Opinions disguised as facts...
Okay so they say you shouldn’t give your detractors acknowledgement. Doing so supposedly suggests or lends credence to them. Regardless if that’s true or not, I had to reply to this one. Originally I was not going to link to the blog/site because honestly this is about me, not them. However a link to the review/article can be found at the bottom of this post.
Everything they wrote is in standard text. My replies are in bold. With that said:
Around this time last year, the man with two dicks and an award-winning attitude took the internet by storm, earning himself the fourth-highest ranking AMA on Reddit and gracing the pages of every website you've ever visited. And then he wrote a book, which is so thirsty I wanted to ship him a crate of Gatorade after every page.
Yeah I see the backhanded compliment there.
Diphallic Dude's memoir Double Header: My Life With Two Penises is a bestseller on Amazon's kindle store (#472 on the list) and is being read far and wide by both fans and bloggers alike. He's given interviews to Dr. Drew and The Washington Post wrote a glowing review of his book, calling him brave and honest. I agree with the fact that coming out about his condition in order to normalize his own experience and the experience of others is awesome and I've been a huge fan since the AMA, but there's something that reviews of the book are missing: The fact that almost everything in it sounds like it is bullshit.
Sure, and that’s fine. I’d expect that for people (men) with one dick and people who fail to grasp that my two dicks do not require other people believing they exist, to actually exist.
Here's what I believe about Diphallic Dude:
He's good-looking and muscular (He mentions this a lot. The book is only 70 pages long and I lost track of how many times he reminds the reader that he loves to work out and has a bubble butt and could do porn if he wanted, but he doesn't want to and never will).
Since you admit you lost track let me clear that up for you.
My own bubble butt is mentioned ONCE.
I mention that I enjoy working out TWICE.
My personal choice to not do porn is mentioned ONCE in the main narrative of the book. It only appears TWICE after that in the recap of questions from Reddit and Tumblr. Wow, that’s over and over man!
His family is very supportive.
He has a very good imagination, but a lack of understanding of both the human anatomy and how people have sex. He refers to sexy pussies as big and tan at one point, which is just, well, no.
And this is coming from the guy who had to consult someone to find out about the female reproductive system. Oh and let’s not forget the reviewers personal bias sliding in there. Clearly I believe sexy pussies are big and tan, which is just, well, YES. It’s my book and my opinion. Get over it.
That people thank him regularly for what he's doing because his bravery helps them cope with their own lives.
That he can stick a two-liter of coke up his butt.
Here's what I don't believe about Diphallic Dude:
This is where the reviewer should then add the following:
As I cannot conceive anything else DD has said is true, based upon my own life and grasp of the life of someone I’ve never met, the remainder of my review will be heavily aimed at convincing you, my reader that DD is lying or at the least embellishing his story for attention. As I cannot believe anything else is possible it will be my goal, by the end of this review to convince you of the same. I will try to accomplish this by cleverly wording my opinions as facts, I will borrow commentary from other people and consult with people whom I’ve generated a biased perspective with beforehand in order to garner the needed quotes or commentary to support my disbelief and further persuade you, the reader to disbelieve with me. I will also quote DD and pull extremely controversial material from his book and accompany it with my biased opinions guised as facts in an attempt to sensationalize DD’s writing. This will only help provide a foundation for my opinions to be viewed as facts and by the end of this review you will agree with me completely.
Of course the reviewer WON’T write this because that would absolutely collapse his entire objective. Which is to convince people I’m full of shit and making things up.
Here's the thing: A great deal of the memoir focuses on DD's sexcapades, which are interesting, if badly written and improbable. When he's not repeating himself over and over—there's a FAQ, questions from the AMA and entirely similar questions from another forum—he's writing about his lurid sexual past in exhausting and painstaking detail that reads so much like erotic friend fiction that it's hard to get hard over it.
Actually that’s also slanted. I’ve gotten more complaints that the book didn’t have ENOUGH of my sexual experiences in it! Oh and it’s hard for YOU to get hard over it, I’ve had hundreds of people message me across Twitter, Tumblr and Reddit who have told me that they’ve read the sexual portions of the book repeatedly because they’ve enjoyed them that much. Again, the reviewer is angling to make his readers agree with him, instead of giving an unbiased review.
