Pumpkin has to learn to stop using big girl bad words!
- A Daddy Dom, a Mommy, or a Caregiver of any sort
- A little, be it boy or girl or somewhere in between
- A Middle of any sort
- An owner
- A pet (kitten, bunny, what have you)
- A furry
- A Master
- A slave
- A BDSM enthusiast
- An ABDL kinkster
I would love to have some more blogs to follow!
Follow me and I’ll follow you! ♡
Good morning Master….
Anonymous said: It bothers me how unaccepting you are of minors. Experienced DDlgers should be willing to help and give unbiased advice so they don't turn to creeps who will hurt them.
I am not posting any underage post, or not answering any underage related questions on my blog, because this is a 18+ blog. It is a federal United Status law that if a website contains sexually graphic pictures or nudity, or sexually graphic writing, then no one under 18 is legally allow to view that web page. Just because I follow the law does not mean that I don’t support helping teens who are new to discovering their little side or their Daddy or Mommy side.
In fact, you should probably take a harder look at my blog before making that judgement. As I answered an anon question in a lot of detail in June regarding this very specific topic of helping teens who are discovering this part of themselves before being 18. The post can be found right here.
I highly suggest if you are a teen that you read that. I have now put that in my FAQ section to not only help others in a legal environment but so that any incorrect assumptions are made again.
Also go to Scarlettteen.com
Am I still allowed to reblog this if it’s MULTIPLE people?
Yeah all of that
Anonymous said: Hey. I'm just letting you know that I am not judging my cousin for being a prostitute. The thing I have a problem with is the fact that she dropped her young children off at a friends house and more or less left them there.
I assume you’re the person from this post? Funny how there’s no mention of her kid, her childcare needs/arrangements or anything like that in the post, so, yknow, my apologies for not taking these extenuating circumstances, such as they are, into account. But, it is certainly true that women with children often find that sex work allows them more flexibility in balancing the need to care for children with the need to acquire money with which to support them, so if your cousin is having trouble finding reliable childcare to cover even relatively short sex working hours, it’s no wonder that that option works better for her than a civilian job (which generally would require more hours and less flexibility with them, while providing considerably less money).
So, I stand by my original point, especially if you’re concerned for her child’s welfare: ask her what she needs, and listen to the answer very carefully. Because it might be as simple as “help babysitting.”
landmerbabe said: Hi Leighalanna, just wanted to let you know there is a more extensive post per our conversation last night on my page currently you might be interested in, kind of expanding on my stance and what I am trying to address in this discourse. I definitely don't think we are meeting eye to eye on everything but perhaps it will offer a bit more insight into my stance, as your post has done for me. I hope you're having a good weekend.
I appreciate the invitation to check out more of your writing. I assume you are referring to the post entitled “Let’s Discuss:”? I’m going to respond to it here, rather than reblog it, since it’s a very broad set of arguments and I’m only up to addressing just the stuff we were talking about at the moment.
First of all, I understand how frustrating it is to feel like the people you’re advocating for are angrier at you than they are the obviously greater evil (in this case, violent and exploitative clients). I get that that does not feel good, and that, from the outside, it can feel really nonsensical and bewildering. So I’m going to try to explain why I (and apparently other people) are reacting the way we are:
First of all, the reason that the voices of ex sex workers have to take a back seat (not be absent from the discussion, but take a back seat) to current workers is that…well, it doesn’t affect them in the same way anymore. Ex sex workers have a luxury to decide that getting theoretical “vengeance” on clients is worth the tradeoff of being able to work safely, and avoid poverty because… they’re not working anymore. They aren’t the ones who have to suffer the statist violence of end demand models, they aren’t the ones who will lose their ability to screen, to work in groups for safety, they aren’t the ones who will be told to testify against their clients or have other criminal charges pressed against them. And — this is really important to remember: the best, fastest and most effective way for an ex sex worker to shed the stigma of whorephobia once they leave the industry is to fall in line with the narrative of rescued victim. Ex workers who talk about how terrible the industry was for them, and how they wish the industry would be abolished have access to way more societal capital — whether in the form of actual capital from abolitionist non profits, or simply as distance from the stigma of having once been a sex worker. This is something that is pretty common across many axes of oppression — a certain portion of marginalized people will decide (or feel they have no option but) to grab for second-tier privileged gained by siding with their oppressors (see also: Serena Joy). If you would like to hear from ex sex workers who had a variety of positive and negative experiences in the industry and who pretty uniformly support decriminalization, may I suggest any issue of Prose and Lore? I would also really, really strongly recommend this article on the intersection of trafficking/coercion and decriminalization. As I criticized in my earlier responses to your writing — you can not frame the debate over decriminalization as one that has “Stoya” (or whatever stand in for “happy fun glamorous sex worker” you’d like to use) on one side, and downtrodden victims on the other again. Again — the spectrum is much more complex than that, and the entirety of it is benefited by decriminalization, and actively harmed by end demand models. And the people you describe yourself as most concerned with it — the most exploited, most endangered people are the ones who are most at risk in regions that criminalize clients and/or workers (who’s more likely to be arrested, after all? Hypothetical-Stoya or someone who is being forced to work and therefore has less say in their screening process? I keep putting Stoya in quotes and saying Hypothetical Stoya, btw, because I think a lot of your confusion may be stemming from not drawing a distinction between client-facing marketing blogs, and personal journals/spaces for communication about the realities of sex work. And you would probably be considerably less confused if you took a critical look at your reading material that way.)
