n. A promiscuous woman.

This usually also implies not so savory or disreputable habits. A modern synonym would be “slut”, but that word implies that sex is the offense, while being a doxy presupposes you are up to other kinds of no-good. People often use it as a synonym for “prostitute” and while that is true, that is not what “doxy” means. It means she walks the docks and seeks out a rough crowd. She doesn’t care for social nuance or the criteria of civility.

Example: Don’t think you’ll get romance from her, sir. She’s a doxy out for a coin and a swift poop-noddy.






The Fair Folk: “I can’t believe this. Twenty years I’ve cleaned your house and you DARE to try to REPAY me with GIFTS. This is such an insult. Fuck you, you insolent humans. I’m leaving here and never returning because you have insulted me so deeply.”

Also the Fair Folk: “Remember that one time you pulled a thorn out of a cat’s foot? That was me. To show my gratitude, here is a house made of solid gold, a life-debt, my daughter’s hand in marriage, and a promise that all your children will be gorgeous and successful at all that they do. I can also throw in a blow job if you want. I hope this is enough. I don’t want to seem ungrateful.”

ship are you making a callout post for faeries

#now to be fair #i have always interpreted this dichotomy as#you can leave them gifts #but not as repayment#because otherwise you’re just paying them to clean your house#and so the insult is to imply that they are servants performing labor for compensation#when in reality they are Magnanimous Bros#totally just cleaning your nasty house out of the goodness of their good good hearts#and if you want to also be a bro #and give them some uncurdled milk and honey#that’s cool because that’s what bros do#but if you’re like ‘here’s some food for cleaning my house’ it’s like #EXCUSE ME#ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT YOU’RE ONLY GIVING ME THIS BECAUSE I DID SOMETHING FOR YOU#WHAT KIND OF FRIEND ARE YOU#FUCK OFF WITH THAT THEN I THOUGHT WE WERE BROS

This is the quality content I look for on my dash

The only bro code worth following.










(photo via princessmisery)

This is a great idea!

this is really cool. Kids hate the big plastic keys cos they’re not interesting, they wanna see the things the grownups use all the time

I kinda want one of these.

DUDE. it’s a giant fucking stim board! GENIUS.

This is brilliant 

Shit, I might make one of these for myself


This is extremely devopmentally appropriate and smart




Last week, five Baltimore City Councilors called on the city to revive the $1 home program from the 1980s designed to rehabilitate long-vacant properties. This proposal contrasts with a nearly $700 million state and city effort to demolish and replace 4,000 such buildings.

Unfortunately, Baltimore has a great many empty buildings. The city’s population peaked at nearly 950,000 in 1950 and has declined each decade since then, falling to about 615,000 people in 2016. This population decline contributed to over 16,000 vacant buildings. Aside from being an eyesore, these vacant and deteriorating buildings may also attract incidents of violent crime.

In the face of this seeming intractable problem, the nearly $700 million investment to rid the city of many vacant properties might appear to be a godsend. Announced in January 2016, the four-year Project CORE (Creating Opportunities for Renewal and Enterprise) has nearly $100 million to demolish entire rows of buildings and leave lots that are “clean and green” according to the project FAQ. Further, the state has promised $600 million in incentives and subsidies from existing programs to spur new development. Not everyone is happy.

Preservation Maryland and Baltimore Heritage are urging the city to seek alternatives to widespread demolition. The two organizations call for stabilizing historic vacant properties through new investments in the city’s Vacants to Value program, which seeks to redevelop city-owned vacant properties, and earmarking money for that purpose under Project CORE. Reviving the $1 home scheme may also be a good place to start.

Councilor Mary Pat Clarke’s revived the idea this past August and the Housing and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing last Wednesday to discuss her resolution. Clarke’s proposal comes with the backing of H.O.M.E.S. a Baltimore-based community advocacy organization focused on rehabilitating rather than destroying many of the city’s vacant properties. (H.O.M.E.S. stands for Homeownership Opportunity for Mentorship and Economic Success.) The group says under the original scheme, prospective owners would purchase the building for $1 and commit to living in and repairing it.

The estimated cost to restore the properties was as a high as $100,000, so the city made low-interest loans available to new owners. With a one percent interest rate, Clarke’s resolution notes that new homeowners could pay as little as $300 per month to repay the loan. With the same terms in the 1980s, H.O.M.E.S. says no new owner defaulted on their loans. During the hearing, representatives from Mayor Pugh’s administration were less optimistic about the program. They said the federal funding available in the past is gone today, and that more comprehensive block-wide proposals are needed this time.


For every homeless man, woman, and child, there are six empty homes in the U.S.

They need to make it a complete step, not just piecemeal.  Work with employed homeless and cover entire costs of making in habitable and delay payments for first year without accrued interest and a least 10 year freeze on any increase in property taxes (unless resold).  Next is working with the in public housing and setting aside the units they vacate for homeless in extreme circumstances.  Really need to set aside an entire building for sex offenders that is workable.  We don’t have to like them to understand that NO ONE gains by forcing them to live on the streets.  Properly setup and operated could go a long way to reversing inner city decay at the same time protecting neighborhoods from outside gentrification.

Work with banks to provide loans so that homes can be rehabilitated without extreme cost to the consumer. 

Baltimore may sell homes for $1 instead of demolishing them

Blog at

Up ↑