Hot Chicks With Douche Bags

8:33 am April, 17 Ted Brogan said...

Well done, gentlemen.

9:03 am April, 17 mr.reeve said...

“The Bronado” FTW

9:06 am April, 17 The Reverend Chad Kroeger said...

Jonesy was right.
.
Boy did that Chara ever play shitty last night. It looked something like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y3ld9GpeNc&feature=related.

9:35 am April, 17 Anonymous said...

I don’t see how you could drag this sketch out into a two hour movie without making “Night at The Roxbury” again. Just sayin’.

10:11 am April, 17 Mr. Biggs said...

Nice. Except I don’t buy the “self esteem” argument. The douche just knows on a reptilian level what the rest of us should know on a conscious level.
Which, incidentally, is why it’s well and just to lust after the gnaw hotties.

10:38 am April, 17 Bag Margera said...

Looks like this was shot in Toronto.

10:51 am April, 17 Chris in 'Baghdad said...

Interesting but I have to believe it tells only part of the story, and that HCwDB could put on a better production, minus the limey narrator.

11:51 am April, 17 Sergeant Poop said...

Why didn’t the douches get the chicks? If there’s one thing this site has proven, it’s that time and time again the ladies can’t resist the douche.

1:35 pm April, 17 Mr. Biggs said...

What Sgt. Poop said.

1:37 pm April, 17 memphis doucheworkers local 421 said...

Nice try, but I’m not buying it. Whoever made this seems to be under the impression that hot chicks DON’T like douchebags. The douchebag’s continuing existence alone is proof that this behavior tends to work. In what alternate universe do the events occur as depicted here? The whole premise of this video is wrong, and because of this, the video is not funny.

The purpose of science is to serve mankind. Whoever made this seems to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Their theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, their methods are sloppy, and their conclusions are highly questionable! The makers of this video are poor scientists, and deserve to be kicked in the balls by David Attenborough.

1:38 pm April, 17 penile interruptous said...

^ it was because of a glandular problem.

1:59 pm April, 17 Mr. Biggs said...

What Memphis doucheworkers said.

2:20 pm April, 17 Long Time Long Time said...

I for one would like to hear what HCwDB’s own Sir Savid Douchenborough has to say on his overall opinion of the video and its representation of the douche in the wild. Maybe this video is to train hotts. Or maybe those douchebags picked a bar that only smart hotts went to. What? The smart hott exists. Somewhere.

2:56 pm April, 17 Dr. Feelbad said...

Never overlook the obvious, unless it has been offered as a red herring.

This douche appears to have been free-basing freon or other refrigerants, causing the obvious mold spores around his jawline and intestines. The girls will naturally avoid hereditary flaws, particularly when associated with the lumbar region, such as a herniated disc or cracked vertebrae.
The subject attempts to disguise his deformity with a battered piece of plywood, but he was unsuccessful as we can plainly see in frame four (4).

3:03 pm April, 17 Dr. Feelbad said...

Feel free to dispute the above findings, as they are based solely upon conjecture and recreational narcotics.

3:18 pm April, 17 Long Time Long Time said...

@Dr. Feelbad re: frame four (4), Is that what happened to Motorcycle Parts? He went back to his roots I guess.

3:30 pm April, 17 Baggity Douche said...

5* for vid. but the reality looks completely different. it’s painful to hear, but douches are successful nowadays. otherwise there wouldn’t be HCwDB.

4:09 pm April, 17 Stephanie said...

Oh,self esteem has everything to do with it. Why would someone go to all that work,pumping iron,spray axe all over himself,buying affliction t-shirts and other glittery crap to woo a mate? They couldn’t do it by themselves or their own wits, they have to use props to get noticed.
Don’t give douches too much power,they’re not that successful. And it depends on,what you mean by success?

4:28 pm April, 17 creature said...

^trophy sized canker sores?

5:46 pm April, 17 Dr. Feelbad said...

