Woman Sues Victoria's Secret Because Of Thong Injury

Macrida Patterson, age 52, is suing Victoria’s Secret, claiming that because of a design problem, a decorative metallic piece affixed to her thong became airborne and struck her in the eye as she was attempting to put on the garment, according to The Smoking Gun. The thong is called a “low-rise v-string” from their “Sexy Little Thing” line (pictured left). The injury has supposedly caused damage to her cornea, causing her to miss work and “will be affecting her the rest of her life.” Details, inside…

The article says,

Patterson’s lawyer, Jason Buccat, told TSG that a “design problem” caused the decorative piece to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea. He added that the eye injury, which caused Patterson to miss a few days of work, will be “affecting her the rest of her life.” Patterson is a traffic officer with L.A.’s Department of Transportation. Prior to the lawsuit’s filing, Victoria’s Secret officials asked to examine the garment and the decorative piece, but that request was rejected by Patterson’s counsel. For those unfamiliar with “v-strings,” the undergarment is the Victoria’s Secret variant on the “g-string,” which has long been favored in the battle against visible panty lines.

In the future we hope that Victoria’s Secret offers some sexy OSHA-approved safety glasses to go with their projectile underwear.

Dinged By A G-String? [The Smoking Gun]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. 52? She had better be a milf to be putting THAT on.

  2. edebaby says:

    Is 52 her age, or waist size?

  3. missdona says:

    Them are some tacky underthings.

    I’ve had metal decorations on underthings before and I can’t possibly fathom how it could hit her in the eye.

  4. @Motherfirefly: 52? She had better be a milf to be putting THAT on.

    I’m glad you said that and not me. I’d get roasted for making a sexist comment.

  5. fordpickup says:

    Are you sure it wasn’t the sight of herself in that gawd awful thing that damaged her cornea?

  6. Pro-Pain says:

    I’m going to be sick. Please settle this out of court.

  7. luz says:

    Even if this actually happened, I would be way too embarrassed to file suit about it. Those things look like cupcake frosting.

  8. BlondeGrlz says:

    I think this is definitely a case of user error. Now, if her red, white & blue panties that plays “Yankee Doodle” were to cause an electric shock there might be a case.

  9. Battle against visible panty lines, whatever. Like that’s any trashier than seeing a woman’s thong ride up to the middle of her back when she leans over.

  10. zentex says:

    a decorative metallic piece affixed to her thong became airborne and struck her in the eye as she was attempting to put on the garment

    she had to of being doing it all wrong.

  11. @zentex:
    Maybe she thought it was a slingshot!

  12. DeepFriar says:

    Whale tail meets Cougar.

  13. Smooooth says:

    Everytime I wear women’s underwear around my head, I have the same problem!

  14. PinkBox says:

    Obviously it is a safety measure to blind people from 52 year olds trying on that type of lingerie.

  15. Werrick says:

    @NameGoesHere:

    Well, even then in that case it’s still a malfunction… it’s only safe if it blinds the spectator, not the 52 year old.

  16. wgrune says:

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I dont care for metal on my undergarments, decorative or not…

  17. ornj says:

    Are those holes in the nipple region?

  18. CharlieInSeattle says:

    Please get this image out of my head!!!!!

  19. Who do I sue for the mental anguish of picturing the above scenario?

  20. @CharlieInSeattle: Please get this image out of my head!!!!!

    Check out the pic on TSG’s page about the lawsuit. That may help.

  21. ARPRINCE says:

    @Motherfirefly: At that age, she could be a GILF!

  22. Why do I get the feeling that she’s a bit, erm, portly and tried to stretch out the thong a bit too far, slingshotting the metal skyward?

  23. missdona says:

    @ornj:

    Yes, and I think there’s one on the crotchular area too.

    Tacky Tacky Tacky

  24. cmdrsass says:

    ewwwwww. That garment is not age appropriate for a 52 year old woman. Time for some granny panties old lady.

  25. @ARPRINCE:
    *groan*. A “Gilf”??? LOL.

  26. stezton says:

    I’m grossed out at the thought of someone trying on underwear in a store!

  27. bohemian says:

    @ARPRINCE: I always misread GILF as GELF, as in the big furry space beasts from Red Dwarf. Now I have a mental picture stuck in my head of a Gelf wearing that awful lingerie.
    [www.totalreddwarf.co.uk]

  28. Grive says:

    That is… hilarious. As, um, unsettling as the mental imagery might be, the idea of somehow tangling up a thong so much that a metal thing will fly that much and still have force to damage someone is quite hard to fathom.

  29. dripdrop says:

    I think this is one of the funniest stories Consumerist has posted in a long time.

  30. BigPapaCherry says:

    @ cmdrsass:

    Time for Victoria’s Secret to put an ID-ing process in place to keep people in age appropriate undergarments.

    PS How do you set up a link to a comment like I tried to set up above and failed?

  31. thesabre says:

    VS needs to hire Johnny Cochran. Make her put it on in court. If the thong doesn’t fit, you must acquit!

  32. Juggernaut says:

    Isn’t Heather Locklear almost 50? Just sayin’, ya know? I’m not touting 52 year olds but get yourself down to the Jersey Shore during June or in September and check em out!

  33. donopolis says:

    Design problem seems vague to me. Do you think he is referring to the inclusion of that strange new material “Elastic”. This could account for the slingshot effect. However this design problem is found in almost all underwear made today. It couldn’t be the metalic spangle as that decorative property was probably one reason she purchased these extra cheesy panties to begin with.

    mmmmm

  34. trecool95 says:

    The headline got me excited but the first line made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

  35. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    @stezton: I might have missed it somewhere in the official document but I don’t think they said she was trying them on in the store.

