Thursday, January 15, 2015

The official color of 2015 is well-spanked-ass pink

Happy New Year everyone. I admit I took a break from my naughty internet habits to be with my family and extended family. I hope you did too, if only to remember why it's good to have your extended family live a ways away!

I bet you didn't know, but yes, there's an official color of the year. For 2015, the official color is well-spanked-ass pink. Seriously. Okay so maybe it's officially called "Marsala" an earthy dark pink. Some international conglomerate decided that this would be the official color of the year.  For those of you that don't know what color "Marsala" is well, here you go...
Insert your own caption, but here's mine... "Oh Hi Honey! I just got off work and am making dinner... for the hot sultry babysitter who's sitting on the counter next to me- and our kids. yes, our kids... corndogs and chicken nuggets, coming right up!"

I realize it will take awhile for this fashion trend to make it from London and Paris and New York and Hollywood to my little city in Texas, and I'm okay with that. I'm just glad we've moved away from gray and neon. Speaking of gray, err... Grey... yes, that movie's coming out just in time for Valentines Day, so maybe it's appropriate that the color of the year reminds me of nothing more than well-spanked-ass pink.  And as I've said before in extolling the virtues of red vs. pink, I'm glad it's a darker shade of pink- thank goodness it's Marsala, not White Zinfandel pink!
I waited tables in the early 90's... lots of women feeling adventurous ordered a "white Zin" with their meal
So how about some "Marsala" colored bottoms? Courtesy of DreamsofSpanking, dallasspankshard.com, realspankings.com, punishedbrats.comfirmhand.com, and one unknown pic, I think they each represent the official color of 2015 well; I'm sure that's what they were trying to do:

PS... thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of terrorist attacks in France. I'm amused that despite the media coverage, few have pointed out that the intentionally offensive satirical magazine's cover depicts not just a cartoon version of Mohammed, but one of him as a flaccid penis.

7 comments:

  1. If only they would have named it
    "Color of the Year 2015: Sphinkish".

    Best,
    Enzo

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scurrilous lampoons of religious figures (real or constructed) have been a long-running tradition in Europe, including some incredibly raunchy German Reformation depictions of the then-reigning pope. Any religion with a phallocentric ideology at its center is fair game for a flaccid-penis joke. Of course there are going to be irate adherents of that religion, at the very least those on its fundamentalist wing, adamantly committed as it is to an extremist ideology that rests in part on the institutionalized subjugation and erasure of selfhood of an entire sex. But the question here, I think, is not whether there has been an offensive depiction of its founder's virility; obviously there has been. The question is whether its authoritarian-fundamentalist wing would not have committed these atrocities if it were somehow appeased by repressing such satire, and I think the answer is a resounding no: These guys get off on killing people; what they really worship is destruction and death, only incidentally committed in the name of their god (whom the rest of Islam rightly reveres as "Allah the Compassionate"); thus ANY excuse to slaughter anyone who disagrees with them would have served their perverse paraphiliac agenda. (This is also, alas, true of not a few fringe fundamentalist Christians.) Ironically, we may have good reason to be grateful to Charlie Hebdo for flushing these feral pigs from cover so the secular authorities in Europe could more readily hunt them down and round them up. One might well regret that France abolished the guillotine, for there would be something very fitting in seeing these throat-cutters get a taste of their own medicine. But tolerating even grossly offensive satire goes hand in hand with the civilized world's reluctance to put to death even those it considers irredeemable monsters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I dint think that little paragraph I almost didn't include in the post would generate such debate. Thanks for your comments. There's almost too much in your comment to respond to here. You make a good point about the cartoons not being the reason for the killings- as far as I know none of the previous victims of Islamic terrorism have drawn or published cartoons of Mohammed.

      Delete
  3. While we rightly condemn the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, let us not think anything other than that those who committed those murders were among the tiny minority of Muslims who think it is right to take up arms against 'the infidel'. Let us also remember that the vast majority of Muslims, who are as moderate and peaceful as any other community, have been deeply hurt and offended by the CH cartoons. Just because cruel and obscene satire has been around for a long time does not make it an acceptable form of expression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put, and I'll try to respect that point. It's difficult for me to understand that deeply hurt and offended sentiment as Christians and Jews have accepted countless examples of depiction and satire of Jesus, Moses, etc... Without offense.

      I'm trying to lighten the mood and comeup with a joke about the French Muslim whining about "zee infidels" and getting served Zinfandel wine.

      Delete
  4. The 'civilised world' has no hesitation in putting to death those it considers irredeemable monsters (Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and countless other enemies of the West). There is, therefore, no moral justification for tolerating grossly offensive satire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zing! Great point if this were an abstract logical debate. However I think it was perhaps an imprecise statement that those go hand in hand. Also, if you're really trying to make that point- the counterpoint is that it proves that Islamic extremists and terrorists are illogical (and crazy) because the deem cartoonists irredeemable monsters vs. the "civilized" world which does the same only for folks like rulers who use chemical weapons on their subjects and are feared will use weapons of mass destruction on others, or maybe those who mastermind plans to kill 3000+ innocent Americans and then boast about it.
      Other than that- good argument!

      Delete