This weekend, Gothamist published a hard-hitting investigative report about Bros who shove their superior body temperatures into our faces by wearing shorts outside despite frigid winter weather. It was pretty tame by our standards, and the truth is we stand in awe of these Bros' imperviousness to weather that has been driving us insane more than anything else.

Nevertheless, one No-Bro is particularly aggrieved with us for misrepresenting his Bronafides. The reader, who we'll call Yoko Brono for now, wrote to inform us that the alabaster pair of legs "prominently displayed" in the photo above belong to him, and he's very upset with our characterization of him as a Bro. Despite us not showing his face or any other identifying parts of his body (or, you know, identifying him in any way whatsoever), Brono believes he is owed compensation for the photographic reproduction of his alleged legs (for which we have no proof they really are his) in a photo taken in public by someone who isn't Brono.

But first, we must rectify some ignorances perpetuated by society. For society's sake! Here's Brono's message:

Dear Ben,

As the subject of the photograph prominently displayed at the head of your recent article on gothamist.com, named above, I am highly offended by your derogatory use of the term "bro."

Had you simply taken a moment to talk to me, you would soon learn that I am the farthest from a bro you could find. Indeed, I have never even used the term bro without a sarcastic chuckle. My fine arts Alma mater doesn't even have a fraternity and I would have shunned anyone who suggested starting one. Apparently you were so quick to judge someone as a "bro" for simply wearing shorts in your blind compulsion to spew useless drivel on the internet. Perhaps in your exemplary journalism frenzy it never dawned on you to ask yourself, "Why is this person wearing shorts?" Allow me to answer that for you. I wear shorts because I find them more comfortable. Pants rub the hair on the lower part of my legs and irritates the skin.

While I'm here, I'll rectify another bit of ignorance perpetuated by society. I am at no risk to frostbite. At the temperature that picture was taken, bare skin would need to be exposed for over 30 minutes to incur frostbite. I hope every inch of your body, including your face, was covered or else you were at as much risk of frostbite as I was! Seriously, why does it matter to you what I wear? My clothing choices have zero impact on you yet you felt compelled to write an entire article on it? I do hope you can utilize this criticism to improve your "journalism."

Also, you'll find attached an invoice for my standard fee to use my likeness in publication. Typically consent is required before publication but I'm willing to look past that provided I am paid in full within the stated timeframe. Thank you for your interest in my legs bro.

Sincerely,
[Yoko Brono]

You can see the kicker—the invoice for his standard fee—below.

brolol.jpeg
Check is IN THE MAIL.

In conclusion: the bare legs seen in that photo which you already forgot about do not in fact belong to a "bro." He is actually more of a hipster. Gothamist regrets the error.