#sources say

[reasoningdaily]

Mike Jeffries, the former CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, has been arrested on charges related to sex trafficking, two sources familiar with the case tell CNN.

Two other associates of Jeffries were also arrested as part of the case, which stems out of the Eastern District of New York, the sources added.

The indictment - which contains more than a dozen counts - alleges that between December 2008 and March 2015, Jeffries and two other associates engaged in a sex trafficking scheme in which they would recruit men with model aspirations, a source said. A second source says they allegedly would also engage in sex-themed parties at which these prospective models were given drugs, alcohol and Viagra to perform sex acts.

The two other defendants named in the indictment are Matthew Smith and James Jacobson, according to a source familiar with the case. Prosecutors allege that from approximately 2008 to 2015, Jeffries, Smith and Jacobson operated an international sex trafficking and prostitution enterprise dedicated to fulfilling their sexual desires.

Smith, 61, of West Palm Beach, Florida, was the romantic partner of former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries. Jacobson, 71, of Rice Lake, Michigan, was allegedly employed by Jeffries and Smith to recruit, interview and hire men to perform commercial sex acts for Jeffries and Smith, according to sources familiar with the case.

All three defendants were arrested this morning. Jeffries and Smith are scheduled to make their initial appearances this afternoon in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. Jacobson was arrested in Wisconsin and will make his initial appearance in federal court in St. Paul Minnesota.

They will be arraigned in the Eastern District of New York at a later date, the sources said.

“We will respond in detail to the allegations after the Indictment is unsealed, and when appropriate, but plan to do so in the courthouse – not the media,” said Brian Bieber, attorney for Michael Jeffries.

Jeffries and Smith allegedly paid for dozens of men to travel within the United States and internationally to various locations, including the Hamptons, New York City and hotels in England, France, Italy, Morocco, and Saint Barthélémy for the purpose of engaging in sex acts with Jeffries, Smith and others, the source says.

Jacobson alleged role was to recruit and interview men for what is described by the source as “sex parties,” which included alcohol, drugs, and the use of Viagra.

During these so-called “tryouts” of potential candidates, Jacobson typically required that the candidates first engage in commercial sex acts with him.

The men are alleged to have used a referral system and interview process for the sex parties, but didn’t disclose details to the men what the parties would entail, including the full extent and nature of the sexual activity that would be required of them.

On more than one occasion, it’s alleged that Jeffries and Smith directed others to inject, or personally injected, men with a drug for the purpose of causing the men to engage in sex acts, the source said.

Some of the victims were as young as 19 years old, the source said, and in some cases had previously worked at Abercrombie stores or had modeled for Abercrombie.

Many of these men were aspiring modeling opportunities or hoping to benefit their careers, the source added.

Jeffries came under intense scrutiny in 2023 after a BBC investigation alleged the CEO and his partner Matthew Smith used a middleman to recruit and exploit young men. Dozens of men filed a lawsuit last year against Jeffries and Abercrombie & Fitch, alleging the former CEO used his position at the company to exploit and abuse men. Abercrombie & Fitch said it was “appalled” by the allegations and launched an independent investigation into the matter.

Jeffries served as CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch from 1992 until 2014, when the company announced his retirement.

As CEO for over two decades, Jeffries transformed Abercrombie & Fitch into a global brand for teen and youth fashion, often with provocative marketing.

In 2006, Jeffries went viral for a Salon interview, when he said: “We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong (in our clothes), and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”

Once-known for being a star of 1990s teen fashion, Abercrombie faltered in the 2010s and was considered out of vogue for many Gen Zers.

In 2013, Abercrombie & Fitch garnered notoriety after a Change.org petition that gained nearly 80,00 signatures called for the company to introduce larger, more inclusive t-shirt sizes. That year, Abercrombie & Fitch succumbed to the pressure and announced they would begin offering plus-sizes in some clothing.

Jeffries stepped down in 2014 amid celebration from fans who wanted to ditch his exclusionary vision for the company.

[lorileopard]

24 hours is long enough to make me unwell

[lgbtlunaverse]

The world exists in such a baffling state of simultaneous sex-aversion and sex-hegemony. Every social platform on the internet is trying to banish sex workers to the shadow realm but I can't post a tweet without at least two bots replying P U S S Y I N B I O. People are self-censoring sex to seggs and $3× but every other ad you see is still filled with half-naked women. Rightwingers want queer people arrested for so much as existing in the same postal code as a child and are also drumming up a moral panic about how teenage boys aren't getting laid enough. I feel like I'm losing my mind.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Hey now, Let her cook!