Instead, I found myself shaking my head and saying "I don't think this man has ever seen a vagina in his entire life" in the same way I shook my head and said the same thing the first time I took a creative writing class and read a story in which a man came inside a woman's clavicle. And this is supposed to turn you on, by the way. But don't worry if it doesn't. I certainly found myself high and dry while trying to keep up with the narrative.
Oh dear sir, if you knew just how many vagina’s I’ve seen and been inside of. Now we begin to see the reviewer work overtime to coax his readers into disliking me and my book. Look how he implies that his readers are like him. He does this by implying that because he wasn’t turned on, anyone who reads his review wouldn’t be either. He actually makes an apology for it. Give me a break dude.
DD claims that his book was released by some shadowy publisher who agreed to let him keep his anonymity in exchange for all proceeds (his anonymity is very important and I respect that), but Amazon lists the book's publisher as DDD Publishing, and the only record of a publishing house with that name exists in Germany and is focused on music. In addition, I have a hard time believing that any good editor and proofreader would allow the book to go out in this way, with LOLs spread throughout, misspellings and grammar errors as far as the eye can see, numerous instances of contradiction and the same content barely repackaged over and over again just to pad the page numbers. I'd like to know as much as possible about having two dicks as the next guy, but I don't know if I needed to read actual comments about how great everyone thinks DD is on the internet, even if they did come with the Redditors' permission.
So my anonymity is all you respect, yet you refuse to actually accept it. It was my request to the publisher/editor to use DDD Publishing. I knew reviews and critiques would come out sooner or later and did not want the editor to be attacked because of my requests. I told the editor not to change my words around. I have read many books and reviews and commentary from authors who complained about their words being so edited and changed around that it didn’t even sound like themselves anymore. I told the editor I only wanted them to publish the book for me and do some mild editing. I told the editor that aside from spell check (yes, there was a spell check) only remove things from the book or ask me about things if you think my identity or where I live/lived could be revealed. That is all they did. Also, besides the word “polyamorous,” if anything is wrong it’s not misspelled, it’s just the wrong word. As for the LOLs you mention, those are only found in the Reddit and Tumblr questions/answers/quotes. There is no LOL in the narrative portion of my book.
Why bother saying all that? Because to me, it feels like this book was self-published, unedited and is a collection of made-up stories that DD wrote to perpetuate his 15 minutes (they are nearly up) and to self-aggrandize himself. That wouldn't be a problem if he were upfront about it or made it clear that his stories were exaggerated for comic or sexual effect (which no one who's ever written a memoir can't be accused of doing) but he repeats several times that everything in the book is true and I just don't buy it. Here are several examples of what rings totally false, ranging from minor to major to everything in between.
Did you catch that? Two tiny moments. “Because to me” and “I just don’t buy it.” The reviewer slides in the TRUTH about his review. It’s all his OPINION and he just isn’t buying it. Nothing else in that paragraph is worth addressing as it is all generated from the reviewers refusal to consider something can exist without his understanding or acceptance of it. Those who can’t accept something, attack it. It’s been going on for millennia.
- He claims to have turned an innumerable number of men "gay."
The reviewer can’t grasp this, ergo it’s a lie. Sorry dude but sexuality is fluid, ask Alfred Kinsey. I’m sure many of the men I’ve had sex with only claimed to be straight and actually were at the most, bisexual. However based upon the sexual experiences I had with men who said they were straight, they sure acted like straight guys having sex with another man for the first time. All that is beside the point, the reviewer can’t grasp this, so it doesn’t exist/ it’s a lie.
- He details an erotic encounter in the gym where he and an another man (again, straight; now married) had such a hot time that DD glazed his curious trick from head to toe with hot white cum that shot out of him like the geysers of Yellowstone. (And which he must have left for the poor cleaning people to scrub up.)
Wow, okay so how boring has your life been dude? Note the reviewers over-dramatic commentary regarding the volume of my ejaculate. He’s failing to mention that I have an oversized prostate that produces a much larger volume of fluid that is released when I orgasm, from both of my dicks. This is covered in my book, but he leaves it out of the review to make his attempt at comically mocking me more in line with his pursuit to convince his readers that I’m full of shit.
