It started with a simple idea, focused on a marketing plan: make silly videos and upload them to You Tube, and then sit back and watch the sales come tumbling in.
We had Hannah West talk about her reluctance in performing interracial sex for the world to see; we had Ruby Knox talk about giving a hand job in the car on her road trip to LA; there was Harley Valley talking about something I don’t recall.
And then there was Adrianna Nicole’s shart experience.
Shart: the often surprising, often explosive combination of passing gas with fecal matter, resulting in embarrassment, laughter, and messy underpants.
It’s a simple equation: Shit + Fart = Shart.
Giggle now, Sharty Pants, and then just admit it’s happened to you at least once in your life. It’s happened to me a few times. I remember a Mighty Shart when I was in the 7th grade. Touch football. Ian and his twin brothers versus me and Kenny and someone else I can’t remember now. I do recall being on the verge of the flu, and I had to fart, so I let it rip and suddenly my undies were somewhat filled with diarrhea. It stunk, too. Bad. I was forced to run home, legs spread as a trotted as fast as I could. There was another time in college, at a party. I can’t even talk about that shart; the memories it conjures up are disturbing at best.
Once or twice I’ve had a very light shart, which resulted in nothing more than a skid mark in my underpants and some chuckles filling the room. That’s when I was living with a woman who loved to do laundry (serious), and she’ll tell you all about my Shart-Stained Undies.
Doron Pepperscone, my trusty side kick and Maker of Everything YouTube, got into Adrianna Nicole’s dressing room right before her second appearance at Manojob.com, and asked for a story. A simple story.
A Shart Story.
And Adrianna gave him one.
With story committed to tape, Pepperscone got to work in the editing bay, and whipped up a nifty You Tube video. Maybe you got to see it; maybe you didn’t. I’d love to show it to you now, but You Tube has suspended our account indefinitely.
Yep. All our videos were yanked. Which is kinda weird, cause none of them contained nudity, although there was plenty of vulgar language tossed around. But that doesn’t matter, cause buried deep in YouTube’s FAQ’s is one that states no promotion of pornographic websites.
I loved Adrianna’s Shart Video. Doron Pepperscone loved it. All 62,000 (give or take) viewers loved it too.
Adrianna hated her Shart Video cause Pepperscone started it with a great picture of Adrianna’s supple, beautiful ass, and a farting sound with the words “CLEAN UP ON AISLE 4” in brown fonts. I found the whole thing wholly appropriate with an unsurpassed entertainment value. A real bargain, since it didn’t cost anything to look at, which, I’m sure, is the reason why You Tube is so popular.
I have no idea how to end this — complain about You Tube’s super gay rules and regulations, or make fun of Adrianna’s cry babying, or maybe a picture of the end result of a shart?
After an exhaustive Google image search for skidmarked undies, this is the best I could do:
Hello Mr. Watson. My Name is Jack. I’m just wondering if you may need an actor to eather co star with any of you’re porno lady stars. Because I’m looking for work/I thought that you might be Interetsed. I’m 5 feet 10 inches high. I weigh 234 lbs. I’m alittle over weight but i have the streanth of 4 men my size. I also have a hard dick that’s big enough to fit my hand. So if you need another actor. Oh! i should mention that i also have a slight Disability. But that won’t stop me from taking Direction. Please e-mail me back at this e-mail address. Thank you for you’rwe time.
Funny you write…I was just talking to some business partners about starting a site in which an overweight disabled man with the strength of four men and a small dick fucks porno lady stars. I said we should call it “Crippys on Chippys”, but they found my idea highly offensive and asked me to leave. Oh well. Sorry I can’t be of any help.
Your pal – Billy
LOTS AND LOTS OF VOTES FOR MY BATTLE OF THE BANDS CONTEST FROM TUESDAY:
This is apples and oranges. You’ve got the neo-millenial slacker ramblings of Weezer up against the proto-New Romantic RenFaire geekery of Chris De Burgh?
