Rodin's The Doucher Revisited
PIC DELETED
In the comments thread for the previous pic, Rodin’s The Doucher, reader lorok posits the following query:
———
DB1, it seems that we have neglected something for quite some time. This occurred to me in a flash while I was pondering my vote for the weekly. The Hott is the problem, not the douche. If the Hott would stop encouraging the douche, the douche would eventually die off. Today, I hate not the douche, today I hate the Hott that breeds the douche
———
Excellent point, lorok. A few months back we were making some inroads in examining the resultant affect that Hott Selection plays in the douching process of the tricked out scroteball male.
While in many ways there is a feedback loop of positive reinforcement taking place between the douchey waxball and the leggy balls of boobage which he pursues, we cannot discount ultimate blame: Douchebaggery lies with the douche. However, the Hott’s encouragement, the sad selection process by which inverted Darwinianism leads to shlubby fratchoads like the tonguedouche pictured here, must also be factored in.
Where do we draw the delineation between scrotebaggery’s ultimate responsibility for itself, and when do we begin to blame the sweet ambrosia scent of the hotties for atttracting so many douche-bees to its aromatic pleasures?
There are no clear answers to be drawn from this discourse. We must meditate and contemplate the ‘bag/hott interweave, its Douche-Yin and Douche-Yang alternation, in its totality. The answers are not clear cut. They lie within psychoanalytic comprehension, not taxonomical deconstruction.
