Okay. This is a classic example of why I don't set up future posts. I see articles that make me snicker or take notice and save them to write about them later. I then determine whether or not the material is appropriate to post. Then I always, always include a commentary to explain, warn, or soften the blow if it's edgy. Or dicey.
This time I goofed. SORRY! Of course the title probably gave it away.
Now that it has aired, sans explanation, I'll put it back out there.
I ran across this Creative Loafing article about a month ago and it gave me quite the chuckle. I saved it to a post closer to Halloween, then forgot about it. But. I haven't been on blogger a lot lately (do you miss me?). I failed to notice I had a time bomb ticking on my blog.
Sorry guys. I would've warned you. Though I guess the title was warning enough.
For those of you who looked at the pictures and didn't read the article: shame on you. The dude's funny (Shawn Alff). Funnier, even, than the pictures.
In case you're worried, all the private parts are covered. But barely. And you might get a chuckle at the wacky outfits and the wackier men who actually went out on the town in them. One can only hope they had a change of clothes close by.
The point of the story, however, has to do with last year's furor over young girls and women wearing sexy/near naked costumes at Halloween. This dude posits that since women have claimed that day to let it all hang out, maybe men should too.
Some will think this tasteless. You're probably right. But what the hay. I thought it was funny. Happy Birthday, to my buddy Roland. Click on over to his blog and wish him well.
Now, to it. Here is the article published in Creative Loafing last year.