- He claims that he met a woman who had a vagina he could see to the back of and that he penetrated her cervix, until it fell out and then he did it over and over again.
Here the reviewer actually lies. To be sure I double checked my manuscript against what was published. I was right, no editing screwed it up. At no part did I actually state I could see into the back of her vagina. I fisted her, yes and touched the back. However I couldn’t see her cervix until it popped out of her pussy. The ‘over and over again’ part came after the initial first time and happened over a period of months. So, now the reviewer is making up lies to convince you I am lying.
It's about to get graphic and weird, but it needs to be done. (Also, I apologize for the fact that I have to point this out, but DD refers to vaginas and anuses as "yawning" a lot, which, frankly kind of skeeves me out. I don't know why, but I needed to share it.)
The term ‘yawning’ was used 3 times in the entire book. Three whole times, that’s a lot isn’t it? Give me a break.
"You like feeling my dicks hammering your cunt?"
She gasped and covered her mouth and nodded silently as I hammered harder making her moan.
"You want me to fuck your womb?" I growled as I ran my hands down her chest to her abdomen which was rising up and down constantly"
Hot. Good. Moving on to the even less believable part.
She let out a howl as I swore my cock pushed through her cervix as I pushed down on her abdomen with almost all of my weight.
"Seriously, ow, it feels like your [SIC] in my stomach right now."
"My pussy feels so weird right now"
I looked down at it and felt my mouth drop open. Her cervix was hanging out between her lips. I couldn't believe it, it looked like I had actually gone into it, it was wide open and red and resting against the sofa cushion.
"I don't know how to tell you this," I paused trying to find the best way to put it.
"What?" She sat up suddenly and cringed.
"You're inside out," I said it as calmly as I could.
"You really did fuck my womb," she gasped quietly as she felt around.
"I don't think that's possible."
"My fucking pussy is inside out and I can put two fingers in my cervix and you think you didn't fuck it?"
The good news is that DD is wrong at best and fabricating at worst. I consulted with Women's Health Practioner Alexis Paulson, APN, WHNP-BC, who told me that, first of all, a cervix would need to be dilated and well-lit for one to see to the back of it (she pointed out that this could exist, she had just never heard of something like it) and that in order to actually dilate the cervix (which a penis couldn't do), you'd need to use more than one instrument and it would be incredibly painful for the person whose cervix was being dilated. It wouldn't be a fun story, it would either be a very painful experience or a possible medical emergency.
Hey reviewer, did your registered nurse confirm with you that a woman who’s had a child or two actually is more common to have an OS that is wider/larger than ones who haven’t? I like how the reviewer loosely admits that the nurse he spoke with pointed out that it COULD exist she simply hadn’t heard of anything like it. But then rushes on to continue his crusade to convince his readers, again that I’m making it all up.
To visualize a cervix you need to open the vagina with a speculum and you need direct light. to penetrate a cervix with anything wider than a stick of uncooked spaghetti you would have to dilate it with even more instruments, which would be very painful. you would need an additional instrument (tenaculum) to straighten out the uterus to avoid perforation of the uterus. Inserting anything non-sterile into a cervix could easily cause severe infection. The cervix is mostly closed, and coated with a thick layer of mucous, to keep anything out that's not supposed to go in."
Based upon the quotes in the reviewers blog/post it’s clear that this nurse was contacted via email or at least she responded via email. Or worse yet, he quoted her as she spoke. What isn’t clear is exactly how much information the reviewer gave the nurse to get the reply he uses in his review. I doubt he mentioned to the nurse (I looked her up, she is real) that the cervix belonging to the girl in question was only visible after sex. Based upon the nurses reply it’s clear she was given as little information as possible to provide a quotable comment that would complement his opinion.
Here's a diagram of what would need to be done just to straighten out the uterus.