@ Stephanie
Self esteem is an elusive prize when images of childhood embarrassment haunt his dreams and spill over into his waking hours. He finds it hard to concentrate on conducting insurance audits when his thoughts are filled with the memory of being hunched down in the hidden sanctuary of a privet hedge. Then, being discovered by the intolerant schoolteacher, who struck him across the forehead with a biology text book, interrupting his moment of release. And he, with one hand down the front of his gym shorts and the other clutching a crudely-rolled Ecuadorian cigar.

5:59 pm April, 17 Dr. Feelbad said...

I still carry the cars, both physical and emotional brought about by that biology book.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anybody home?

6:00 pm April, 17 Dr. Feelbad said...

cars =scars
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.*crickets*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*wind*
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
*silence*

6:37 pm April, 17 Long Time Long Time said...

^This thing is not on.

8:45 pm April, 17 DarkSock said...

@ Anon 9:35 am –
.
Dude, there are people out there that expand this premise into their whole LIVES. A HCwDB film would need to be a Star Wars-sized narrative.

11:05 pm April, 17 Sir David Douchenborough said...

As my moniker suggests, I am an unapologetic fan of Sir David Attenborough, and this video, given the countless hours I have watched the BBC nature series, was really good as it mimicked the narrative structure and the sequences. I don’t think I could pull off a better accent (though I am trying). But anyway, as to the accuracy? Well, this may be convoluted because I just came off of a 3 day camp out in the lab, and in celebration, I decided to imbibe vociferously before and after attending a Pixies concert, so bear with me.
.
One thing to note with the actual BBC series is that they actually show a number of scenes in which an individual who is exhibiting an adaptive trait ends up failing. That is not to say it implies that these individuals do not succeed at other times; rather, it is to underscore the precariousness of the natural world such that the mere expression of adaptive traits does not necessarily and automatically guarantee success. If there is one thing that fellow commenters have tolerated here is that I have clogged many pixels in trying to disabuse the pop culture understanding of evolutionary biology. Curiously, I have only had to do this to those quaint little trolls who come here with the absurd assertion that douchebaggery can be justifiable in evolutionary terms. This is a problem within biological research presently in that they are usually ‘just-so’ stories that collapse on further investigation. In fact, evolutionary psychology, which attempts to explain almost every aspect of human behaviour using adaptationist reasoning, is known for their ‘just-so’ stories. Nevermind the common trap of conflating what ‘is’ and what ‘ought to be’ (for philosophy majors, you may have heard that as being the naturalistic fallacy).
.
In any case, there is no question that there are advantages of being a douche as it does attract the hotts. The question is to what extent. Saying that douchebaggery is ‘superior’ evolutionarily speaking is a joke. For one thing, the goal of sex is not necessarily for procreation, so when douches are successful is not some vindication that their strategies are echoes of adaptive traits that were result of sexual selection way back in the Pleistocene. There could be a whole host of reasons, and the question of sex in the context of the human species must include social and cultural influences and dynamics.
.
The fact of the matter is the ‘douche’ employs strategies that are successful but only in the short term on the immediate and larger scale. And remember, if the natural world is governed by much spatial and temporal heterogeneity, the added feature of human agency and will, you can bet this is true in the human world. But I must stress that the danger in translating concepts pertaining to understanding evolution in nature to the human world. Us humans have mitigated much of the selective, biotic, and abiotic forces that influence the trajectory of many species much less we are able to modify our environment and ourselves through technology. As a result, the simple matter of changing social and cultural attitudes is enough to alter mating dynamics and preferences. One just has to ask their mothers and grandmothers which men were considered desirable during their time to take solace that strategies typified by douchebags will probably fade away or get broken apart.
.
But even during the time in which such strategies are beneficial, there is a limit to the success of them because there are trade-offs despite our mitigating them with modernity. This explains why the douche is only successful in given environments because there are constraints, for if the douche was as ‘alpha’ as their defenders tend to make them, they would be the human equivalent of the “Darwinian monster,” that can survive and proliferate given any novel environment or fluctuation. I think these douches implicitly know this, but try anyway, which is evidenced by overextending themselves financially or in other ways. The downside is that there are douches for many niches, which means we have both a douche taxa and a douche ecosystem (douchosystem?) wrought with redundancies.
.
So how does this resolve the apparent paradox of seeing some douches fail yet they are still around? The only hypothesis I can propose would be fluctuating frequency dependence. In this case, we are talking about the douches that flock to clubs (remember there is a whole taxonomy). Frequency dependence, as the term suggests, is a phenomenon in which the success of a trait (or strategy) is based on its frequency within the population. In ‘negative’ cases, it is when the trait is rare that it becomes advantageous whereas the reverse is true in ‘positive cases.’ Now, I suspect that douchebaggery is successful because of commonality both in abundance of them as well as in the abundance of times in which they try to woo the hotts for a few reasons:
.
1) Douchebaggery being more ‘common’ would give the impression that it is a social norm deemed acceptable by the hott even though on a stand alone basis, such behaviour and spectacle would probably be rather undesirable (taking the douche to meet the parents for example).
.
2) This means that initially the douchebaggery is undesirable especially if the hott has not been exposed enough to deem such traits as common. This may explain the occurrence of failure by douchebags, but the repeated attempts mean that they eventually become successful by virtue of frequency even if their success rate is low (I know an old colleague who started to adopt some douchey traits when he went to med school. He would relentlessly go out all the time, but while he got shot down many times, he would still get hotts). Also, this period of attrition is really a way for the douches to find out what strategies may be successful, but the increasing commonality of douchey behaviour allows for those minor adjustments, which means:
.
3) This commonality creates massive homogeneity such that the mere change into a marginally more outlandish attire or behaviour is enough to woo hotts who would be looking for some ‘rare individual’ or exhibit change in expectations. For Freudians out there, this could be related to the ‘narcissism of small differences.’
.
That is why it is both fluctuating and frequency dependent: Douches willingly accept much failure if eventually leads their traits to become the average in the landscape, but because it is the average, they can respond to changes in the hott’s preferences, since it now costs very little to deviate from the mean for which they are so familiar. To the outside, some of the crap we have seen looks absurd and out there, but within the context of the douchosystem, it is most likely a simple matter of replacing an item of clothing or just ramping up known behaviours before going out with the bros.
.
So there you have it. That would be my speculation. Is it true? I really don’t know. There are so many other reasons that a social scientist especially can propose.
.
Okay now I need an aspirin and my gallon of water. Imma just gonna abandon the attempt at correcting my usual typos this time. Sorry.
.

