When Thongs Attack

You may have seen this in the news the last couple of days: a Los Angeles Department of Transportation traffic officer is suing Victoria’s Secret for selling defective women’s underwear. She claims that a defective metal piece flew off the thong and hit her in the eye, damaging her cornea.

Ummmm… besides this being an obviously trivial lawsuit, I have a few issues with the whole thing:

First of all, NBC actually showed the offending lingerie during an interview with the plaintiff. When I saw the panties themselves, I realized that the metal trim piece would locate itself somewhere around half-way between her spine and the curve of her waist, at least some 70 degrees — and almost 2 feet — away from her eye.

So if it snapped when she was wearing it, she would have had to be standing behind herself: the clip, since the tension would be forcing it away from her body almost perpendicular to her body, would shoot out, not up. No way that thing clips her eye.

Else, she was turning around looking at her behind in the mirror (making sure it didn’t look fat), and it flew upward. However, it would not fly upward with anywhere near the force required to damage her cornea, considering the aforementioned stress on the garment.

Bouncing off the mirror doesn’t work, either: it would lose approximately half of its velocity in the carom.

The only other method I could see this happening is in the act of donning the garment. Where’s the stretch to snap it — until it gets around your butt?

The only way that decorative trim could fly that far that fast would be if the garment was stretched to its limit — meaning that it would have been about 3 sizes too small for her — which would not be in accordance with the “used in the manner intended” ascribed in the lawsuit. Either that, or she got her foot caught in it and stretched the hell out of it — which would not be using the product “in the manner [it was] intended” to be used.

Lastly — and this is the damning evidence to me — when something flies toward your eyes, a human’s first reaction is to — what? blink? close your peepers? actually lower the lids over your eyes so something like this won’t happen? I’m sorry, she couldn’t have missed that — even my eyes aren’t that bad!

Obviously, I think she is going after money. The same with her attorney. I saw the interview on NBC this morning, and they lacked specifics, they wouldn’t release the thong for VS’s examination, and were a bit cagey — in my opinion.

So this brings me to another set of points: what is a Los Angeles traffic officer doing wearing a thong in the first place? To remove a panty line from her work trousers? Is she trying to stop traffic or cause an accident? Come on!

And at 52 (I’m not going to ridicule her for wearing a thong at age 52 — that would be plain wrong), you would think she would know better than to expose herself with such a flimsy lawsuit.

And speaking of flimsy: have you seen the companion bra for the thong? Nipple holes?

I wonder if she purchased both pieces on clearance.


  • by Lauren Silva 30 Sep 2008 at 6:44 am

    Wow, this is my first time to actually know something like a lingerie lawsuit. It’s really a peculiar news to me, but I guess we’ll just have to see both sides of the coin as well as the verdict.

  • by Sally 30 Nov 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Ha, this is hilarious. I wonder what the outcome was?

  • by Will 30 Nov 2010 at 7:32 pm

    The case was dismissed with prejudice against the complaintant on 3 March 2009, according to records provided by the Los Angeles Superior Court.

    That means that the case cannot be refiled. They generally do this when there are severe problems with either the complaint itself, or with the complaintant.

Leave a Reply