Ask DB1
-
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Ask DB1: Relationship ‘Bags
———
DB1,
I would love to get some clarification from you on an issue that has caused me much consternation and heartache lo these many years.
Is a person who bears all the physical and spiritual hallmarks of a garden variety douche (see attached – white sunglasses, Ed Hardy, hand gestures, inordinate # of gaudy tats, arm hooking a smoking hottie, etc) still a douche if said hottie is his actual steady girlfriend and not just an unlucky bystander who was wandering too closely when the camera came out?
Does he get a nottadouche pass just because he doesn’t randomly grope any poor girl within reach or is he in a sense guilty by association for merely presenting the unseemly facade of a douchebag?
In my mind, this begs the question of which is worse: the true douchebag or the poser who merely aspires to portray the douchebag lifestyle? Does douchiosity transcend the outward appearance or is that indeed from where it springs? These are the questions that haunt my dreams.
Sincerely yours,
Confused
——-
Monogamous coupling in no way invalidates douchal behavior in public when the individual in question’s behavior is douchey, Confused. It merely diminishes the chances/opportunity for the ‘bag to act ‘baggy.
In fact, douches who are in a relationship yet still find opportunities to douche it up with their lady for neighboring cameras are, on many levels, even more douchey, since they lack the base seduction motive as at least a pseudo-justification for their scrotal choices.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010Ask DB1: The Suburban Divorcee ‘Bag
——-
You know, DB1,
When I read this site, about the only solace that I get is hoping that since most of the HOTTS featured here are young; they will someday grow up enough to know better than to date orange, roided, gelled, preening, smirking, red-cup holding, gang-sign flashing, hat tilting, giant watch wearing, ridiculous tattoo douches, and instead go out with normal, non-pumped, verbal, intelligent guys who won’t think of them as possessions, conquests or arm accessories from which they can “get some.”
I still hold out hope that this is true, but I swear to God, every time I go to a function at my kids’ school, Back to School Night, Family Fun Night or whatever, I start to seriously doubt that this paradigm is true.
Because all of the cutest divorcees, and there are always a few, show up to these things accompanied by smirking, middle aged douche bags.
These guys invariably sport torn jeans, and not torn by manual labor or falling off a bike or whatever torn jeans, but torn by low-wage factory workers in Thailand or Korean torn jeans.
I could laugh this off. Some women (and men) just stay dumb, right? Some of us never evolve.
But see, I KNOW most of these women and they’re not bleeths. They are not dumb. A lot of them are professionals, teachers, attorneys, the cream of the suburban divorcee crop not only in regards to looks, but also in the brains department. And yet at every function they trot out these f-ing douchebags.
Riddle me this, boss. What gives?
Does the lure of the douche not lessen as the HOTT ages? Is attraction to douche not lessened as the HOTT learns, evolves, gets smarter, learns a thing or two about the world, and gets screwed over by douche after douche?
– BFlak
————–
In the age of youth culture fetish, the quest for eternal teenagedom condemns the aging to seek out the brand name validation that will best hide the truth of mortality under the bling of spectacle.
Saturday, October 2, 2010Ask DB1: The Halloween Exemption
—–
DB1,
I’m normally a pretty conservative guy when I go out in the evenings, e.g. sport-shirts, blazers, dark jeans. But once a year I kind of let the douchebag flag fly.
That night is of course, Halloween.
Last year I was Zapp Brannigan (from Futurama), this year I plan on being Ivan Drago (from Rocky IV).
Generally, I think that guys who take their shirts off in any situation other than the comfort of their own home or in proximity to the beach or pool are raging douchebags. Yet here I am, planning to party in and around Los Angeles, shirtless, come the end of October. Is there an exception for Halloween?
Can one dress in a way that would be ostensibly douchy any other time of the year on Halloween and not be an utter pud?
-Freddy
—–
Absolutely, Freddy. Halloween is the one time a year I grant a full and complete nottadouche for all those ‘bagging it up as a form of satire and/or mock. Since hotties are allowed to slut it up with the same degree of shamelessness (and may Vishnu bless the sexy nurse outfit), it is a time of universal awareness of the tropes of performativity, and thus free from ‘bag status.
The last few years we’ve seen an incredible array of HCwDB Halloween inspired costumes in 2009 and also an amazing collection from 2008.