    @donopolis: I think the defect is the fact that the metallic thing actually came loose.

  36. I think the lesson here is to avoid underwear decorated in anything that could be described as metallic shards.

  37. I feel like I’m reading Yahoo’s OMG.
    @heavylee-again: It’s still sexist no matter who said it. I’d expect more tact from a person who has “hire me” plastered across their website. :/

    There is probably some fat bald guy with a pitiful 3 inch when erect dick, who has never been able to find a clit, out there right now, wishing he could get some 52 year old, much less one that’s willing to lose an eye so she can wear slut undies for him.

    @Juggernaut: Michelle Pfeiffer is 50. And I love the assumption that if she’s 50 she’s gotta be fat. Nitwits, Victoria’s Secret doesn’t even sell underwear that would fit a fat person. Lane Bryant takes care of selling undies to the fatties. Duh. So you got a thin 52 year old. If she turns out to have been too fat to wear it without it breaking, what will be heard in court.

    @stezton : She didn’t try it on, she bought it and was allegedly injured at home. It states in the court documents (on the link posted above) that the “defendants (Victoria’s Secret) knew the product would be purchased and used without inspection for defects.” Maybe she ordered it online, though I think the specific phrasing of “used without inspection for defects” is going to make that part of the claim hard to prove.

  38. Mr. Gunn says:

    let me be the first to say that this thread is just fine without pics.

  39. Angryrider says:

    I think by the age of 40, people should realize they aren’t in their 20s.
    I tried to keep a straight face about this, but this is just hilarious.

  40. eightfifteen says:

    @zentex:

    I agree. The thong was not meant to be put on her head.

  41. Ya know, first it’s people who don’t inspect their shard laden undies for defects, next it’s gonna be people sitting on toilet seats without first making sure it’s not coated in gluey-goo.

  42. luz says:

    Wow, unbelievably youth-obsessed, presumptuous comments on here. Not every woman over 35 is fat and gross.

    Though this one might be a bit dim.

  43. Juggernaut says:

    Rene Russo 54!! Didn’t someone recently say 50 is the new 30?

  44. MayorBee says:

    Is it wrong that I’m imagining her put the thong on and the metal piece shooting off, ricocheting off the walls a couple of times (complete with sound effects), and finally hitting her square in the eye? Because if that’s wrong, I don’t wanna be right. And it’s cracking me up.

  45. Susan Sarandon is 62
    That’s Sixty-Two

  46. sir_eccles says:

    It’s stories like this that usually start:

    “I was vacuuming in the nude when I suddenly fell on the ketchup bottle…”

  47. sir_eccles says:

    @alphafemale: Hehe, Tim Robbins’ mom!

  48. Ein2015 says:

    Ugh, another useless lawsuit. :(

  49. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    @luz: I think the assumption is that any woman over 25 is fat and gross.

    I for one can’t imagine that anyone would buy underwear with holes in it unless they had a reasonable expectation that someone would see them in it. The fact that she bought it implies that at least one person thinks she’s hot.

    Why does her age matters at all? If the metal pieces aren’t secure on the garment how would being 20 years younger have prevented it from coming off?

  50. PinkBox says:

    @Werrick: Then the safety measure had a malfunction in this case. ;)

  51. MayorBee says:

    She’s obviously not fat, guys. If she was, her gravity would have held the metal thing in place.

    /I am totally being sarcastic here.

  52. Skankingmike says:

    I’m sure that image isn’t the garment she tried on.

    It’s more likely this!

    [www2.victoriassecret.com]

    looks like it has some Metallic things on it.

    52 transit worker… sounds hot ;)

    for some reason that song .. “common ride the train” is playing..

  53. johnfrombrooklyn says:

    Don’t almost all clothing stores have big signs that you can’t try on underwear and swimsuits and they won’t take returns?

  54. darkryd says:

    Get a life, lady. Jeez. So you something hit you in the eye. How is that VS’s problem?

  55. @luz:
    Hmmm and I find it interesting that the woman’s age is the 4th word in the post. Her name, then age. On the smoking gun, they just say “Woman, 52…”

    I don’t see the age of the man who got glued to the toilet seat in Home Depot in that post at all. Could it be that the man’s age had nothing to with his status as a presumably injured party? Hmmm… But this woman’s age is so goddamn important that’s it gotta be in the first sentence?

  56. @johnfrombrooklyn: covered in comments

  57. BlueTraveler says:

    What makes this worse, is not that she bought this from Victoria’s Secret, but she bought it from The Limited. If you read the lawsuit paperwork, she is suing “Victoria’s Secret, dba Limited Brands, Inc.” I don’t care how hot you may be (or think you may be), but no 52 year old should be shopping at The Limited.

  58. @CharlieInSeattle: Excuse the typo, it’s 25 not 52. Oh, did I mention she’s a swimsuit model and she was injured during a fight with her rival swimsuit model.

    This story only works if you do not re-read the original.

  59. camille_javal says:

    @A.W.E.S.O.M.-O: It is possible to wear a thong without showing it off – showing off a thong actually defeats its original purpose, doesn’t it? (I wear thongs every day for the sake of keeping my work pants from looking like I have a lumpy ass. I personally see them as purely utilitarian – there’s not much attractive about having your panties wedged um your bum.)

    @zentex: Seriously, this is some “magic bullet” type shit. As I was reading, and saw “decorative metal,” I immediately assumed some sort of naughty-bits injury. But how in hell does it become airborne with that much force, and how the hell was her eye in the way…?

    Maybe she was lying on her back putting this thing on, and it dislodged and fell in her eye? (That kind of flexibility would imply that she’s not quite the behemoth so many of you are picturing – seriously, not every menopausal woman in the US looks like your mom.) (And, yes, that was a “your mom” joke.)