[spitblaze]

considering how many transmascs were legitimately way angrier BEFORE starting T and have since calmed down significantly have we perhaps considered that maybe the reason so many cis dudes are angry and aggressive isn't because of testosterone but maybe. like. personal issues. unmet needs. a social climate that teaches them that there are only like three acceptable emotional outlets for men max and one of them is being angry and shouting

[visit-ba-sing-se]

me when i have to put proper citations: ugh this is so annoying who even cares what i do in the footnotes

me when i can't find a source because it hasn't been quoted correctly: i am going to track down the authors and they will answer to me. i will find out who caused this suffering. there will be blood.

[qqchurch]

still can't believe this is a real scene, lmao

allykin skywoker

[rihon-scribe-some-writer-guy]

General Studies 324: The Knowledge that I Bear (bare)

Class, I have been going comparatively easy on the lot of you all for at least two lectures now. That streak ends today. We’re going to be delving into biology, statistics, and sociology.

I honestly thought that there was nothing that I, a cisgender heterosexual white male, could really add to the discussion of should women choose to run into a bear or a strange man while hiking in the woods. That lesson was more meant for me to silently absorb rather than to add onto. Yet Hadeantagia calling women who chose the bear illogical proved that there is something that I can add to the conversation: proof that bears are actually the correct answer logistically. I will offer links to my sources so that Bear-chooser can take out these facts and spray them in the face of rude dudes who dared called them illogical.

While anyone can concede that a full grown bear poses more of a potential risk than an unarmed full grown male human, potential risks shouldn’t be the major deciding factor in this hypothetical scenario. I’ll show you why: Let’s change the question to “would you rather encounter a bear or ten kilos of TNT while hiking in the woods?” If we’re taking potential risk of both parties as the deciding factor, then the logical conclusion would be to choose a bear. If the bear goes off, the poor subject of our hypothetical question still stands a chance of survival. If the TNT goes off, our poor subject basically got violently Thanos snapped and I don’t have any of the Infinity Stones on me. However, if that question was presented to me, I would choose to encounter the TNT. See, while TNT-kun can explosively reunite me with my paternal grandmother and maternal grandfather if it goes off, I have watched enough Road Runner Cartoons to know that as long as I don’t light the fuse or push down on the handle, then I can either go about getting my mandatory hike over with or hightail it out of the woods to go play video games like a sane person should. It’s not a question of is Hiroshima stronger than the Bear, it’s a matter of my chances of which scenario is least likely to implode.

In turn, a woman who wanted to make an informed decision about whether to hypothetically hike into a man or a bear would look at the statistics of murders and other crimes committed by bears and murders and other crimes committed by men and compare the data.

Bears, bears, and bears! Oh my!

As a right-brained logically driven cisgender man, I strove to understand why a bear would attack a hiker on the trail. So I consulted some experts and dug up some bear facts.

You know what I learned? Bears are relatively lazy. It turns out that the creature that forages on berries and honey, catches stupid fish by standing upstream and letting them jump into their mouths, and sleeps for the majority of winter, tends to not actively seek out humans to maul hikers.

The statistics of black bear encounters show that they tend to run away upon seeing a human. In the rare scenarios where black bears had engaged in confrontation, 52% of those encounters were defensive. Not defensive in the fact that the woman chose the man over them; I felt the need to clarify that. No, defensive in the way that usually tends to involve humans having stupid behaviors, such as letting their fearless dogs accompany them without a leash or going off the laid trail.

33% percent were food motivated.

“Meh! But Rihon! Bears consider us fooood!”

Slow your roll, Cartman. This is different to the 15% of attacks that are predatory. They aren’t attacking Judy to snack on her booty. They’re attacking her because she’s isn’t sharing her Honeybuns, and the fact that all the Bears know that I’m referring to a type of Little Debbie Cake while their are some guys who are still imagining the butt of a fictional woman is part of the problem.

Bears as a species have begun to associate humans with the food that we bring with us. They view us as DoorDash or UberEats and are more interested in simply munching on our leftovers and trash than actually working for their food.

Now grizzly bears are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than black bears. If the question was choosing between the black bear or the grizzly bear, the black bear would be the logical choice. Yet most people don’t have to worry about grizzly bears because of their low population and territory range.

There’s roughly 45,000 grizzly bears in North America, with only a thousand of them living below the Canadian border. Given the opinion of hiking spots, I imagine most people prefer to hike where the air doesn’t freeze their knees.

