Just how desperate are the folks at the Huffington Post to titillate readers with articles about scantily clad women, wardrobe malfunctions, and exposed body parts?
On Tuesday, the Post actually broke a story about a dress that disappears when the wearer becomes aroused. Problem is this was introduced sixteen months ago.
Once inside, the article breathlessly began, "You don't get to choose whether this dress is revealing or not -- your carnal instincts do."
"The 'Intimacy 2.0' dress, designed by Daan Roosegaarde, is getting a rise out of the fashion world because its opaque fabric becomes transparent when you get aroused," wrote the Post. "Finally, all the cards will be on the table. You'll have your date saying, 'Is your dress disappearing, or are you just happy to see me?'"
Great joke, isn't it?
But here's the punch line: "The already barely-there garment features ribbons of leather and opaque "e-foils," which can detect the model's heartbeat, the Daily Mail reports."
It appears no one checked the date on that Daily Mail article. It's April 4, 2012.
But that's just the beginning, for the Post also included a YouTube video from the dress maker.
If the author had done some research, he would have noticed that it was first published at YouTube on - wait for it! - October 3, 2011.
So the Post broke a story that's sixteen months old!
But the story gets even better because on May 4, 2012, Huffington Post UK published an article titled - wait for it! - "Dress 'Becomes Transparent When Wearer Is Sexually Aroused' (WATCH)."
Tuesday's article even linked to this 2012 piece.
As such, why did the Post bother publishing something the author had to know was very old news?