  60. Limited Brands owns Victoria’s Secret. She shopped at Victoria’s Secret.

  61. camille_javal says:

    @BlueTraveler: Limited Brands owns Victoria’s Secret. Thus, if she bought it from VS, and is suing VS, she is really suing Limited Brands. [www.limitedbrands.com]

  62. BlueTraveler says:

    @alphafemale: Then her lawsuit should read “Limited Brands dba Victoria’s Secret”, not the other way around.

  63. camille_javal says:

    @alphafemale: curses.

  64. @BlueTraveler:

    My mom is 45 and she shops at the Limited. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

    I also concur with @alphafemale:

  65. @BlueTraveler: Whaddya want from me? I didn’t file the papers.

  66. @BlueTraveler: Whadya want from me? I didn’t file the papers. :)

  67. @BlueTraveler: Whadya want from alphafemale? She didn’t file the papers. :)

  68. katylostherart says:

    i wonder if it broke cuz she got it two sizes too small. can you sue someone for product failure if the size of your ass was really the culprit? we need more details.

  69. Juggernaut says:

    @camille_javal: Who lyes(?) on their back to put their “drawers” on?

  70. SacraBos says:

    @missdona: Agreed – I could understand if it hit her significant other in the eye. That or she’s a contortionist.

    @alphafemale: Guys can do stupid things at any age. The womans age is what makes a thong injury newsworthy. Also, most guys would likely put the thong on wrong regardless of their age. Starting by putting it on their heads when younger, and later, trying to figure out which set of strings go around where. A 52 year old woman should know how to put on underwear without facial injury.

  71. lalaland13 says:

    I say sue Sisqo or however the hell he spells it. He’s really to blame for all this.

  72. mariospants says:

    is this thing missing the nipple and coochie part?

  73. katylostherart says:

    @mariospants: it’s the thing missing a point to wearing it as any sort of garment.

  74. forgottenpassword says:

    she better look like Morgan fairchild if she is buying a thong at age 52!

    Ew….

  75. jrob23 says:

    Nothing like a 52-year old traffic officer trying to seduce anyone with crotchless and nipple-less lingere. I don’t think I’ve typed anything more disturbing.

  76. keith4298 says:

    @thesabre:
    I can see the defense now: She was trying them on in manner that is inconsistent with industry standards….

    Plaintiff: Please show the jury how you put it on…..

    @alphafemale: I don’t think people are claiming she’s fat because of her age. Considering the average weight of your average American, it’s a safe bet that she doesn’t belong in this garment. That’s not an -ism, it’s probablity.

  77. whoareyou says:

    Please…I’m injured for life thinking about a 52 year old putting that thing on.

  78. picardia says:

    I’ll side with Victoria’s Secret on this one — although an eye injury is terrible, this sounds pretty random and non-foreseeable. Any kind of beading/sequins/whatever can come off any garment, and there’s no particular reason to think this would cause eye injury.

  79. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    @Juggernaut: People with back problems.

    But how in hell does it become airborne with that much force, and how the hell was her eye in the way…?

    @camille_javal: Simple. She was bending over to put it on and her toe caught in the crotch area as she stepped into it. Now the undies are stretched out by her foot, like a slingshot. Instead of stepping back out she wriggled her foot to get it loose. This cause the underwear to spring back up which caused the metal bit to come loose and hit her in the eye.

    That wouldn’t be a lot of force but then that’s the point of the lawsuit: it took little (or none in your example) force for this thing to come off and damage her cornea.

  80. usmcmoran says:

    what about sophia loren grrrr,no longer a cougar but a grey fox, but seriously we need a class action suit against the consumerist for the image now stuck in my head, especially this lady standing there with a piece of metal in her eye and the pencil erasers sticking out of the bra.

  81. Hey, guess what! You’ll all be old some day, and by the sound of it, won’t even be able to bag this lady in bed.

  82. serreca says:

    @keith4298: She “doesn’t belong in this garment”? Are you effing kidding me? This whole comment thread, with only a few exceptions, makes me sick.

  83. thalia says:

    Was she wearing the panties on her head? Because I’m still trying to figure out how it went from affixed to her butt to inside one of her eyes. Either she was putting it on backwards or that was a hell of a powerful fart.

  84. Life_Sandwich says:

    @BlondeGrlz:

    You win.

  85. fjordtjie says:

    you really can sue for anything! what a moron.

  86. BlackFlag55 says:

    Thongs by Omar, the Tent Maker

  87. scooterist says:

    I’ll state the obvious and say that this article is worthless without photos to back everything up.

  88. VikingP77 says:

    Funniest story on Consumerist in a while…case will probably be dismissed though…gimmee a break!

  89. MrMold says:

    Saw her on the news. NOT a hottie. Now, all these ‘old women’ listed as still keeping it real are all very thin, highly photogenic persons. They also are very familiar with cosmetic surgery, diet, and exercise. Comparing them to generic ‘Mericans is as suspect as would comparing Jessica (Me No Eatie) Alba to our rotund youth.

    Only the woman knows why she would attempt to wear thongs…at 52…but it is her duty to keep shopping. Cynics might say she wants to leave the exciting world of meter maids and go into the humdrum of menoworky. Wouldn’t be the first, or last, time that the lure of easy money led one astray. She also may have actually been injured and wants things made right. We’ll see.

  90. sean77 says:

    call me sexist, but 52 is too old for crotchless panties.

  91. thelushie says:

    I read about this on a local news site and then sent the link from the Smoking Gun to the Consumerist. This one is incredible.

    Actually Andykay, I would like to see photos of her eye. How badly was she injured? That being said, I don’t think she should be able to sue.