Ultimately, I have to go with Weezer because I think they did a much better job of capturing, and ultimately driving the cultural zeitgeist at that time. Chris De Burgh, through both this song and Lady In Red (and really, is there anything else he ever was known for?) is much more able to draw people into his Weltanschung. But ultimately, isn’t music (or any form of artistic expression) supposed to be inclusive instead of exclusive? Weezer says “We are you. You are us. This is the way we are right now.” Whereas De Burgh says, “This is my story, my experiences and my fantasy.” Thus De Burgh makes a subject-object delineation that I think is a conscious method to keep something (his audience, something in his personal life, etc) at a distance.
A lot of people would rebut that however and say something like this: “There are lots of great songs with fantastic settings and tales that capture the the imagination, there’s nothing inherently distancing about it.” However, I think if you look at the best of them — take Gordon Lightfoot’s Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, for instance — they still all boil down to a thesis of “This could be me.” With Edmund Fitzgerald, you have a bad day at work gone from bad to worse. Getting busted for shooting pr0n, having a database crash so bad that revenue flow stops, catching shrapnel from an IED in Iraq, or having your ship break up on Lake Superior. A really bad day at work. Not a great cognitive leap for those who have to make a living. Tough to make that “It could be me” leap when you’re thinking “Well, here I am in Hades front of Charon. I’d much rather be playing Styx in a bar band instead of crossing it with Big Creepy here.”
Interestingly enough, I think the same distinction can be made between your work and that of Eon McKai. With your work, especially where the girls are not overly made up or sporting obvious silicone, the production lends itself to a very palpable sense of “That could be me.” With some notable exceptions, the vast majority of women you hire appear (even given your caveat of “all porn chix are broken and crazy”) like they’d be women you’d meet at an indie rock show at First Ave. or a geek bar. McKai’s work however, like that of De Burgh, is very fantastical and clearly not something that is ever going to happen to anybody in the realm of quasi-normal life. There again the subject-object separation is clear and ultimately lessens (in my humble opinion) the cultural value of the work.
D’s reply made me laugh:
I would have offered my thoughts on the Chris DeBurgh vs Weezer question earlier but I just found out about it. I would have loved to get access to the ass eating site as it is the perfect metaphor for life today.
“Great! Just as soon as I eat a little ass.”
“Honey, don’t forget to pick up the dry cleaning.”
“I’ll get it while I’m out eating some ass.”
“The party of the first part, here in after referred to as the ass eater…”
“Your attitude has come to the attention of human resources, we’d like to discuss your ass eating technique.”
“Be all the ass eater you can be in the Army.”
“The party of the second part, here in there after referred to as yet another ass eater…”
“Grant me the serenity to eat the ass I have to, not to eat the ass I don’t and the wisdom to know the difference.”
At any rate Weezer looks like they’re doing impersonations of unfortunates with Asperger’s Syndrome and Chris De Burgh looks like a less masculine version of Bonnie Tyler, who we last heard from “sitting on a powder keg and giving off sparks”. I thought Weezer had a better song if only because it was consistant with their ironic posing. Plus no way would Charon let you get in the friggin boat with out paying the fare, no bargaining, no free loading, no nothing, that’s made abundantly clear in the classical literature and heavy metal music.
I think any ambiguity would be cleared up if you took the sound track from one and played it over the other video, just to see if anyone noticed.
I’m casting my vote for Weezer and “El Scorcho”. I never heard this song before you posted it on your blog, but now I can’t get it out of my head. The Chris de Burgh song, “Don’t Pay the Ferryman,” takes me back to my high school days. I found it annoying and corny back then and it hasn’t improved with time.
Missy Asslove writes:
They both kinda suck but weezer can suck and u still know they’re good. Like Picasso:)
Si says, then asks:
I’m going have to go for Weezer, that is an awesome song and the lyrics are great!
ps Would there ever be any chance of you filming Kacey? I know you did a blog on her a while ago but how often do situations like that change? To me she is one of the hottest girls around along with Riley Mason and Erin Moore!