.
tl;dr: Douches may generally suck, but if there is a lot of them and they suck often, they can be successful with very little marginal effort in wooing hotts, since they would refine their traits so that they can be seen as par for the course to the seasoned woo girls at the club and can easily adjust their suite of strategies to give the appearance of ‘rarity’ or respond variation in the hotts’ preferences.
.

7:32 am April, 18 DarkSock said...

Sir David Douchenborough is smart and shit; but nonetheless I still believe he belongs in the Hall Of Mock.

7:52 am April, 18 Nancy Dreuche said...

@DarkSock, I second the nomination for Sir David. Big fan of his of his work. And I’m not just sayin’ that because I wanna get in his smarty pants too.

9:11 am April, 18 Fatness said...

I third the nomination for Sir David. Unfortunately my pants are only mildly brilliant–although they did score a 33 on their ACT–so they will undoubtedly remain un-gotten-into by Ms. Dreuche. Such is the fate of the middle of the class.

12:11 pm April, 18 Mr. Biggs said...

Sure, we CAN pretend to take solace that in the long term, hopefully, somehow, the douchebags will get thinned out of the gene pool. And we can theorize about it until every hott on the planet becomes sloppy seconds. But in the HERE, in the NOW, they are enormously successful. DJs blasting crappy rap still get underage hott to dance for them, the hotta still promenade down the promenade proudly displaying douchebag in hand, they still congregeate at your frat houses and nightclubs designed as douchebag collection points.
So until our analysis takes into account this REAL and IMMEDIATE RAGE that this inspires, and runs with it, I fear this website shall be no more than a forum for frustrated intellectuals to lick their wounds. Wounds that shall become gangrenous as we become the ones to be thinned out of the flock.
And that’s when the douchebags will be right. We just be playa hatten, yo.