    Victoria Secret makes junk anyway. What did she expect?

  92. OMG! I totally burned my had when I was cooking! I can now go after both the water and electric company! $$$CHACHINGZZZ$$$

    And, if you can believe this, I got blisters because I played my bass too much! ESP is going to be my bitch. Don’t even get me started with GK and SWR and my lawsuit concerning hearing damage!

    I now hate this perfect stranger and her stupid fucking lawsuit.

    People like this and the lawyers who choose to take their case give reasonable consumer lawsuits and the lawyers who take their cases a bad name. This is the sort of greedy lack of reason that allows for big business favoring “tort reform” bills to garner support.

  93. TigerPearls says:

    I don’t understand what a 52 year old is doing with a thong…..

    I kinda agree with the majority….stupid lawsuit, stupid person.

  94. @sean77: Sexist.

    @katekate is squared: What you said.

  95. MayorBee says:

    @Voyou_Charmant:

    This is the sort of greedy lack of reason that allows for big business favoring “tort reform” bills to garner support.

    I really think you mean “garter support”, right? And I’d like to see this lawyer’s briefs to see what kind of case he thinks he has. He must be jockeying for a big payout because if he didn’t have a case, he’d box ‘er ears already.

    Okay, I’m done. I’m laughing so hard I’m panty-ing.

  96. glitterati says:

    @Juggernaut: agreed. Also, for example, Christie Brinkley is 54 and looks incredible.

    For all the commenters ridiculing this women’s for wearing risque underwear at 52, please remember that they’re beneath her clothing. It would be far more conspicuous if she was not wearing a thong.

    And be reasonable – many people might not like to see you in your underwear. That said, if you’re somehow maligned by the pair you’re wearing, you should be able to file a complaint without being ridiculed for your styling choices. We’re all reading the consumerist to learn more about companies to avoid and companies to do business with – I’m glad to know that I should be weary when I shop at Victoria’s Secret.

  97. glitterati says:

    @Skankingmike: Jay, please clarify – this is an image from the same line of products but not the actual item, correct? You’ve spawned a bunch of angry commenters focused solely on the design of the garments pictured, which are likely not even the garments in question.

  98. tessa says:

    @Motherfirefly:
    @edebaby: @heavylee-again: @fordpickup: @Pro-Pain: @DeepFriar: @NameGoesHere: @CharlieInSeattle: @ARPRINCE: @edicius: @cmdrsass: @trecool95: @Mr. Gunn: @Angryrider: @BlueTraveler: @SacraBos: @forgottenpassword: @whoareyou: @andykay: @sean77:

    GUESS WHAT: sexy, fashionable women exist over the age of 25. Quit being sexist pricks. Her age/size has NOTHING TO DO WITH HER INJURY.

    Please read:
    [jezebel.com]

    I hope none of you ever get married, because (GASP) women get older. And it’s not easy for everyone to stay under a size 4/6 whatever. I guess you all (for those who are into women) would prefer your wife to start donning granny panties and a nun’s hobbit once she is over 30 and never wear anything revealing/sexy?

    I REPEAT: HER SIZE/AGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS STORY.

    Consumerist, can you install some commenting rules?

    Ban me, whatever. The lot of you are complete assholes who I doubt are this crude outside of the internet.

  99. @sean77: Ok: You’re sexist.

  100. ELC says:

    @trecool95: It may not be the funniest article in a long time, but it sure has the funniest comments. LOL here at work! :)

  101. I just wish there was a video of the accident.

  102. tessa says:

    @friendslikeJimRome:
    Why? A woman had something snap and hurt her cornea. That’s funny? Or are you harping ont he fact that she’s 52 and maybe doesn’t have a perfect body?

  103. sam1am says:

    @tessa: sexy, fashionable women do exist at age 52, true. But sexy and fashionable and the underwear in the image do not go together. Also, the fact that it was being stretched to metal-flinging proportions does not lend credibility to this woman being “sexy,” at least not in the classical sense of the word.

  104. Amnesiac85 says:

    Wow, ageism much in these here comments? Funny accident…but what’s the big deal? She’s 52, just because people age doesn’t mean they’re not human anymore. Geez.

  105. tessa says:

    @sam1am:
    If she was Michelle Pfieffer, or Helen Hunt, or Kim Basinger, I doubt anyone would have any objections to seeing her in that underwear. AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAWSUIT.

    And NEWS FLASH: Sexy people can break things/be clumsy.

  106. serreca says:

    @sam1am: Who the fuck cares if she’s sexy? What’s that got to do with anything?

  107. GothamGal says:

    I guess she doesn’t have whore insurance.

  108. tessa says:

    @GothamGal:
    What does that even mean? Why is she a whore? Women buying underwear are now whores?

  109. @GothamGal: You’re fucking vile.

  110. veronykah says:

    I’m just curious, when does one blame themselves for doing something stupid or having an ACCIDENT versus blaming someone else and suing?
    I couldn’t care less how old she is, whether it was a thong or whatever. I just know if I did something this asinine it would never have occurred to me to SUE Victorias Secret.
    Guess its just how I was brought up.

  111. @sam1am: Great logic…. er I mean great logical fallacy. The plaintiff claims that it was a “design flaw” which caused it to fling metal. Why does everyone assume that she was stretching it over a huge ass? MAYBE just maybe she has a valid claim. Maybe there was a manufacturer error, a missed stitch perhaps, or a snagged thread?

    The assumption that she MUST have been a whale because that’s the only time fabric or thread gives way is, well, it’s pretty good evidence that a lot of you haven’t mastered critical thinking yet.