Then he adds this to further support his opinion of the situation. It’s a legitimate, medical diagram, sure. But what many women will tell you, especially ones who’ve had a lot of extreme penetration during sex, is that you need no tools to push a cervix out of the vagina. If it’s loose enough inside, it can pop out. You don’t even need to ask me, just look up porn on Google. Plenty of women spread their pussies open and pop out their cervix. It’s NOT that unusual anymore!
DD mentions in his book not to listen to naysayers on the internet who say it can't be done, but Paulson isn't an internet naysayer (I am, though), she's a trained medical professional who's saying that this is literally unbelievable.
She’s a registered nurse who said it’s possible she just hasn’t seen it herself. Way to go putting words in her mouth. This is why I say, don’t listen to internet naysayers.
The idea that DD might have literally fucked a woman inside out is less something physically possible and more in the realm of a violent male fantasy which he needed to ramp up for the dramatic effect that only two male appendages on one man could provide.
Wrong. I’ve seen it done with one penis. You don’t need two. I might mention the reviewer is now dead set on promulgating through his readership that now, not only am I a liar, but I’m promoting violent sexual fantasies about women. Why would he do this? Well the fastest way to piss a woman off is to tell her a man is having dirty and violent fantasies about women. Women (forgive me for lumping you all together) tend to look at each other as sisters, regardless if they are strangers. You abuse or fantasize about abusing (which is what he’s implying about me) a woman, 9 times out of 10, any woman reading that will hate the person or dislike them immensely. The reviewer is going that route in hopes that he can subconsciously appeal to the women in his readership that would be outraged, now towards me.
-That he had sex with like a gazillion people at a party, was accosted by the fiancee of one of the men there (the man's facial hair, at the time, was glazed with cum) and told that he had ruined the relationship. Once the fiancee stalked off, the man DD had had sex with said (and I'm paraphrasing) "thanks, I didn't want to marry her anyway, but I want more of you.)
The reviewer fails to mention that I admitted to having fooled around with three guys and two girls during that party. That makes five, not a gazillion. Unless you’re a monk, which I won’t insult monks by implying the reviewer must be one. As for the dude, yeah he wanted more, a lot more. Get over it.
-That he was the sugar baby of an older woman who was too classy to ask him for sex but let him live in her house, kicked him out when she found him having an orgy in her living room and yet gave him $50,000 to start a new life for himself.
He fails to mention that I lived in the guest house and did all the housework for her. I was eye-candy, I knew it, she knew it. We never had sex. Big deal. Her mother died, she inherited a lot of money. While she was out of town I threw a huge party, she came back in the midst of it. Sure a lot of details were removed but that was out of protection for the privacy of all involved. The point is, she told me to move out and gave me money to help me. That’s really NOT that weird.
And then there are the bigger problems:
-The subtle denigration of sex workers throughout the book. DD makes it clear he would never do porn or escort (even though people who don't even know he has two dicks are like "you should be a male prostitute" like all the time).
Now he’s going balls out to make me sound like an even bigger jerk. The word escort is used twice, TWICE! Once when I mention having no interest in being one and once when asked if I was one. The word prostitute isn’t even in the book.
This is discussed several times throughout the book. DD refuses to refer to porn actors as actors because they're not acting, they're "fucking," he discusses his sugar-mama situation while reminding the reader that he wouldn't have sex with this woman (it's implied that it's because it might be construed as prostitution) while having sex with other people with whom he doesn't have an arrangement, and he also discusses feeling uncomfortable at a party full of porn stars and escorts partly because they were porn stars and escorts.
And I thought I was bad with run-on sentences. Look at it folks, that’s only TWO sentences there. Top notch journalism, let me tell you! Okay my opinion of porn acting is based on what a number of actual porn stars told me. No acting involved, if you don’t count them acting like they are attracted to the partner they are in the scene with. Money talks and some of my acquaintances said that money was the only reason they did scenes with certain people. As for the sugar-momma, the reviewer drags her back out again. Also I never said I wouldn’t have had sex with her, I said she was too classy to ask for it.
It’s also worth mentioning that the reviewer has again lied. Not once did I state in my book that I was uncomfortable at the party that was populated with porn stars and escorts. I had gotten invited by one, who was a friend! The girl I met was the one who admitted she was just a model and had only come to the party to meet some potential producers for work. That’s when I pointed out that if she wasn’t into porn, she probably wasn’t going to meet anyone she would want to work with.