Sadly, those cherished past years of the HCwDB exclusivity on ‘bag mocking is gone. With the ubiquitous cultural success of The Jersey Shore, mocking ‘bags has become far less creative and engaging, and far more a mass produced, blandified and less creative cultural echo. That being said, mocking choads, whether by us or the larger culture, is always a welcome development overall. Still, this year’s Halloween won’t be as exclusive to the HCwDB community’s creative talents as in years past, alas.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010Ask DB1: The Married Douche
——-
Dear DB1,
I’m in a bit of a quandary. I have followed your site for quite some time now, and although I feel I am well versed in the ways of the douche, there is an elementary paradox that threatens the very definition of the “douchebag”.
By definition, the basic douchebag preens, greases, inks and basically creates the scrotal spectacle that is poo, all in the hopes of wrangling sweet boobie suckle thigh, correct?
What about the guy who is successful in this endeavor and ends up MARRIED to the hott he initially attracted with his craptastic display, yet continues his poo-trified ways? Technically, he should no longer be in pursuit of glorious ass pear, but there he is, in all his spikey-haired, Ed Hardy-wearing, 6-lb watch-sporting glory. Is he, by basic definition, still a douchebag?
What say you DB1?
— Manswine1 (Formerly “douche”, but recovering nicely due to your site)
——
Once the male has married, he is no longer effectively “on the prowl,” so his potential to douche it up in pursuit of hott is reduced.
It is not, however, eliminated.
Douchebaggery is far more about being seen with the hot chick to prove one’s self worth in the societal hierarchy (via proof through pics on the internetz), than it is about actually scoring with the hot chick.
Married men are quite capable of douching it up to pursue hotts (or just their wife) in our image-codified online society of the spectacle. Therefore while opportunities to ‘bag it up can be diminished by marriage, in no way is marriage enough to mark nottadouche.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010Ask DB1: Yankee Caps
PIC DELETED
—–
Question (unsure if this has been asked on HCwDB yet):
If someone is wearing a non-standard (meaning not the original Navy blue with the standard white interlocking NY logo) Yankees hat, are they auto-douche?
Thanks as usual,
Doo Schnozzle
——
Yes. Yes they are.
And, on the flip, Pink Red Sox caps are auto ‘baguette on the ladies.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010Ask DB1: Girlfriend Corruption
————–
DB1,
I realize I am late to the party, but I just discovered your website and I am impressed by your offhand wit and perpendicular rants.
I am a little disturbed because I think my girlfriend is trying to turn me into a douche. I didn’t realize it until I found your site, since I have lived a sheltered life these last few years (I don’t have a TV, I don’t go to bars any more, etc).
Here’s the evidence:
1. She is always trying to put “product” in my hair.
2. She bought me a huge metal watch for my birthday.
3. She bought me some D&G cologne.
4. She bought me giant snorkel-mask looking sunglasses that fade from top to bottom.
5. She has convinced me to shave my pubes
6. I work out and am pretty muscular, but I prefer to wear normal clothes and not show it off while she buys me T-shirts that are a couple sizes too small.
What should I do?
– Douche ex Machina
——-
There is one, and only one, solution when you discover you are dating a ‘Bagtress (she who is not ‘Baguette, but instead, encourages others to be ‘bag).
Tie her to a chair and force her to watch at least twelve to fourteen straight hours of 1980s and early 1990s John Woo, Clockwork Orange Ludavico style.
When she finally acknowledges that Chow Yun-Fat is a supreme badass, note that he does not display any signs of douchebaggery as part of his badassery.
At this point, she will either see the light. Or dump her, and move on.
Friday, September 17, 2010Ask DB1: The Scrotal Network
—–
DB1,
I come to you oh wise and benevolent prophet with a true enigma.
Only this morning while checking the happenings of people I rarely know and girls I would much like to nuzzle, on Facebook, I was enlightened to the existence of the semi-celebrity douche known as Robert Kardashian Jr.
While we have all lusted after his more famous sisters of questionable bleeth and undeniable hott, I was enlightened to the fact that:
A) This douche is alive and well and B) People I used to call my friends consider themselves fans of his. As I pondered this, a more esoteric question alighted upon my furrowed brow. Is Facebook a tool for mock, or for douche?
