up an environment that disrupts Natural Law. Natural Law favors balance, which happens when persons act according to their True Will. The more baneful magics you engage in, the less you are following your True Will--or so the theory goes. All I can say is that in my experience, this has been the case.

I have been a "kill the mosquito with a cannon" kind of guy in the past. It's a lot of effort, and it generated an aura of misfortune around me. Much of what I was putting out into the Aethers was reflecting back into my energies, causing a vicious feedback loop. It wasn't until I got a little older that I realized what was happening. I introduced the above code of ethics into my use of baneful magics, and over time things cleared up.

I'm not going to pretend that it's all my gain, to have things cleared up. I had a lot of help from the gods to gain some sense of normalcy. It was they who led me through the fog of my own magics and helped me clear it up. This isn't to say you can't do it on your own, but I couldn't, and the gods made all the difference there.

Okay, I digressed a little. Let's recap: baneful magics are powerful and dangerous. Using them requires some mindfulness and restraint. That's all I really wanted to say.

Thank you for reading. As always, stay safe and stay tuned. Blessings~

[justinssportscorner]

Paul MacInnes at The Guardian:

Uefa has been found to be “abusing a dominant position” in the way it applies its rules, leaving the potential for a revival of the European Super League project. In a long-awaited ruling by the European court of justice, Uefa and football’s international governing body, Fifa, were found to have rules relating to the establishment of new competitions that were not “transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate”. These rules have been declared “unlawful” by the court. The judgment also found, however, that its decision “does not mean that a competition such as the Super League project must necessarily be approved”. The ruling has been awaited by football’s stakeholders as potentially offering sign as to the future of the European game and whether a project such a Super League could happen again.

Bernd Reichart, the chief executive of A22, a consultancy hired by the Super League Company, said on X: “We have won the right to compete. The Uefa monopoly is over. Football is free. Clubs are now free from the threat of sanction and free to determine their own futures.” A22 swiftly revealed its plan for men’s and women’s Super Leagues, with 64 teams in the men’s competition, 32 in the women’s and promotion and relegation across the divisions in each. It said the initial selection of clubs would be based on merit, there would be no permanent members and clubs would continue to play in their domestic leagues, with Super League matches scheduled midweek. Ejection from either competition, however, would happen only for clubs that finish at the bottom of the last tier. Clubs would be placed in groups of eight, guaranteeing them 14 matches a season. Reichart said of the project’s plans, which would in effect replace Uefa’s Champions League. “For fans: We propose free viewing of all Super League matches. For clubs: Revenues and solidarity spending will be guaranteed.”

Javier Tebas, the president of La Liga and a staunch critic of the Super League, which continues to be backed by Real Madrid and Barcelona, accused Reichart of behaving as if he had been drinking “until 5 in the morning”. He said the ruling had not stated that Uefa and Fifa must admit the Super League. “On the contrary,” he said, “it points out that the criteria for admission to competitions must be transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. Principles precisely incompatible with the Super League.” Uefa said the ruling did not “signify an endorsement or validation of the so-called ‘super league’” but addressed a “pre-existing shortfall” in Uefa’s framework which it said it had subsequently corrected in June 2022. It outlined its continued opposition to the Super League project. “Uefa is confident in the robustness of its new rules, and specifically that they comply with all relevant European laws and regulations,” it said. “Uefa remains resolute in its commitment to uphold the European football pyramid … We trust that the solidarity-based European football pyramid that the fans and all stakeholders have declared as their irreplaceable model will be safeguarded against the threat of breakaways by European and national laws.”

In 2021, immediately after the announcement of the breakaway tournament, Uefa took disciplinary action against the 12 Super League clubs, with each sanctioned and banned from European qualification for joining a competition unauthorised by the governing body. The Super League company brought legal action in response, its arguments focusing on whether Uefa should have the power to decide what is authorised. Uefa’s disciplinary processes were suspended as part of these proceedings, with nine of the 12 clubs also walking away from the Super League. An opinion published last year by an advocate general at the ECJ found Uefa had not acted against European competition law by sanctioning its clubs. Real Madrid’s president, Florentino Pérez, said after the ruling: “Today will mark a before and after; it is a great day for the history of football and the history of sport.” Pérez said clubs could now be “the masters of their destiny” and the Super League would give football “the new impetus it so badly needs”.

The European Court of Justice rules that neither FIFA nor UEFA can legally block the formation of the Super League.

[icontherecord]

ODNI Releases Intelligence Community Procedures Implementing New Safeguards in Executive Order 14086

  July 3, 2023 - The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), in coordination with elements of the Intelligence Community (IC), today releases the IC elements’ policies and procedures to implement the privacy and civil liberties safeguards specified in Executive Order 14086 “Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities” (October 7, 2022).

When the President signed Executive Order (EO) 14086, the White House released a statement that the EO “direct[s] the steps that the United States will take to implement the U.S. commitments under the European Union-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU-U.S. DPF).” The statement continued that the EO “bolsters an already rigorous array of privacy and civil liberties safeguards for U.S. signals intelligence activities.” EO 14086 added further safeguards for U.S. signals intelligence activities, including that such activities: “take into consideration the privacy and civil liberties of all persons, regardless of nationality or country of residence” and “be conducted only when necessary to advance a validated intelligence priority and only to the extent and in a manner proportionate to that priority.” The Order mandates handling requirements and extends compliance and oversight responsibilities.

The IC elements’ procedures released today further implement the EO’s requirements, and thereby the United States’ commitments under the EU-U.S. DPF. As required by the EO, each IC element developed its procedures in consultation with the Attorney General, the ODNI Civil Liberties Protection Officer (CLPO), and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. In implementing the EO’s safeguards, each set of procedures is tailored to the authorities, missions, and responsibilities of the IC elements.

IC Elements’ EO 14086 Procedures

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Procedures

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Office of National Security Intelligence (ONSI) Procedures

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Procedures

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Procedures

National Security Agency (NSA) Procedures

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Procedures

Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (IN) Procedures

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (IA) Procedures

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Coast Guard (USCG) Procedures

Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) Procedures

Department of Treasury Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) Procedures

[a-crumb-of-whump]

Hey, just wanted to tune in and say: ur anger is valid and your responses are proportionate. I’m really sorry that shitheads are being shitheads and you don’t deserve to have that leveled at you in a space for peaceful collaboration and unburdened creativity.

Thank you, your words are very appreciated <3