So the reviewer has now completely lied about an entire part of my book to make me sound like a hypocrite. Wrong dude. Very wrong.
He tries really hard to be sex-positive, but kind of fails in the attempt. Which isn't to say that there's anything wrong with being against doing porn, but at one point at the height of his popularity, DD used to tweet at porn stars asking them if they could take him. (These tweets appear to have been deleted. His Twitter now, by the way, is full of promotion for his book, denials that he's upset he's lost followers and vehement protest against Lena Dunham for being a sexual abuser. He also openly criticizes anyone who's a "hater" or skeptical of his claims.)
So I fail at being sex-positive, by your standards of sexual positivity? Or by someone else’s standards? Again, the reviewer is dead set on convincing his readers that his opinion is fact. He claims there’s nothing wrong with my being against doing porn in one breath but previously mocked me for it in another breath. As for the tweets, which are mysteriously deleted… Maybe they just were never there to begin with. ;) Or maybe the reviewer is twisting tweets I’d get from porn stars or fans on Twitter who’d ask if I found someone attractive. I’d playfully wonder in a tweet if they “could handle the D’s.” As for losing followers, I lose and gain them every day. I never was upset, more amused at what would spark a drop in followers one day and how the next it would spark a rise in followers.
As for Lena Dunham, I have no desire to discuss that woman. My followers know my feelings.
More troubling, DD recounts an anecdote in which he and his friends humiliate a sex worker by taking her back to their hotel room and surprising her with the double dicks, something that DD seems to like to do (or say he likes to do) a lot:
I actually scared a hooker once. Me and two buddies picked one up and when we got back to the hotel room...
"So three dicks, that's $200 per dick."
"Actually, there's 5 dicks." I couldn't stop smiling.
"I didn't agree to no gang-bang. Three guys is my limit."
I take my dicks out and she starts backing towards the door.
"No, I'm not doing any of that freaky shit, forget it."
For once! A legitimate TYPO! WOW! DUDE YOU FOUND ONE! It SHOULD have said 4 not 5! Okay, now that we’ve finished applauding this guy for finding a legit typo, I need to point out that the ‘humiliation’ he is referring to is his own interpretation of the block he quoted. I never said she was humiliated, in fact she was pissed off. We didn’t go out to humiliate anyone and no one was upset. She was a little freaked out and left. Big deal.
Leaving aside that DD can't do simple math (three guys, one with two dicks is still four dicks, not five), this anecdote, which is categorized as a "funny moment," is clearly an attempt to humiliate a sex worker for the sake of humiliating a sex worker. So happy was DD to surprise her, that he couldn't even stop smiling! Or do math! And everyone probably high-fived after. In slow motion.
Top notch journalism here. This boys and girls is what we call personal exposition. It’s something journalists aren’t supposed to do. When someone who tries to promote themselves as a journalist goes into personal exposition on a topic they are writing on, their tone and intent of the entire article is revealed. Clearly the reviewer’s sole purpose of the review is to do whatever he can to make his readers dislike me and agree with his personal opinion. Again, top notch!
But if only that were the end. DD takes the issue of humiliation and dubious consent goes even further in the funny stories section. Here's another troubling incident.
-DD states that he doesn't condone rape or any other form of sexual violence (good!) but meets a man who has a "power bottom" asshole and just decides to stick both dicks in there without even mentioning it to him... just because he's sure the guy can take it. (Bad.)
Again the reviewer is running his opinion and personal exposition on that moment. Perhaps if it had been made clearer he wouldn’t have chosen this portion to disbelieve. When I say he was a “power bottom” it is because his asshole was HUGE. One of what guys would call a “bring a friend” size hole. Double penetration was the least of his worries.
I'm just going to quote here:
I actually kept my left dick in my jeans once while this cute shaggy brunette blew me. He had no idea I had two. So he starts begging me to fuck him...
One glance and I knew he was a power bottom. I whip out my left dick what had gotten harder than usual at that moment and after a few wads of spit, I shoved both in his ass. He howled and arched his back and let out a loud groan.
