Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Alt-porn director-photgrapher Dave Naz takes Oriana on a date. (NSFW)

* What Men Think wonders why women so often want their men along when they go clothes-shopping.

* Yahmdallah cringes at "Shortbus" and recalls some early experiences with porn.

* How likely is fidelity? Not very.

* Dennis Mangan discusses a map of the U.S. that shows where there are more galz than guyz. (UPDATE: Thanks to Peter, who points out that HalfSigma has teased out further info from this map here.)

* Download podcasts of WhiskyPrajer's excellent short stories here.

* Feeling uninspired? Then it's time to spend a few minutes with some retro pin-ups. (NSFW, and thanks to Charlton Griffin.)

* I'm a little late in running across this, but what the heck: The Phallic Logo Awards.

* Penetrating Insights profiles the man sometimes referred to as the "greatest actor in porn," Jamie Gillis. (Link thanks to Chip Smith.)

* Ed Gorman enjoys a new Hard Case Crime volume of two Robert ("Psycho") Bloch novellas.

* Vince Keenan mourns the passing of a couple of guy-movie greats: Richard Widmark and Jules Dassin.

* A gal from Seattle has a few words of advice for the more hesitant among us. (NSFW, and thanks to Slumlord for the link.) Short version: "Seriously, grow a goddamn pair. YOU'RE the man. Act like one."

* Learn about the addiction that affects more men than alcohol, tobacco, and drugs combined. (NSFW, and thanks to Charlton Griffin.)

* Finally, a Jane Austen adaptation that the testosterone-addled can enjoy (NSFW, though not for visuals):

* MBlowhard Rewind: I recalled some of the extremes of '70s feminism.

Best,

Michael

Thanks for the link.

Posted by: whatmenthink on April 3, 2008 3:17 PM

That map showing the gender balance of singles by city is a bit misleading because it doesn't account for such things as immigrants and elderly widows. Half Sigma has used some community-survey data to create some much more useful charts for a few locations. They show numbers of single men and women, but are limited to whites between the ages of 25 and 40.

Separately, I'm really losing my toleration for Roissy. He's still occasionally amusing, but seems to be getting more and more mean-spirited. And I really doubt that this "game" theory would work for most men.

Posted by: Peter on April 3, 2008 3:28 PM

I think Roissy looks more like Mick Jagger, without the thick lips, than David Duchovny. I think David Duchovny has a softer looking face.

Posted by: kurt9 on April 3, 2008 4:23 PM

The individual who supplied Roissy's picture has cited Roissy's habit of publicly critiquing women - with the inclusion of their pictures - as his or her motive for the take-down. If Roissy in fact did what he stands accused of, he has discontinued that shameful practice for several months now - as long as I've been visiting his site.

If you disapprove of this behavior on Roissy's part, you have not revealed it. Why, then, did you link to this vindictive expose?

Like you, Roissy is an anonymous chronicler of human nature, and a politically incorrect one at that. It seems both hypocritical and below you to aid the efforts of the p.c. mob which seeks to censor through intimidation.

Signed,
A longtime fan of 2Blowhards

Posted by: Facefree on April 3, 2008 5:10 PM

News at 11: People cheat

What are you getting at?

Posted by: James on April 3, 2008 6:18 PM

Michael, you have no eye for male faces. Unsurprising, I suppose. Clio has seen that photo of Mr R before. He's a good deal better-looking than David Duchovny, who has one of those jowly lugubrious faces that make her want to yell "boo!" at them. DD looks like Eeyore.

I do think it's a little unfair to risk blowing an anonymous blogger's anonymity this way. And I say that as someone who can be quite critical of Roissy and his highjinks.

Posted by: alias clio on April 3, 2008 9:36 PM

Facefree, Clio -- Excellent points, I've taken the link down, tks.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 3, 2008 9:59 PM

Good. By the way, Facefree, Roissy does "publicly critique women" and in fact devoted a recent post to doing so. I disapprove of the practise - and have said so on Roissy's blog - but the difference between what he does, and displaying R's photo on one's website, is that quite a few people in the DC area dislike him because of his blog and might be able to identify him in realspace, as opposed to the cyber variety. In short, it exposes him to rather more risk than it does the anonymous women he treats so ungallantly.

Posted by: alias clio on April 3, 2008 10:47 PM

Tsk tsk, I'm rather disappointed in the removal of the Roissy-photo link. Hiding one's identity while making highly controversial postings just doesn't seem, well, sporting to me.

