It's not mentioned in the article (which you can see by clicking on the title above) but I'm wondering if this was a response to a Tri-Met driver's complaint about a passengers' clothing. More troubling is the vague reference to 'surrealist dream theory' which implies that surrealism is a pointless and possibly frivolous exercise in anything odd or unusual. While I support the pantsless commute and would have enjoyed taking part, I found myself wanting more from the article, which doesn't provide any meaningful context about surrealism and the Surrealist Movement which continues today. I suppose the shock and novelty of seeing underwear on the Max could remind someone of surrealist images, and it could have been liberating for those taking part, and I understand this connection. But at the same time, the convulsive interplay between the conscious and the unconscious--which is more important than a specific theory of dream-is not fully drawn out in the article. Note: I am not implying that surrealism revolves around 'shock and novelty,' but simply trying to contextualize the headline chosen by the Willamette Week's writer.