"What the fuck is going on?" he groaned.
"What do you mean," I panted as I continued to pump them into his loose hole.
"It feels like you're stuffing two cocks in me."
"If I was, would that be a bad thing?"
I don't know, it might be a good thing, if you'd discussed it beforehand. But there's a huge sense of entitlement here that, if this story's true, shows that DD isn't as stuck on the idea of consent as he claims to be. While he says he's against sexual assault (in general), he still thinks he gets to make the call about who can and can't handle his dicks. He completely disregards the fact that just because someone consents to one sexual act doesn't mean they've consented to another. Because who wouldn't love the two dicks that launched a thousand ships?
Oh, now he’s reaching! He implies that because I slid both my cocks into the gaping ass of one of my partners, without warning him in advance, that somehow I’m actually prone to non-consensual sex. Talk about splitting hairs here. What the reviewer fails to mention (again) is the power bottom I was fucking actually rolled over on to his back. After putting both my cocks back inside him again, he looked down and saw them inside him. He knew what was happening.
Here's what happens upon reveal:
The mattress was soaked, his ass wide open and gaping. I tugged them out and went to the bathroom. A moment later he walks in as I'm taking a piss, looks down and sees them again and then looks up at me and full out faints right there in a pile of laundry.
He was a dramatic guy, what can I say? He was fine afterwards. I picked him up and put him in his bed and he woke up. We talked, yada-yada-yada. He was fine with it and we talked about it for hours. Perhaps if that hadn’t been omitted maybe the reviewer would have an entirely different opinion of me? Yeah right!
And here's one more thing I had a problem with: DD makes claim after claim that he doesn't want to become a novelty or have sex with anyone he meets, there's no internal logic in the book. Only pages after pointing out that he's had sex with scads and scads of people, he says that he doesn't do one-night-stands and waits to have sex with someone until he gets to know them.
Context alert! Spin alert! Wow, the reviewer fails to mention that I discuss in the book (multiple places) how just after high school I went through a rebellious stage. He fails to mention how I ended up in a committed polyamorous relationship and was in that relationship for about 2 years. He also fails to mention that I decided against one night stands because I didn’t like the empty feeling afterwards. He purposefully leaves out the explanatory elements of my previous lifestyle and how I grew from that into the person I am now. All in an effort to make me look like a huge jerk, that makes everything up.
While the book isn't particularly interesting and generally doesn't give one a glimpse into DD's life any more than the AMA or his Tumblr or Twitter would (luckily, it was free with my Amazon Unlimited subscription), it does focus on the fact that DD had a difficult time growing up due to the bullying he received from people at school and the constant homophobia he faced. It sucks, it isn't fair and DD is absolutely right when he says that people mock or hurt people they don't understand, even when those people might possess talents (or appendages) the bullies might not and which may be appreciated later in life. All true.
Yep, you’ve done exactly those things in your review.
Here's where I think the problem is: I believe that DD has had sex and I do believe that his life has changed considerably since that time. But I also believe that he, like many bullied kids do when they become adults, might be reinventing himself and making up a history that makes his life sound more awesome or extreme than it is in order to combat those feelings.
Now he’s going the route of edging back the lies and ridicule to then bring his readers back into the mindset of ‘caring’ for me because I’m so misguided. I was bullied, but now it’s time to remember poor DD is just reacting the way so many people do. Oh give me a break!
And like many of us who try to do that, he goes overboard, shooting his conquests into the stratosphere and then recounting them in ways that are impossible and hard to back up. As I was reading this book (and to some extent even when I read the AMA) I kept thinking, how is it possible that this guy has done so much with so many people in so many ways and is still able to keep his privacy? It could be that people don't kiss and tell or that it really just doesn't matter, but considering his fame and popularity on the internet, it just doesn't seem feasible that a site like TMZ wouldn't have his identity on lock. I could, of course, be very wrong about this and just assuming that DD's experiences are straight out of his head (or, if not, at least ramped down much, much less fantastical), but that's not what it feels like. In the end, his book reads less like an account of what having two dicks is actually like, and more like a fantasy of what having two dicks—and taking full advantage of them—might be.
