Mock A Woman For Her Crimes Against Fashion, Not Her Age or Her Ass

Yesterday, our sister site Consumerist published an article about a lawsuit filed against Victoria's Secret by Macrida Patterson, 52, of Los Angeles. The suit alleges that while Ms. Patterson was attempting to try on a v-string from the "Sexy Little Thing" line, a decorative piece flew off and hit her in the eye causing some damage. A perusal of the collection showed me that the only v-string with eye-injuring decoration (heh) was this bedazzled monstrosity. A perusal of Consumerist's comments (urged on by a reader) hurt my eyes worse, though.

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

  1. 52 is old,
  2. Macrida Patterson is overweight,
  3. Old, overweight women shouldn't wear thongs, and
  4. Old, overweight women cannot be sexy.
Examples below:

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

"Whale tail meets Cougar."

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

"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?"

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

"I think by the age of 40, people should realize they aren't in their 20s."

"can you sue someone for product failure if the size of your ass was really the culprit?"

"Please...I'm injured for life thinking about a 52 year old putting that thing on."</blockquote

Look, I'll be the first to admit: a woman who would buy this thong ought to be mocked for buying this thong. But comments about her ass and her age? Not cool.

Woman Sues Victoria's Secret Because Of Thong Injury [Consumerist]

Dinged By A G-String? [Smoking Gun]