  112. tessa says:

    @veronykah:
    She has cornea damage. A neighbor of mine had some eye problems recently and had to lie face down for 20 hours a day, for a week, and she was in immense pain. I don’t know how serious it is, but it’s def painful.
    @alphafemale:
    THANK YOU.

  113. ARPRINCE says:

    Now you can see for yourself. There’s a VIDEO in CNN!!!!

  114. avconsumer says:

    a/s/l – who cares – suing for anything not affecting the crotch area, concerning a thong… fail. Nay… EPIC FAIL.

  115. avconsumer says:

    @veronykah: Apparently you, me, and like 27 other people in the continental US. :(

  116. katylostherart says:

    @tessa: ok her age may not but her size may. there’s nothing mentioned about her size. i’ve never snapped a pair of underwear before and i’ve worn some pretty skimpy underwear. i’ve also even stepped on it and fell over (graceful i know) and still never snapped a pair of underwear.

    if she was hitching them up and they snapped, it is completely reasonable to assume she was too big for them, if not too big for victoria’s secret in general. seriously, there’s only so much tension elastic can take before it breaks too. sometimes an ass can just be too big.

  117. katylostherart says:

    @alphafemale: see above. it is not UNREASONABLE to assume that her size may have been a contributing factor to the thing breaking. loads of people wear clothes that fit improperly, snugly, or just two sizes too damn small. PEOPLE ARE DUMB.

  118. serreca says:

    @katylostherart: No matter her size, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect metal pieces to be sewn securely onto the fabric?

  119. tessa says:

    @katylostherart:
    IT DOESN’T SAY SHE WAS TOO FAT FOR THE GARMENT. People assumed that. A metal piece can fly into your eye even if you’re 100 pounds. Maybe she was putting it on funny. You’re just assuming that she’s overweight.

    @katylostherart:
    It may not be unreasonable, but people don’t have to be COMPLETE ASSHOLES about it.

  120. Katharine says:

    @GothamGal: WTF does that even mean?

  121. tessa says:

    @katylostherart:
    No one politely said “She may have been too big for the garment.” People were unnecessarily rude about it.

    I’ve had buttons fly off of clothes when I was putting them on just because I was being too rough or the buttons were incorrectly sewn on- not because they were too small for me.

  122. katylostherart says:

    @tessa: wait why be polite? also if you’re the polite police, doesn’t calling people “asshole” fall under the rude category?

  123. drjayphd says:

    Sorry, but as soon as I saw the title, thought of it…

    Andy Stitzer: There’s something wrong with her underwear.
    Cal: Yeah. They’re not in my mouth.

  124. boss_lady says:

    @tessa: You must be from Jez, too (either that, or just a damn smart, well-spoken woman). I almost puked over half of these comments, but like some sort of bizarre deficiency where I’m intrigued by all things gross, I’ve begun to think of commenting/comments on The Consumerist as a car wreck: you can’t bear to look yet you cannot look away.

    I used to just love reading Consumerist comments and participating in conversations here; people offered tips, personal experience, and were helpful. Now, well, see the analogy I made above.

  125. katylostherart says:

    @veronykah: very unamerican of you.

    @tessa:

    so cornea damage because she had an accident validates this lawsuit? she’s seeking unspecified damages over $25,000. she works for the la dot. so she’s a state/city employee and she most likely has some of the best insurance ever and yet she’s suing victoria’s secret for a snapped thong that was probably HER fault it snapped by putting more pressure on one of the strings than it had in tensile strength.

    seriously, fine, i won’t call her probably fat, i’ll call her definitely an idiot. does that make it better?

  126. tessa says:

    @katylostherart:
    It’s not strictly about being polite, it’s about not being sexist towards women 50+ and not being patronizing towards a woman who MAY/MAY NOT be overweight.

    I’m not the polite police, and I don’t care too much about being super-duper polite to people that are crude and discriminatory.

  127. tessa says:

    @boss_lady:
    I love Jez! Thanks, you’re too sweet!

    @katylostherart:
    NOWHERE did I comment about the lawsuit/its validity, so do NOT put words in my mouth.

    I just said calling her too old/too fat is completely unnecessary.

  128. katylostherart says:

    @tessa: so discussing possible causes for the snappage resulting in her injury that go against YOUR sensibilities/prejudices are unnecessary but you calling people an asshole for it is?

    being patronizing towards a woman who may or may not be fat is exactly what you’re doing. when someone says “hey maybe she was fat” that’s not patronizing, that’s theorizing what the cause of the accident was. you are being patronizing, some people don’t want to think about menopausal women in thongs, some people are saying, hey maybe she stretched it too far cuz the garment was too small.

    pot kettle? calling someone an asshole is crude, and doing it because their thoughts don’t line up with yours is discriminatory.

  129. gemini48 says:

    Oh, I just can’t wait to hear Leno and Letterman talk about this one tonight!
    Yep, should be good fodder for them all!!

  130. DallasPath says:

    Well, if this was not the first time she wore the underwear and they had been laundered in a manner not recommended by Victoria’s Secret, then metal crap might fall off. I’m willing to bet she didn’t hand wash these as is probably recommended. I’m pretty sure metal fripperies aren’t going to stay secure in a washing machine.

    I tried to look on the Victoria’s Secret website to see if I could find said v-string according to the style number listed in the court papers (Style 1343) but no luck. A search for sexy little thing on the VS website has left my eyes burning. Do people actually wear this crap? And who wants metal or beads or anything on their underwear? Isn’t it uncomfortable when you sit down?

    And corneal damage causing her to miss work? Slap on an eye patch, get a parrot, become a pirate!

  131. tessa says:

    @katylostherart
    The thing is, people weren’t discussing possible reasons: they said she didn’t have whore insurance, they said she was too old, they said “ew.”