There you go, he waits until the end of this long tirade to tell you why he wrote the entire thing to begin with. This ‘review’ is all about what the reviewer feels like it might be, or could be and not actually what it IS. Isn’t that the point of a review? Review the content? Ask a question or two and then clearly and plainly state how you felt about it all. No, this guy twists words, lies, takes things out of context and injects his personal bias into every element of this ‘review.’ It’s sad.
Taking it even further, it's feasible that because DD has two penises, perhaps he feels like has to take the traditional male fantasies to the next level. Double them. Make them more intense. He writes often about ruined pussies and gaping assholes, making it seem that he leaves a wasteland of blasted orifices in his wake—and isn't this part of the male fantasy we know so well from conversations about sex and popular culture? The idea that after sex someone is ruined, broken off or needs an entire pack of cigarettes and one to five glasses of ice water?
Say what? You lost me there. I’ve left a few people wrecked for a period of time, its true. However the wasteland you speak of exists in your mind sir. Not mine. As for the male fantasy of leaving someone ruined and broken off etc… Wow, yours not mine. That last part speaks more volumes about the reviewer than he realizes. WOW.
In DD's furious attempts to not become a novelty, his writing ensures that he becomes one. The book reads like a man who's pulled in different directions by his desire to be "normal," as well as the constant push-and-pull to buy into people's ideas of who he is.
Actually in my writing, both in the AMA, Tumblr, Twitter and lastly my book, I’ve taken control of the narrative. A narrative you have desperately tried to skew with your ‘review.’ Then the reviewer swings back into “my opinion is my opinion, but I’ll word it as fact” mode of operation. My book reads differently to everyone who reads it, suggesting that the way it reads to you, is how it should be perceived is actually worse than anything you personally accused me of throughout this entire run-on sentence of a review. Hey, I can say that, I write run-ons like I’m being paid to do it.
Could he, in his attempt not to objectify himself, be objectifying himself even more? And could this book speak directly to a confusion of identity? One section details the handwritten notes of encouragement he used to leave on his Tumblr, which were mostly ignored by readers—in the midst of descriptions about having entire hands shoved up his ass while he baptizes his new converts like freshly-baked Krispy Kremes.
People will objectify me no matter what I say or do. The fact that the entire ‘reveal’ to the world just before the Reddit AMA actually INSPIRED the Reddit AMA is proof of this. I cannot control what other people think of me. I cannot control how good or bad other people represent me, as you have terribly. If anything, the handwritten notes reveal the dichotomy of my life and expose an element of the ‘me’ that I am away from the internet. The me that I am away from the infamy of two dicks. The me that I always was before “DoubleDickDude” became who he is. You didn’t pick up on my own admission of this? You didn’t notice that I’ve, repeatedly compared myself to Superman? Clark Kent vs Kal-El? This just proves you weren’t reading the book to actually read and review it. You were reading it for your own personal motives. Motives which I’d dare say are revealed quite clearly in your ‘review.’
Perhaps DD will write another book (one edited and revised this time) that will discuss his day-to-day life in more detail, now that he's exorcised detailing his carnivalesque sex acts. I'll look forward to it— because I'm still a fan. I just want to know more about the man behind the two (admittedly) impressive dicks in a way that doesn't sound like we're standing by the punch bowl at his ten-year high school reunion and he's trying his hardest to convince me he's invented post-its.
This is what you call a direction shift, where the direction of the article shifts at the conclusion to come across as less of a hackneyed, one note spin rag that’s sole purpose is to trash the subject and lead the readers into agreeing with the reviewer. Who, for reasons still unknown can’t grasp that his perception of reality is simply his. Reality does not need his acceptance of it to be real.
To the reviewer, there is no doubt you will no longer be a fan of mine after you’ve read this post. You can’t please everyone right? With that said, I hope you find the time to rethink how you look at people and life. If it’s anything like how you misrepresented me in your ‘review’ I’m glad I don’t see life through your eyes.
DDD
http://themuse.jezebel.com/double-dick-dudes-memoir-reads-like-a-letters-to-pentho-1679730586