Devil At Heart writes:
Reason, not that you asked for one. Just thought I’d share. I like things that are just a bit dark. The whole lighting and scene he had going for the music video just made it more entertaining. Plus, he reminded me of some of that power ballad 80’s rock stuff. Kind’ve stuff you see some guy fuckin jammin out to in his late 80’s BMW.
DN The Hater says:
à propos your little contest : stick to the porn gig….I, of course, hated it.
The Weez gets my vote. Chris DeBurg song is okay, but the video looks and feels like it was shot in the 80s, it other words, it’s kind of dated. The Weez gets my vote even though I have never heard of them before. The Weez, simply because they look like a modern band appeal to me more.
I gotta go with Weezer. Johnny Thunders beats ’em both by miles, though.
Weezer wins in my book. I like their music better – and it’s got a little less of an 80s feel for the video; having lived through that era of MTV – I’m not entirely willing to go back to it.
I vote for Weezer, not that the 80’s didn’t rock, but sometimes some emo ramblings are just what’s needed.
Michael in Burbank writes:
Hmm, tough choice. Weezer is good stuff, full of self-depreciating irony and all that. On the other hand, you have to appreciate the full-on commitment to style (with no irony aftertaste) of Chris DeBurgh. This decision is also made easier because I remember seeing that video when it came out because I am old (41.) DeBurgh wins!
And if by some chance I win this, I’ll take the subscription to Mano Job.
Billy Watson writes:
There were more votes (mostly for Weezer) which I didn’t list here, and while there’s really no “right” answer, I’d have to go with Weezer, too. Of course your opinion on music isn’t my criteria for giving away a free 30 days to one of my dirty websites. I mean that would be too obvious, right? I was looking for something witty and fun in your reason(s) as to why The Weez or DeBurgh should win.
Initially I was going with Fnord, cause that answer / analysis had to take a while to bang out…right bro? I liked Missy Asslove’s Picasso analogy. DN The Hater didn’t disappoint, either…as usual.
I’ve decided to give away two memberships: Michael in Burbank gets the Manojob one, and D gets one to Eat Some Ass, cause they both know which one of my sites they like the best. So guys, hit me up, and I’ll issue you a PW. Just don’t share it, OK? I’m serious! We have state-of-the-art software installed on all our sites, and once you share your password, a special frequency is secretly emitted from your computer, and your testicles will turn into eencie-beancie raisins.
Thanks everyone! This was so much fun, I think I’m going to have more contests, in which porn will be given away…cause what’s better than some free porn?
Please watch both through, from beginning to end, and then e-mail me your vote. One random person shall win a month free membership to the dirty site of their choice: Eat Some Ass, Spunkmouth, Manojob, Chelci Fox, or The Dick Suckers. Or yes, even No Way Am I Gay.
(All votes must be in within 48 hours from this post. Must be 21 or older to enter. We do not represent nor make any warranty in respect of the accuracy, reliability or continuous supply of any of the information on this website. The services and information contained on this website are only for general information and use and are not intended to address Your particular requirements. Any reliance You place upon any material on this website will be at your sole risk. We reserve the right in Our sole discretion, but without any obligation, to make amendments or improvements to, or withdraw or correct any error or omission in any portion of the material without notice. In particular, Our services and information do not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by Us and are not intended to be relied upon by You in making any specific medical or other decision. Appropriate independent medical advice should be obtained before making any such decision. Our services and the materials on this website are provided by Us on an “as is” basis, and We expressly disclaim any and all warranties, express or implied, to the extent permitted by applicable law. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable laws, We hereby exclude liability for any claims, loss, demands or damages of any kind whatsoever with respect to Our services, information and materials given by Us including, without limitation, direct, indirect, incidental or consequential loss or damages, The foregoing will apply whether such claims, loss or damages arise in tort, contract, negligence, under statute or other.)