Sunday, September 17

Blue Gal reads her email...



I've answered a few emails this week and thought it might make an easy interesting post.

J writes: Just one quick question: what's with the underwear thing?

Blue Gal: The whole thing started quite by accident in August of 2005. It started as a funny way to attract hits, but it's not that anymore. People have come to expect panties from Blue Gal. Turns out that's an extremely smart move, though I didn't plan it that way. Kinda "brands" Blue Gal.

As a rule, no one is wearing the panties. That keeps it out of the realm of porn blogging, I hope. And I try to make the panties thematically appropriate to the post. That's not always possible. As I've written before, I am always going for the "big head and the funny bone" rather than the "little head and the funny boner." I see it as a silly commentary on the proliferation of porn and porn searchers in the internets tubes. I've seen and posted so many panties it just doesn't come across to me as even naughty anymore, but I suppose some new readers might see it that way.

Anyway now people have come to expect it so I'm (happily) trapped. Thankfully there's no shortage of panties images to choose from, and I'm getting better and better at photoshopping stuff when I need to.


R writes: Hey BlueG you've changed your page since I stopped in last. I like this one and all but the other one looked so, so daring, and somewhat pouty, and, and hypnotic, like it wanted me to do naughty things and, and (sigh)... I like the new look too.


BG: The other one was Angelina Jolie her own self. Was worried with 10K hits per month and climbing that implied endorsement was going to get me in trouble.

Thanks for the feedback though. The librarian type in the new header also would be happy to endorse naughty, but she doesn't want you to bother the other library patrons. Set whatever is in your pants-pocket to vibrate, babycakes.


C writes: Do you have a favorite pair of panties you've posted?

BG: Probably the "Super Sexy Glow-in-the-Dark Crotchless Panties". The fact that someone with a degree in marketing thought putting "super sexy" on the box was a good idea...sure means quality to me.


M writes: What's up with your blogging with The Aristocrats? Is that permanent, or temporary? ...I guess I think of that as a guy's blog.


BG: Bwa ha ha! Oh, not anymore, ma hunnie. My agent told me that "working with" three guys at one time on the internet would be a good career move for me. Fortunately, the 'Risties let this girl catch her breath every once in a while.

I was invited to join them precisely because they wanted more estrogen over there, and now they've got it, I think. And Paul Hinrichs and I have experimented with Linux sex chat in comments, so you never know what will happen. I mean, granted, it's not Drupal sex chat, but still.

In all seriousness, it's been a blast and an honor to write and collaborate with such talented men. I love each one of them, and it's a terrific creative challenge to try to out-funny each other. Yes, it's permanent.


Speaking of Aristocrats, new Jambi and George up today, and it's an international tale of espionage and intrigue! Kiefer Sutherland, eat your ever fun-so-lovin' heart out!

5 comments:

  1. Oh yes, M, Blue Gal is with us by hook or by crook. By hook or by crook is the operative phrase, you know.

    As Random House explains, John Wycliffe first published these words back in 1380, saying "They sillen sacramentis...and compellen men to bie alle this with hok or crok"

    These words have change my life, kind of.

    A hook, as I'm sure you know, is that horrible metal fish-hook frequently inserted into the stump of a homicidal maniac.

    Crook was a word that popped up some years earlier, around 1290, and again I'll quote Random House: "At first, it meant 'a hook' or 'something of hooked form' that was used for catching or hanging. It could also mean 'a sickle'.

    So in other words, BG is between a horrible flesh-rendering metalic hook, and/or/else, another hook or a hook shaped object used for slashing.

    She ain't goin' nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, well, I love you too, Mark honey!

    ...see what I mean? And I claim intelligence as an aphrodisiac for myself. Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So then, ye be callin' me BlogMate th'fine piratical female she be then?

    Havin' her "between a horrible flesh-rendering metalic hook, and/or/else, another hook or a hook shaped object used for slashing." be exactly what Th' Cap'n needs. BWAHAHAHA!

    Huzzah t'ye, Mark. Huzzah!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmm- You must have a 49 comment limit (since the prior post is not accepting any further comments - I'll post this reply here to your comment on my postie):

    But it's not merely *education* that this study suggests is the problem. (And many Fundamentalists are adequately "educated".)

    In fact, for years most of these folks have take these kinds of social facts and results and tried to twist them to imply it's owing to a LACK of Sufficient Religious Fervor that causes these societal failings.

    They want MORE Religion as the answer.

    But (as been suggested by others) those that flew planes into the World Trade Center were not Methodists...BUT they weren't ATHEISTs Either!

    They were FUNDAMENTALIST - Religiously motivated folks...just like their American Fundamentalist Counterparts who *claim* to be Christians while endorsing most Un-Christian, Un-American Policies EVER -- EVEN Torture!

    There can be no difference in equating the barbaric religious intolerance of BOTH groups...and these kinds of societal dysfuntionality effects connected to their religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Or...as Gloria Steinem Put it so succintly on HBO's REAL TIME with Bill Maher (and Yippee!...my signed poster came - Many Thanks!):

    "The world is divided into Two kind of people -- People who divide the world into Two kinds of people, and People who Don't!"

    %-)

    ReplyDelete

I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!