    Like I said before, no one said “hey, maybe she was too large” in a way that was sensible. People were rude and sexist.

  132. tessa says:

    @katylostherart:
    And the fact that some people don’t want to think about menopausal women in thongs is moot because if they didn’t want to think about it, why would they take the time to comment on a post regarding that subject? If they didn’t want to think about it, why not click on the post and say oh, I don’t want to think about it-commenting would cause them to think about it MORE.

  133. boss_lady says:

    @katylostherart: There’s a difference between being blatantly rude, ageist, andsexist, and discrimination. For example, I could easily categorize you as, well, unintelligent because you don’t know how to begin your sentences with capital letters, but instead, I give you the benefit of the doubt and leave other options open (you’re too lazy, you don’t have a caps lock or shift key on your keyboard, etc.).

  134. itsunbelievable says:

    I don’t care is she is fat or thin, old or young, she can be a supermodel for all I care. The thing is that it is people like her the are ruining this country with frivolous lawsuits. Suing for over 25k, there is no way she lost that much in wages for a few days and she has insurance to cover the injury, if there was one. I will be sick if this doesn’t get thrown out of court. I hope that they doen’t even refund her the cost of the panties!

  135. Shaneniganz says:

    I would like to know WTF ever happened to being able to discuss something with out the frigging P.C. police invading? If people wish to speculate on whether the woman was small, medium, large, or fucking gargantuan, let them speculate. If people wish to theorize about what position she was in while attempting to don the garment, they can. Frankly I have found the majority of the comments, speculations and theories quite hilarious. If something offends someone, here’s an idea, DON’T LOOK ANYMORE! Oh, before I forget, a word of advice to boss_lady. When you attempt to make an example of someone by pointing out their grammatical and punctuational errors, try to make sure your statement doesn’t have any!

  136. lizzybee says:

    @Rectilinear Propagation: Of course, because age = glue, and the older it is, the weaker the adhesion is. Because the younger you are, the likelier it is that defective metal shards on underwear will stay attached.

  137. vatica40 says:

    I have a feeling some are jealous because their significant other wouldn’t wear anything like this for them :p

  138. relax_guy says:

    sounds like a freak accident.

  139. pigeonpenelope says:

    ahhh she’s a Los Angeles woman. that explains the vickie’s thong and the frivolous lawsuit.

    in my opinion, the lawsuit is a joke. if she has poor judgement, when buying a pair of underwear, as to the quality of the piece, vickie’s cannot be blamed. there are far more important things for the courts to be doing than handling a complaint about panties.

  140. pigeonpenelope says:

    @Shaneniganz: i agree. there’s nothing wrong with having a pc perspective and having a respectful discussion with someone who disagrees but when a pc-minded person attempts to enforce their beliefs on others, they then become un-pc and close the minds of others around them.

  141. tessa says:

    @Shaneniganz:
    Um, we’re not the PC police. But when people make comments and say that women over 50 can’t be sexy or say something like “eww,” I’m gunna say something about it, and that’s my right. And ignoring offensive stuff will not make it go away- problems get fixed by acknowledging them, but I’ll let the someone like Barack Obama know that if he doesn’t like the war, he should just quit talking about it! Then it will go away and everything will be fine! NEWS FLASH: that has never, ever worked. Sexism and ageism won’t be cured by ignoring it- and that means I’m gunna say something about it, even if its somewhere as silly as an internet forum.

    @pigeonpenelope:
    I’m not gunna let comments like “I’m gunna be sick” or “Is 52 her age or waist size” go without saying something. I’m not forcing my beliefs on ANYONE- I’m letting them know its discriminatory. And I won’t stop.

  142. tessa says:

    @Shaneniganz:
    PS, according to your logic, if you don’t like something I said, shouldn’t you just “NOT LOOK ANYMORE?”

  143. Plankton420 says:

    Aw man… Where was a case like that when I was last serving jury duty!? Darn!

  144. stevejust says:

    If the attorney can’t get the “Limited Brands dba Victoria’s Secret” part correct, this suit doesn’t have a chance.

    Basically, there are two kinds of defects you can argue: 1) DESIGN DEFECT, i.e., the product was designed defectively independent of how it was made and/or 2) MANUFACTURING DEFECT, i.e., there’s nothing wrong with the design, but it was made so poorly that it caused an injury. The biggest problem for the woman is that the injury has to be reasonably foreseeable, and we all know no jury on the planet is going to say that this is a reasonably foreseeable injury.

    If this case were ever to have had a chance, it would have been to concentrate on the MANUFACTURING DEFECT: that the metal piece was sewed on so poorly that it was the proximate cause of the eye injury (Note to plaintiff’s attorney: add as a DOE defendant the Indonesian sweatshop where the 12-year-old girl sewing the panties was getting 45 cents a day and no bathroom breaks?)

    But corneas heal, and I can’t imagine actual damages exceeding the cost of having a defense attorney read the form pleading the case was filed on. This case will be on the front page of the Stella Awards website for a while, and then fade into obscurity.

  145. Shaneniganz says:

    Tessa, you are not employing common sense and logic and you are also obviously very paranoid. I do not recall anywhere in my previous post where I specifically targeted you by name, how kind of you to target me by name. There are things that one should not ignore, oh let’s say for example…rapists, murderers, child abusers/molesters, get the idea? And then there are things like this, YOU CHOSE to read the article, you CHOSE to read the comments, and you CHOSE to react in the way that you did, targeting people for things you found offensive and foisting your opine on them. Here’s an idea, pick your battles better. An article like this, which is humorous whether intended that way or not, that stirs a reaction such as this one is not a battle that you will win. The simple fact is the journalist who reported the story was doing his job, stating the facts as he knew them. He may not have known if she was large or how attractive or sexy she was, but he did know her age, so he reported it. And while there is quite a lot of speculation going on as to the woman’s appearance, I think most everyone will agree that the main intention of the article is to report a frivolous lawsuit, even if it was presented in a funny tone.
    As far as the war goes, you really do not want to open that particular can of worms with me my dear. My husband has been over there for 2 years now, so I well know it is not going to “go away” for a variety of reasons. However I will not discuss those reasons here as the war or Barack Obama does not pertain to this article or this discussion.