12:12 pm April, 18 Mr. Biggs said...

Seal. Heidi Klum. Large family. I rest my case.

12:23 pm April, 18 Stephanie said...

Suggestions only: @Dr. Feelbad,maybe you should see a shrink? Maybe you should replace that Ecuadorian cigar with a joint,and take two aspirin. Stop jerking off in the hedges,do it in the privacy of your home.
I don’t buy any of it anyways…

6:16 pm April, 18 Sir David Douchenborough said...

Well, I am not frustrated at the current setting right now because I know the appeal to biodeterminism when it comes to douchebaggery rings awfully hollow. That was my underlying point: The effect of douchebaggery is largely limited to a younger demographic in which there is a lot of sex going on but without the aim of necessarily reproducing. That is why when I am confronted with predictions that say that non-douchebages will be ultimately competitively excluded, I am not overtly concerned because I know that this trend can be reversed with mockery and forcing a shift in popular cultural opinion. Thus, our rage is justified and not futile because if it were as deterministic as it s believed by defenders of this behaviour, this whole ethos of mocking douchebags would be fruitless. Sure, some may be successful in starting families, but there is no guarantee that this will translate into a proliferation of this douchebaggery we have now. Heck, evolutionary psychology, which trades in these types of deterministic explanations cannot be this bold because they have yet to demonstrate the reproductive success of these strategies. There is no question that hotts like douchebags now, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is deterministic much less their primacy a fait accompli . We can change the tide and present the douchebag as a undesirable tryst much less a viable mate in both the short and long term because the factors at play are largely a reflection of cultural and social attitudes as opposed to some evolutionary drive. My take is that we do not give an inch to the legitimacy of something that is, when you widen the scope to consider how this dovetails with other culture trends, ultimately transitory (There was once a time when the adoption of grunge was a way to woo good looking women but in the end, they too had to mature and preferences changed). These type of things do lag when you think about it. DB1 has been pounding the table about this for the past 4 or 5 years, yet it is only recent that the absurdity of douchebaggery has finally reached a collective consideration. If anything, it was the legwork done by early critics that ensured this trend was not accepted as a positive product of cultural interactions.
.
The rage associated with douchebaggery is a confirmation that their success should be limited to a passing cultural fad and be marginalized. The more it is brought to light, the less susceptibility that is persists even in the here and now. If anything, my treatise was meant to explain but also give hope that those who rail against this trend can serve as a much needed catalyst in ejecting this peculiar phenomenon from the current zeitgeist. And let me say this: Since this has reached as far as it has, maybe the burden on us is to refine our mockery and make it sting even more because when douchebaggery ascends into caricature, there is a risk that it becomes implicitly accepted. It is akin to a paying lip service against a proclivity only to indulge in it privately. I say, fuck that. It is not enough to accept its caricature; those who indulge in it should be mocked and shunned to the point that it is prohibitive to indulge in it in any form. Only then can the dynamic be shifted, and make no mistake, this appeal to douchebaggery has nothing to do with intrinsic mating preferences. This is informed by cultural norms fueled by nihilistic consumerism, which robs the mystery of human condition.
.
So be enraged and know that as the disapproval of douchebaggery reaches a fever pitch, you, along with other members of demographic cohorts, are squeezing this nonsense out like that annoying pimple on the ass of human existence as it should be considered.

8:27 am April, 19 Dr. Feelbad said...

@ Stephanie,
I’ve been to a “shrink.” He sat there scribbling my transgressions on a yellow pad of paper, shaking his head, as I bore my soul then left the room. I lay on the couch cold lonely and humiliated. And they call themselves “therapists!”
.

I sweep the living room carpet naked, while watching a collection of “Sex and the City” DVDs.
THAT is therapy.
.
I once dislocated my shoulder lifting a basket of laundry. I offer this not so much as an excuse, but an explanation.
I don’t ask your pity, only some level of compassion.