No matter the bear, hikers can take preventive measures to avoid becoming a rare statistic.

Don’t let children run unattended. They tend to be an easier target and are more likely the statistic.

Don’t let doggos run loose. (Marmeduke is just going to upset the bear.)

Don’t follow a wounded bear. They are more defensive when wounded.

Don’t approach bear cubs that remind you of Winnie the Pooh. Mama bear tends to be protective of their young.

Just don’t follow or approach a bear.

Don’t explore areas that bears are known to inhabit. Stick to a trail.

Not to long ago, the Offline TV crew posted a second camping trip video. Around 56 minutes in, a family of black bears approached their campgrounds. While there was disagreement between which streamer saw what, there was enough evidence to conclude that there was at least a mama bear and a cub in the mix. The fierce creature ripped the tents to shreds and mauled no one! The internet streamers and crew had safely left to head back to an AirBNB. Interestingly enough, the gang somewhat covered up their thoughts of running into the bears. While Lily verbally reported that she was super bummed out that they had to leave and weren’t going to sleep outside on a below freezing night, the crew informed Toast that Lily only began smiling on the trip when it was decided that they had to go back to the AirBNB due to the bears.

As I was about to head out to volunteer for a weekend program, I saw bears make the news. They didn’t kill anyone, rather merely trespassed on someone’s property to go swimming in the pool.

That news stories reminded me of other odd stories, such as bears getting chased way from people’s homes… by their house cat.

In all the news stories about bears, where are the stories of how deadly they are?

What Statistics has to say about the question:

Now that we have covered a healthy amount of biology in bear behavior, let’s compare apples to oranges using statistics.

Here’s my proposal: I’ll consult reports easily gathered from the internet about the amount Canadian women who were victims of homicide by male killers. I will then compare that number to the amount of Canadian women who were killed by bears.

Above is the article that I used to calculate my figure for Canadian Women killed by men. Between 2018-2023, 697 Canadian women were killed by men.

So, all the Canadian bears have to do is rack up a kill count of 700 to become statistically more likely to be literal lady killers.

What is their kill count? Seven. From 2018-2023, Team Bears could only break 1% of the goal set by Team Canadian Males.

Statistically speaking, a Canadian woman is 100 times more likely to be killed by a man than to be killed by a bear. And that factor was drawn from me setting the location in heavy bears territory. If I were to run a similar research but set the location to the United States, the stats go more extreme.

The above link only looks at 2020. I added up the amount of American women killed by men from the five states that ranked the highest and easily exceeded the kill count from Canadian men with a five year span. Meanwhile, Team American bears only killed one woman during that year.

Based on the this set of collected data, American women are over 2000 times more likely to be killed by a man than by a bear.

Sociology and Why this Lecture Exists

At the end of the day, Bears weren’t the issue that needed to be focused on. My fellow men and I were not suppose to respond to women choosing bears with reasoning of whether their choice was logically justified. My fellow men and I should have instead reflected on why our female counterparts bore those feelings and what we as a society should do to change their perception of us.

Sexual assault committed against women by men is far more prevalent than murder. While sexual assault can be committed by any individual regardless of gender and victimized any individual regardless of gender, the statistics will show that women are subjugated to it far more than men. Both men and women have to adopt certain behaviors when they want to take a hike in the woods, but the men tend not to fret about carrying that same mentality when they venture out for a night on the town.

It’s here that I will conclude the lecture and issue out the homework assignment:

Team Bears - Turn in a nonfictional report detailing how a woman lost her life to a man.

Team Men - Turn in a nonfictional report detailing how a woman lost her life to a bear.

I’ll be grading on if the report had a source to prove its validity as well as the grammatical quality of report itself.

I will say solely bc you say anyone who picks bear is radfem-poisoned- there is another, albeit probably less common reason to pick the bear. I'd pick the bear, and not bc I hate or am afraid of men, but bc im autistic as fuck with a special interest in biology and genuinely understand animals better than people lmao. A chill man and a (albeit unlikely) chill bear would be fine either way, but if either was aggressive? I'd know more about how to escape the bear than I would having to escape any human trying to hurt me, bears have protocols to escapethat tend to work on any bear of that type, with exceptions, people don't lmao

To reference the original argument: to assume there is any level of comparable risk between bears and human men is fucking bonkers. It is illogical to compare the threat level of a human man and a bear. The bear is much more dangerous, hands-down. The same goes with any other human being. A bear is much more of a threat to you.