  146. newfenoix says:

    @Angryrider: Why don’t you take a flying leap sonny.

  147. Meathamper says:

    What the fuck is a 52 year old woman doing in Victoria’s Secret?

  148. newfenoix says:

    @itsunbelievable: I agree. The lawsuit itself is stupid.

  149. Clobberella says:

    @Shaneniganz: You plucked the words right out of my brain, albeit much more articulately than I would have put them. You can probably blame Jezebel for the invasion of this thread by the PC Police; they posted this article in response to the comments here, saying:

    “Basically, everyone at Consumerist seemed to be operating under the assumption that:

    52 is old,
    Macrida Patterson is overweight,
    Old, overweight women shouldn’t wear thongs, and
    Old, overweight women cannot be sexy.”

    This is what happens when you anger the Jezebel hive mind. I like reading a lot of their articles but their commenters all sound just like this, which is why I never have and never will comment over there. There was a recent commenter shitstorm because one of the editors or interns or something had the audacity to say that some celebrity was “not that pretty” and one of the editors had to post an apology to calm the pitchfork-wielding masses. Which wasn’t even good enough for some of them.

    The point being, you just can’t reason with some people.

    Also, this lawsuit is ridiculous.

  150. KarmaChameleon says:

    @michaelleung: Presumably buying underwear?

    Last time I checked, that’s what they sold there.

  151. Shaneniganz says:

    @Clobberella: Thank you, and I went and peered at the Jezebel response article. After reading the article, the comments about it and perusing more of the site’s articles, I have to agree with you about liking some of the articles but will not comment there. I also noticed there is quite a bit of hypocrisy with some of the comments. I find it funny that people will bash someone about something, when they themselves have commited the same bash-worthy “crime”

  152. katylostherart says:

    @Clobberella: just thinking about “ageism” makes me wonder, who the hell considers 52 young? it’s at best middle aged. on average, it’s about 70% through an american life span. seriously, that IS old, it’s just probably not geriatric.

    @Shaneniganz: well said.

    @tessa: “offensive” is a subjective description. so choosing to battle “offensive” opinions and statements is a battle where everyone is alone on their own team in the long run. “attacking” those offensive statements is possibly the worst way to go about convincing someone to agree with you. if you are trying to get someone to see an issue in a different light, perhaps you shouldn’t trumpet your campaign with very overtly insulting terms such as “asshole.” being maligned for a differing opinion is completely different from having an opposing viewpoint stated eloquently in an attempt to refute the opinion.

    ps – my mother’s 52, my boss is 52, so guess who i pictured in a thong when i read the age of this lady? the human mind goes towards familiar references when presented with any given set of facts. we’re sensual, tactile, visual creatures with pretty fantastic imaginations.

    i am allowed to be skeeved out by the image of a 52 year old woman in a thong. i don’t track celebrity lives to know offhand which of them are in their 50s and looking oh so glorious in their golden years. if celebrities are your familiar references well then more power to you for picturing madonna or whatever in her underwear instead of the closest personal reference in that age group.

    if you’re 52 and pissed off that people think that’s old, you should probably come to terms with the fact that you’re not getting any younger. none of us are. and someone will always be younger and older than you. ageism my butt. this isn’t a job interview, it’s a lady who snapped an elastic band on lingerie and wants money thrown at her booboo.

  153. RudyWaltz says:

    @Clobberella: @Shaneniganz: You know, I know not many people will be reading this because it’s been so long, and that’s probably a good thing because this thread doesn’t need anymore attention.

    I wasn’t going to say anything because arguing on Consumerist is like talking to a wall, but your editor Alex suggested on Jezebel that if we (i.e. all of those people who commented that we hate Consumerist comments) want to improve discourse, which he acknowledges needs to be improved, we should feel welcome to contribute.

    Anyway, I don’t think we’re being “drones” about this. What is at hand here, and what was at hand when an editor at Jezebel made a remark about a celebrity’s appearance, is that women have been consistently and maliciously judged by appearance time and again. Example: probably two of the most influential, intelligent, and proactive women today are Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. How are they discussed? In the context of their suits and their dresses, the bags under their eyes and their toned arms.

    Shit like that is insane. It’s insane that we pretend sexism doesn’t exist when people make the blatantly sexist jokes that appeared in this thread. Or when people make comments about how women are idiots for running out of gas and need to be slapped. Or when they say that a pregnant woman without health insurance needs to get an abortion, or marry some dude so her kid can have “a real father.” These comments have all been made on this site. You can say that they were made under the guise of irony, or simple humor, but sexism is sexism is sexism.

    And as for our supposed hypocrisy? Actually, we would never say this type of shit about the woman in this case on Jezebel. There are better methods of discourse than saying “haha you’re fat and old.” We will, however, call you an asshole to your face if you say something offensive, unfunny, and stupid.

  154. SacraBos says:

    @tessa: Oh tessa. You are correct that there are several ugly comments about age and size here that are totally uncalled for. However, I didn’t make ugly comments about her age unbecoming wearing a thong, and nothing about her size. I do think that a 52 year old woman getting an injury from a piece of clothing typically worn on the opposite end of the torso to be… incredulous. A man getting similarly injured would almost be expected and end up on YouTube rather than a courtroom.