Are lots of men disgusting pieces of shit who treat their providers poorly? Absolutely — even now, when I work with a lot of privilege, a sizeable portion of my clientele could be described that way. But supporting any model other than total decrim only increases their ability to do so — if you really must center the thoughts and feelings of Dudes Who Buy Sex and you are primarily focused on making them less gross and less violent, then you need to strengthen the agency of the workers who have to choose between putting up with their shit and facing the consequences of both poverty and policing.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this! Reblogging for my readers and I have some reading to do myself with the link you provided!
I do wish that there was more extensive sex worker discourse that goes beyond decriminalization (not that it isn’t like incredibly important- NOT taking away from everything you just typed for me) as many sex workers, ex or current, still purport that decriminalization still results in victimization and exploitation; issues with safety will still exist, even when all pimps are abolished and sex workers themselves are free from legal repercussions for their work.
I was kind of hoping you would touch on this more; what happens when people are still being murdered/raped etc. despite decriminalization? what’s the next step? I think this is what I am most concerned about. I am not trying to be condescending about this or anything; I am genuinely concerned about women in ANY regard that may continue to be harmed even though legally, steps have been taken to reduce their chances of being in harm’s way. What are your thoughts on this (if you have the energy to explain/type it out)?
Decriminalisation isn’t a be-all-and-end-all, but it is the point at which the state stops making shit worse. In my country (Australia), we have a range of different approaches (one of which is decriminalisation) depending on the state, but you see as a worker pretty quickly that the further you get away from decriminalisation, the worse it gets.
In practice, when you’ve got a good system, the “next step” tends to be to try hold on to what you have. In particular, our state with decriminalisation (New South Wales) is facing a major push from large brothel interests to move to an awful form of stricter regulation that would potentially criminalise a lot of their competition. It’s by no means clear that decriminalisation in NSW will ultimately survive this, but shit will get a lot worse there if that goes down.
In my state, where the laws are de jure great, but where indoor sex workers are basically left alone by the state in practice, most of our activist time is being spent trying to fight a push for the Nordic model, which is unlikely to succeed but still needs be taken seriously. It would be nice to be able to politically progress beyond law reform (and into the sorts of territory that leighalanna referred to) but once we get a system that we can live with to work under, invariably we wind up fighting to defend it.
^ this is a super important point. The interests that lobby against sex worker rights are so big and well funded that it’s a constant running-to-stand-still (or move less quickly backward) fight. That’s a part of what’s so insidious and frustrating about abolitionist movements: they’re really good at getting funding and never EVER willing to talk about how many middle class careers are sponsored by subjecting sex workers to violence for their own good.
Fox spent much of its VMA coverage questioning Beyonce’s ability to promote feminism while being "extremely sexual."
Megyn Kelly labeled Beyonce’s message and lyrics as “skanky,” while a FoxNews.com article claimed the singer “seemed to ensure her behind was the focus on each song, all the while educating young viewers about feminism.”
On The Five, Fox hosts suggested “she’s auditioning for a future husband,” and Greg Gutfeld announced that ”the greatest thing about pop culture is convincing women that acting like strippers is empowering.”
What Fox failed to recognize is that expressing sexuality does not automatically remove a woman’s right to discuss equality. Instead, the network righteously slut-shamed Beyonce and used her performance as basis to attack feminism as a whole. In reality, such policing of women’s sexuality has harmed progress toward equality. The very same mindset has been used to dismiss women’s need to access contraception, and blame rape survivors for their own assaults.
If anyone is going to be shamed, it should be Fox and its irresponsible coverage of women’s issues.
Since when is embracing your sexuality and SIMPLY, YOUR BODY as a beautiful woman not synonymous with feminism?! GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE.
Let’s also observe how Mike Brown’s funeral was just a side note on the first screen cap cause critiquing beyonce is obviously more important than an unarmed teenager gunned down.
Fox noise would be hilarious of it weren’t so dangerous
One of my favorite quotes.
Page 1 of 397