DOUBLE YOUR PLEASURE
Take a gander at Michelangelo's David. We mean the mullet.
(Thanks to sookeyjane)
« Previous | Main | Next »
June 20, 2005
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
-
That statue of Ted is missing glasses.
Posted by: M.C. | June 20, 2005 at 02:51 PM
first?
Posted by: WriterDude | June 20, 2005 at 02:51 PM
And apparently I was the FIRST to notice...
Posted by: M.C. | June 20, 2005 at 02:53 PM
Did he have a growth stunt?
Posted by: tnaithne | June 20, 2005 at 02:53 PM
I've never heard it called a "David" before.
Posted by: qetzal | June 20, 2005 at 02:55 PM
Again I get the short end of a simulpost for first. Oh, well.
The next obvious move will be for someone to Photoshop Tedbert's face onto the statue. Maybe Craig Kilborn's, too, just for grins.
Posted by: WriterDude | June 20, 2005 at 03:02 PM
WD - I was thinking the exact same thing (about "Daveted" not about you getting the short end of anything).
Posted by: M.C. | June 20, 2005 at 03:19 PM
Actually, as someone with most of a degree in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, I can certify this statue as mullet-free. Michaelangelo wouldn't have been that stupid. Look at the way the hair falls in natural, curly layers and tapers in the back, revealing the back of the neck. Also, there's _no_way_ he could get a ponytail out of it. My so-called "expert" opinion- David does not have a mullet.
Ted has a mullet, and if someone puts his face on David, I'll be a bit miffed but also extremely amused and will probably laugh myself straight off my chair, like I did when I first saw the Mullet of Dread, I mean Ted.
Posted by: Desert Rose | June 20, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Comparing David to Ted is ..like...well, I don't really know, cause we see ALOT more of David than we do Ted.
Ted, don't even THINK about it!! EB.
Posted by: EB | June 20, 2005 at 03:42 PM
I just REEEEALLY hope Ted doesn't post a comparison photo to prove his point.
Posted by: BobNDougFan | June 20, 2005 at 03:46 PM
ROFLMAO, BobNDougFan!
Oh gawd, I can't shake the mental image. Oh help! Help!!
Posted by: Tamara | June 20, 2005 at 03:58 PM
When I said 'prove his point' I swear didn't realize the implications of that phrase until after I posted. "Aw crap, what have I done now?"
Posted by: BobNDougFan | June 20, 2005 at 04:05 PM
Funny, I never noticed "David" had hair before. On his head. The one up north.
Posted by: slyeyes | June 20, 2005 at 04:21 PM
True enough. If Mulletman looked like David, including the hairstyle, he wouldn't have to ask girls out by writing notes on barf bags. To whomever first suggested that the Mulletman might try to post a photo of himself a la David, *obligatory hornk* you are twisted and cruel. I'm trying NOT to picture it at all, but have been traumatized nonetheless. EEEWW!
Posted by: Desert Rose | June 20, 2005 at 04:30 PM
Desert Rose, I think the only reason that's not a mullet is that the hair is too long in front.
Meaning the statue, of course. And the hair on its head, not its 'david'.
Posted by: qetzal | June 20, 2005 at 04:40 PM
Rats!
You beat me to that reference ... but only by a few minutes ...
I think my phraseology may have been a little more artisitic (?) but I'm not like Ted, which means I'm not going to accost people on the street (or the blog) and ask them for their opinion ...
Let's just leave it that ... we think alike ... scary as that concept might be ...
Posted by: U.O | June 20, 2005 at 04:54 PM
I've personally found it funny that one of our great works of art as a people depicts a man with a shorter than normal wee-wee...
Posted by: gfunksizzle | June 20, 2005 at 04:55 PM
Oh, heck ... why not? (No opinions, please. I don't want to be compared to Ted ...)
NO MULLET.
Mullets are "short in front" and "long in back" ...
... um ...
... nevermind ...
Posted by: U.O | June 20, 2005 at 04:57 PM
Who the heck CARES what kind of a haircut David has? I guarantee no straight female on this blog looked above the neck.
Posted by: Kilmeny | June 20, 2005 at 05:07 PM
So, then, is this the look Ted was going for?
Posted by: Aaargh | June 20, 2005 at 05:10 PM
judi,
I'm sure there is some journalistic reason you needed to link to the full frontal nudity of David to judge the mullet.
I don't know what it is, I just know you could provide it if pressed, because that's the sort of professional you are. One who can provide it, if pressed.
Posted by: Christobol | June 20, 2005 at 06:09 PM
In the name of all that is good and pure, enough with the mullets and enough with Ted already.
Posted by: David | June 20, 2005 at 07:16 PM
C-bol, judi wanted to ensure that there was "business in the front".
mullet-wise that is.
Posted by: slyeyes | June 20, 2005 at 07:26 PM
I looked David straight in the eye . . .after I'd had a good look at the rest of him. One of the benefits of studying Renaissance Art History- Statues (and paintings) of totally hot nude men. Also a great reason to study the art of Classical Greece and Rome. If you like David, try having a look at the Doryphorous by Polykleites. David was based upon him, and he's just as hot.
Posted by: Desert Rose | June 20, 2005 at 07:45 PM
Desert Rose, I just hurt myself trying to say "Doryphorous by Polykleites" out loud.
Posted by: alanboss | June 20, 2005 at 07:53 PM
Adn gfunksizzle, What do you mean "smaller than normal?"
Posted by: alanboss | June 20, 2005 at 07:54 PM
I mean "AND," dammit!
Posted by: alanboss | June 20, 2005 at 07:55 PM
how odd, I've never noticed his hair before...
Posted by: ceeg22 | June 21, 2005 at 05:32 AM
Is that a mullet between your legs or are you just glad to see me?
Posted by: Michael Jackson | June 21, 2005 at 05:54 AM
Dear Michael Jackson,
I am WAAAAAAAYYYY too old for you. WAY too old. And I mean WAAAYYYY.
Signed,
David
Posted by: Funny Name | June 21, 2005 at 07:49 AM