I have the same problem with your comment that I have with the article. What you're doing is a kind of kitschy psuedo-honesty that I think the author is engaging in to some extent. None of the author's admissions were that risky. They were refreshing to read and perhaps a little courageous, but it's stuff you might have guessed was there already. If, hypothetically, his wife left him because of a sexual fetish, that would be no more or less of a non-sequitur than anything else he admitted to, but much more potentially damaging to his reputation. (Again, the preceding was a hypothetical.)

It's not that A.J. Jacobs should have to hold himself to that standard of the subject he's reporting on, but that he's purporting-to-do-so-but-not-really, which is irritating. For some reason his (and your) version of "radical honesty" becomes a game where you just craft a succession of start-and-stop sentences with cute, largely forgivable admissions of self-interest. I'm not against humor but I'm suspicious that for some it functions as a coping mechanism that substitutes for sincere engagement with an uncomfortable idea.

I did not discover this article by browsing Esquire. It was part of Luke Muelhauser's list of favorite articles.