Ask DB1: Douche Aura
—-
Dear DB1,
While strolling through myspace on a tagging expedition, I stumbled across the attached photo. The bag(?) in question displays only a small number of the telltale signs of a douche. But my question is, if said signs are glaring enough, can one fairly call him a scrote on these merits alone?
He’s got the overly-serious-despite-being-wrapped-around-a-hot look, the ridiculous ‘flavor saver,’ and some obnoxiously large douche shades. I also feel that from what can be seen of their surrounding, this pairing seems to be smack in the middle of prime douche/hott mating grounds. So what’s the verdict? ‘Bag, or not ‘bag?
Thanks,
-A Rookie ‘Bag Hunter
—-
The issue you’re bringing up is what we call “Douche Aura,” ARBH. The moment when the sum total of douchuous essence rises above the physical manifest of uberchoadosity as presented in the structural signifiers within the cultural markers of scrotepoo.
Douche Aura is the subjective. It is located outside of taxonomic quantification. Like Roland Barthes’s notion of the Punctum, Douche Aura summons a subjective experience in each viewer that is rendered unique in relation to each of our experiences with Douchal Plague. These responses are not objectively measurable, but still legitimate.
In short, this man is choad. And she is hott.