The ONLY reason to believe men and bears pose the same level of risk is to believe all the poison you've been taught about how evil and dangerous men are. There are two sources of this propaganda: 1: the patriarchy itself, because the idea of a hyper-aggressive man benefits the patriarchy's vision of men as the superior sex, and 2: radical feminists, who want all women so terrified of men that the only escape is separatism.

---

Ok, so now, let's operate off the new assumption that the gender of the human doesn't matter:

Honestly "I would rather be in mortal danger and have to run through all the protocols I know on how to survive a bear attack and potentially die rather than see another person" seems really, really... really illogical.

It doesn't matter how much you love animals or how much you know, if the bear tries to kill you it would be way better at it than a human. The bad part about nature is that it does not in fact follow protocol. I know a lot about how to escape bears too. It's advice, but bears do not have to follow that advice. You have a much higher chance of survival running away from a person.

And the fact is, 99.9% of people you meet (including men) are perfectly normal human beings who do not wish you harm. Hell, some of them are probably autistic with a special interest in bears. The human is probably just chilling with you. You don't even have to talk to them. You could just walk away.

Everyone keeps going "well what IF the person tried to attack me?" ignoring that such a situation is in fact very unlikely.

[percabethconvos]

Percy: You ever dip your entire oreo in milk except for the part where you're holding it and feel like Thetis dipping newborn Achilles into the river Styx leaving him invulnerable everywhere except for his heel?

Annabeth:

Annabeth: Yes

[mworldnews]

Exclusive-Apple offers to let rivals access tap-and-go tech in EU antitrust case, sources say

Apple has offered to let rivals access its tap-and-go mobile payments systems used for mobile wallets, three people familiar with the matter said, a move that could settle EU antitrust charges and stave off a possible hefty fine. The EU competition enforcer last year charged Apple with curbing rivals’ access to its tap-and-go technology, Near-Field Communication (NFC), making it difficult for…

[thornshadowwolf]

In complete seriousness, they need to make laws about ads that say they can take no more than one, maybe two, clicks/taps to close/skip. No more "wait 10 seconds until you can skip the video, wait 10 seconds until you can skip the fake playable ad, wait 5 seconds until you can close the 'download now' overlay, puts up a half-screen in-app appstore pop-up (which at least you can close immediately)." This should literally be illegal to do.

Edit: this is blowing up so I just wanted to add (haha ad) that this was my "reasonable request" I also think there should be way more and way stricter laws around all advertising in general. I think most advertising as we know it today should be abolished.

[axiliern]

tim's got the vibe of the viet mom who makes way too much thịt kho and gets stuck eating it for leftovers for weeks

[a-most-beloved-fool]

makes me a little sad when star trek ignores IDIC. like. vulcans are logical. that is true. But 'logical', for vulcans, does not amount to 'without compassion,' and it definitely doesn't amount to 'racial superiority.' Belief in 'infinite diversity in infinite combinations' should NOT result in the weird racist/speciest stuff we're getting in some of the newer treks. It does make sense that some vulcans are discriminatory. They're still flawed. But that should not be common or expected, like it seems to be in SNW. If it is, then it's a race of hypocrites, which. doesn't seem very true to Star Trek's message.

I think TOS Spock does a pretty good job of embodying this. Not always, it was the 60s, after all, but mostly. He was often trying to find non-violent routes, and get by without killing - even if they were in danger or had already been attacked. (See: the mugato, and the horta (until Kirk was the one in danger, lmao. t'hy'la > IDIC), the Gorn ship). Kirk, in his eulogy, calls him the most human soul he's ever known, and I've always read that as Kirk calling out Spock's overwhelming compassion.

It's just so much more interesting when Vulcans get to be radically compassionate. I want them to believe that everything and everyone has value. I want them to respect all ways of being. I want them to find ways for even very non-humanoid aliens to exist unfettered in society. I want them to see hybrids and think that it's amazing. Also, like, disability rep. I want Vulcans to have The Most Accessible Planet and available resources because they want everyone to feel accepted and valued. It makes for better characters and more interesting stories.

[fascinationstreetmp3]

There are stories that need to be told. If things ever get bad again, these are the words you'll hear in your mind like a tape playing over and over, like a song stuck in your brain. These words will hold you up and carry you. They are your lifeline.

[chappellnchill]

If you've been saying "shappell rowe-anne", this is your final warning. It's "Chappell Roan", babe.

[menlove]

i love this website i just saw someone link a "source" that was literally just a link to a google doc w a quote typed up in it w 0 date, publication info, any elaboration, nothing. just words. that's great. i'm gonna start doing that