Posted by: Peter on April 4, 2008 9:59 AM

I think Roissy looks quite elegant, somewhat dissipated, rather melancholic and altogether intriguing. The comments posted at the site were pathetic, all resentment and envy and the lukewarm heck that hath no pique like a girl scorned.

Combine the languid, heavy-lidded gaze with Roissy's verbal facility, and you've got a guy who actually looks like he lives up to (down to) his rep. Oh, and he looks quite androgynous too, what with his rather feminine mouth.

He does seem to have the weariness of the aging rake about him, though. But he's tall and has a full head of hair, and that counts for a lot. And world-weariness can draw women like moths to a flame (even a sputtering one). Roissy's no beta, and he doesn't look like one either.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 4, 2008 12:31 PM

"lukewarm heck that hath no pique like a girl scorned."

Or a boy out-maneuvered in the Great Game.

Quite a few of those comments, even the ones signed off by female pseudonyms, struck me as being more characteristic of men's sense of humour than women's. Not because of their vulgarity - women can be vulgar too - but because of a certain indefinable brusqueness, as though they'd had the last word by being rude.

Posted by: alias clio on April 4, 2008 12:49 PM

True, clio. The "resentment and envy" coming from the male posters was thicker by far than the "pique" from the girls. I must admit that I was surprised by how--what? European?--Roissy looked. Definitely something of the failed aristocrat about him, something jaded, louche even, but interesting. I think many women would find him to be quite catnippy to their own inner cat. In other words, I'm no longer sceptical of his claims about the number of his conquests.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 4, 2008 2:12 PM

I think he's dreamy.

Posted by: i, squub on April 4, 2008 2:47 PM

squub: I think he's dreamy.

Not that I have a problem with that!

Posted by: PatrickH on April 4, 2008 4:06 PM

Roissy reminds me of this guy I know that's ironically named "Ross".

His company is utterly endearing and infuriating at the same time. One does not know whether to slap him on the back or slug him in the face.

He's fun to be around, but I'm glad I'm not him. Being a cad is a tough row to hoe towards the end of the day. Who was that guy who wrote "Confessions of a Cad" who committed suicide when he got old?

Posted by: Spike Gomes on April 4, 2008 4:31 PM

"* Alt-porn director-photgrapher Dave Naz takes Oriana on a date."

Remember the flap wherein AOL inadvertently revealed members' web searches? There was an article about it (I think at slate.com) that pointed--as an example--to a hard core site that an AOLer had surfed to. Looks like the same model to me(guess I have a good memory for faces)...extremely NSFW http://tinyurl.com/3uo4md

[discussions of Roissy picture link being removed]
I was able to Google it (with him standing between two revelers at what looks like a club) easily. It's out there now, for better or worse.

Posted by: Yakking Guy on April 5, 2008 11:25 AM

Those who play with fire should expect that they might get burned, and why the hell not? Why should I learn, from people's comments, that you posted a pic about Roissy, but then removed it? If you're going to self-censor, either do it before you post, or remove references to it in the comments, too!

Seriously; turnabout is fair play. If Roissy is willing to say whatever he wants, he shouldn't be surprised or annoyed if someone calls him on it and publicizes it - why should you protect his sorry ass? Have some fun, for crying out loud - let the bugger squirm! End his damn gig, and let him wipe dry his tears with some porn rag.

For the life of me, I can't understand why Clio is defending him, except out of some repressed attraction to him, in spite of her Catholicism.

If it's Googleable, I'll find it. Don't know what you have to censor yourself; did he whine to you, or did others like Catholic chick Clio convince you to defend his depraved ass? This is rhetorical; maybe you'll never post anything I submit again, but I don't fucking care. Next time, let the chips fully fall where they may - grow some balls, you fucking pussy!

Posted by: anon on April 6, 2008 5:00 PM

grow some balls, you fucking pussy

Written by "anon"

Posted by: PA on April 6, 2008 5:44 PM

I'm not defending Roissy, anon. I don't like many of his attitudes.

Is it impossible for people to grasp today that you don't have to agree with someone, or even like him (not that I actually dislike Roissy), in order to defend his right to privacy? Once someone can be identified by sight, that person's anonymity is essentially lost. The people whose photos Roissy posted are unlikely to be identified by anyone and even if they were, they might suffer embarrassment or hurt feelings, but not actual attacks, as a result. Roissy makes people angry enough to make threats against him.

And BTW, someone who posts comments anonymously, without even a pseudonym for identification, has no right to tell anyone else to "grow some balls".

Posted by: alias clio on April 6, 2008 6:14 PM

Thanks for the plug, Michael!

Posted by: Whisky Prajer on April 8, 2008 5:33 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?