On the one hand Facebook would appear to be the douchebag’s equivalent of the national sex offender database. With just a click of the mouse anyone can scour their friends for incontrovertible evidence of douche. In fact I now know that should I ever see Robert Kardashian Jr., no matter how demure he may seem, it is my duty to hurl feces covered toadstools at him.
On the other hand, Facebook would appear a perfect venue for pudwanks everywhere. No words or even intelligence is required. Just a webcam, steroids and some deplorable life decisions.
In summation my question is this. Does Facebook help or hurt the cause of mock world wide?
I await your response with bated breath.
Yours in mock,
Sultan of Suck
——
Facebook, soon to go the way of MySpace, is simply a tool, a condouchuit if you will, for the streams of virtual douchebaggery to pixelate in the virtual realm. It is an enabler, but not the cause.
But Facebook can also be used as an important tool for the mock, as submissions to HCwDB are often found by ‘bag hunters such as yourself.
Therefore Facebook remains mostly a neutral force in the war between hope and scrotepud.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010Ask DB1: Office Worker ‘Bags?
———
DB1,
Having read your book and being a loyal follower, I am committed to doing whatever I can to stop the douche virus from spreading.
I’m a software consultant and work with a lot of different companies. Increasingly, I’ve been detecting the douche aura in places you wouldn’t typically expect to find them. My question is this: Does talking douche qualify one as a douche even if other symptoms aren’t present?
They learn that GuidoTan and Ed Hardy won’t get them anywhere in the office, so, because of their mental deficiencies they can’t simply adapt.They’re still douchey at the core and if you look – you’ll always find other symptoms – off colored dress shirts, obnoxious belts, overly done hairstyles, Magnum Station wagons for their vehicles.
What do you say great DB1?
Can the virus mutate and if so – has it infected the lower levels of corporate America? While everyone was looking at Jersey Shore, I believe the virus has infected a significant portion of the landscape.
— Evil Devil Cuckoo of Anti-Douche
—–
What you’re describing, EDCoAD, is “Performative Douchebaggery.” This is where ‘bag tagging roots in performance rather than body or clothing style.
Officebags most certainly exist, but are far more elusive to tag in the wild, and very difficult in pics. But no so difficult in pics of blondes with great smiles and gnawable shoulder suckle.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010Ask DB1: Is Andrew’s Bro a ‘Bag?
———
Dear Bag1,
I am conflicted with a predicament for quite some time.
I have reason to believe that my older brother has been infected with the virus of douche. My conversations with him never venture beyond such intellectual topics such as “that hot chick I banged last night” or “the orgy I had with my boys.” (Apparently in Canada, the word, “boys” replaces “bros.”)
Despite my suspicions, some people in my family have told me that he’s not a douche, that I haven’t given him a chance yet.
Others know there is something wrong with him, but didn’t have the appropriate term to describe his condition. Well, I lived under the same roof with him for the first 18 years of my life, so I’m fairly convinced of his douchiness.
I would like to settle this once and for all: Is my bro a douche?
Sincerely,
Andrew
—————
Solid stage-3 Suburban Wigga Choad, Andrew. Fumigate his room then mock him from a safe distance.
Thursday, August 19, 2010Ask DB1: Tribal Tatt = Autodouche?
—–
DB1,
First off, I love the site, and I’m still holding a slim candle of hope that we might be able to stem the tide of douche water flooding our country.
However, I have one quick question. Is the equation “tribal tat=autodouche” a hard rule?
I only ask because of this. I have had a few friends who have had tattoos as a cover-up for scars after surgery, pregnancy, etc., and it got me to thinking. Scar tissue and skin tissue are two different things, and change and age differently. It occurs to me that a thick black line, such as a tribal or other similar fare might work better than something more detailed, which might mar and warp as scar and skin begin to age.
While I still believe that armbands should still be a one-way autodouche ticket, do you believe that there might be something of a gray area in the tribal tat zone for those used as coverups?
Best regards,
Fellow Douche Fighter.
—–
I’m not sure what friends you’re hanging out with, FDF, but using tribal tatts to cover up scars from surgery or pregnancy is troubling and vaguely scary.
If you’re not in a tribe, a tribal tatt is autodouche. On its own, with no other ‘bag signifiers, it’s a stage-1 violation.