    But come on. Boys will be boys, and if you mention something about a woman and a thong, you KNOW there will questions asked about her age. So her age is at least newsworthy, since lots of people will want to know. That is why it’s important for the article.

    I’m curious as to why they refuse to allow VS to examine the alleged failed underwear. But that will get taken care of in discovery.

  155. Shaneniganz says:

    @RudyWaltz: So, if I were to say, do as others did on the Jezebel post and state my 50+ yr old mom is hot, that is okay with you? Seems kinda sexist to me. And also to describe my undergarment wearing habits or lack of such garments and how such habits contributed to my having or not having certain infections, that is okay by your standards? Or let’s see, I can just call people who say things that offend me profane names, and by your own statement, that is most certainly okay. But by your standards, to see the humor in a situation as is the wont of ALL human nature, is wrong. You say one thing but your actions contradict your statements, the statements of your co-commentors on the aforementioned post contradict you as well. Something you may wish to think about, as someone else(katylostherart) has already mentioned, ‘”attacking” those offensive statements is possibly the worst way to go about convincing someone to agree with you. if you are trying to get someone to see an issue in a different light, perhaps you shouldn’t trumpet your campaign with very overtly insulting terms such as “asshole.” ‘ At least if you insist on being so uptight about things and bashing people for seeing the lighter, laughable side of life, do it without resorting to profanity. When you resort to profanity, it really just kind of negates the message you are trying to send.

  156. Rusted says:

    An eye injury serious enough to send her to the hospital is no small thing. It is humorous in the incident but the aftermath? I almost lost my left eye last year due to an idiotic maneuver with a bungee cord. Not laughing, definitely not laughing.

  157. Lambasted says:

    @alphafemale:
    @serreca:
    @tessa:

    I am a woman and my first reaction was, “What in the world was she doing putting on a thong at her age?”

    You cannot deny that there are age appropriate clothing. It is just odd for a 52 year-old woman to be in a thong. Just as it would be odd for a 50 year-old woman to be in a plaid mini skirt, bobby socks, and saddle shoes (Porn stars excluded). It would be odd for a 65 year-old man to be seen prancing around in a speedo (Europeans excluded).
    Do I want to see Granny in a tube top? No! Do I want to see Gramps hanging with the homies in jeans hanging down past his butt? Good god no! He would look like a fool.

    Are there exceptions to this? Yes. Are there hot, sexy 50 and 60 year-olds? Yes!! (Captain Picard = yummy) (Sofia Loren = divine)

    However, for the most part, the average American is typically one big sloppy mess–and it only gets worse with age. Majority of American women don’t look like Michelle Pfeiffer neither at 53 nor did they at 33. They look more like Dame Judi Densch–who is in her 50′s and also inspires my gag reflex when I think of her in a thong. The thing is most women of any age don’t look good in a thong, let alone a woman of more advanced years.

    So please don’t take offense to people displaying a natural “Ugh!” reaction. It is not a sexist thing. It is a realist thing. I would have the same reaction if the story read, “Jack Nicholson injured while putting on his Fruit of the Loom Bikini Briefs.” That visualization alone is enough for me to hurl myself off of a bridge.

  158. RudyWaltz says:

    @Shaneniganz: I’m pretty sure you didn’t actually read anything I wrote because that’s all explained in my original post. So whatever, done with you.

  159. hexychick says:

    @luz: and @tessa: thank you! So sick of reading the idiot youth making assumptions based on age. It doesn’t matter what she looks like. There are men who believe it or not, LIKE this stuff on their wives/girlfriends/mistresses no matter what the age or size. I hate the break it to all of you, but Victoria’s Secret does not make clothing above the size of “large” so there’s no way this woman was huge anyway. GET OVER IT.

    That being said, how stupid do you have to be to fling your panties in such a way that you launch pieces of metal across the room or into your own eye? That’s some violent panty usage.

  160. LostAngeles says:

    Did any other woman here immediately think about the labia-wedgie when they said, “Thong Injury?”

    OK, Victoria’s Secret makes fantastic plain panties and plain cotton panties. A pair I had for about 10 years now is finally ripping (These things have always been thrown in the machine on the normal setting as well). I only buy new panties every few years.

    Lace may look hot, but it’s kind of itchy. You only wear lace if you’re expecting that crap to come off in about 4-5 hours.

  161. magilacudy says:

    To be fair, when the eventual “middle-aged guy loses an eye getting smacked in the face with his own bling while attempting to break-dance to 50 Cent” lawsuit comes along, he will be ridiculed just the same.

  162. Clobberella says:

    @hexychick: Isn’t saying “the idiot youth” making assumptions based on age?

  163. ohnoes says:

    Jezebel sucks – those recommending it and screaming about sexism in the comments here should take a look at some of the misandristic crap that’s posted there by those “smart, well-spoken” individuals.

  164. jezebelseven says:

    I think a lot of people in this thread would be quite surprised to take a few sales calls for victoria’s secret– A really decent chunk of the clientèle is in the older demographics.

    Panty lines are just not in fashion, whether you’re 20 or 60. So the idea that older people shouldn’t wear thongs is just ridiculous. And some people just think they’re comfortable– Not my personal style but I am all for what you consider comfortable!

    Also I find it terribly interesting that people seem to think all Victoria’s Secret sells is crotchless panties and cutout bras– I’d make a guess that at least half of our catalogs, if not more, are actually clothing like tops and pants and dresses.

    For what it’s worth there’s no chance it’s the same set pictured here– That does not have any charms, just bows. For the life of me I can’t think of anything in the current Sexy Little Things line that *had* a charm, so this is quite interesting. I wonder how old that thong was, which could account for any loose stitching…