i said it in the other comments and i'll say it again: No. Hat. Tilt.
 

DB1, simply because there is a lack of specific signifiers does not necessarily mean that we can resort to calling baghunting an art. In fact, it means we need to redouble our efforts and add a level of sophistication to our techniques. The collection of seemingly non-douchey signifiers can create one or more emergent douche qualities.

I don't want to draw too fine a point, but even with the douchebags where we have clear signifiers, these elements combine to create various emergent attributes that differentiate scrote from scrote. After all, a cowdouche, jerseychoad, and a rockerbag can all don a big ass belt buckle, yet each will be in a different style. They each could have a variation of some bicep paint or headgear. In and of themselves, these elements might not be enough to achieve 'bag status.

Yet, I believe, the emergent 'baggy quality or, in your words, essence du baggage can be classified. It is just going to take some difficult intellectual work.

Is there still an aesthetic component? Of course there is. But it shouldn't preclude a detailed scientific approach. Let's leave the "I know a douchebag when I see one" type of rationale to the amateurs.

Do we occasionally make mistakes like dolphinbag? Apparently so. Unlike our subject matter, we're human.
 

Dolphinbag. Is. A. Choad.
 

Let me clarify: Of course i'm not proposing that Dolphinbag is conclusively not a total cocksucker. In fact, there is a strong possibility that he is utter choad.

What i propose is a less stringent classification process of some potential wankers. i disagree with a strict 'scientific analysis' of douchebags.

You say the aesthetic component is for "amateurs". i say anyone following these rigorous 'scientific' standards of doucheosity is denying their more fundamental potentialities of humanity.

What if we found a picture of a man with massive jesus bling, popped collar, and face tattoo buying a drink for a homeless man at a bar. Is he douche?

Why are gay douches less applicable to the douche label?

To me, douche does not mean "impediment to my getting laid" but instead "impediment to my graceful peace of mind".
 

Perhaps I was being just a bit overly critical. I was on my fourth Scotch after all, but, alas, I didn't reveal that fact in my original post.

My point was, and remains, that we shouldn't completely abandon a rigorous approach to classifying and identifying 'baggery even from an aesthetic point of view.

To answer your first question regarding a man rocking douche accoutrements yet displaying samaritanic behavior, I would say that the addition of that detail changes the emergent qualities of the subject in question. If anything, it should spawn further investigation.

Is he sporting the look because he is going to a party, such as, say, a book launch in Las Vegas? Is the homeless guy a former night club owner or long lost father of some target hottie? Maybe he isn't douche at all, but a JW missionary trying to spread the Good News throughout New Jersey and he thinks he's blending in. (Personally, I'd rather be assigned to do this in Tripoli or Tel Aviv where I stood a chance of being successful.)

Good question on the gay douches. That one should be directed to the DB1.

We should ask ourselves, though, what is it about douchebags that affects our peace of mind? I agree that douche is not an impediment to getting laid, or at least that is not the factor that makes these pics feel like roundhouse kicks to the 'nads (or a left jab to the tit; don't want to be sexist here.) If we can successfully answer this question, then scrotology is well on its way to being an accepted academic discipline.

(and, before anyone takes an unnecessary swing...no, i do not take any of this quite so seriously...just playing (i'm just happy to be using my fucking degrees for something)...i hate stepping out of character, but there it is...it's all fun.)
 

I think most baghunters would say that s/he knows a douche when s/he sees one. But, there are some cases where our instinctive, or naive, douchebag identification fails us. Those times show up when our most illustrious douchehunters disagree.

We know the same thing happens when we look at the hot chicks. Ab Lobster's HC is a good example here. I (not that I am an illustrious 'baghunter; I'm still quite a noob) saw HOT, whereas others just didn't. Maybe they should drink more.

The point is, as I see it, that it was to overcome just this hurdle that the great DB1 first explained the HCwDB phenomenon with Classical Douche Theory. Just like with other sciences, though, the first great theory of baghunting needs some refinement. It has not quite explained every douche and hot chick in the universe. So, we continue to explore that which is Scrote embodied, in hopes of further understanding this Grieco plague, and ultimately, finding a Grand Unifying Theory to describe all individual events.
 

douche douche douche

boobies!
 

i'm a bit surprised her boobs haven't been flattened by the sheer pressure of the douche.
 

the douche on the right has 'head tilt'. You are led to believe that it is some artifact of the camera lens, but I think not: that douchebag's head has a bit of a bend.

--Vinny Scumbaglia