I hear you. But what if the same burden of proof were required of innocence that we require of guilt? Not as legally actionable, but just to better illustrate the implicit double standard — and its legal vacuity. As I said in the article, my point isn’t whether or not the defendant is guilty. My point is that underwear has nothing to do with anything. And has no place in the courtroom unless this were a murder trial and someone used underwear to asphyxiate the victim. Then it’s the murder weapon and there might be reason to hold it up for all to see? But a lace-front thong no more proves consent than silk boxers would prove intent. What if the prosecution held up the defendant’s underwear for the jury? “Ladies and Gentlemen, as you can clearly see, the defendant was wearing brand new junk-hugging boxer briefs. He obviously had sexual intentions for the victim when he was getting dressed.” Women aren’t obliged to wear granny panties or chastity belts to prevent rape any more than men are obliged to wear tighty whiteys (whities?) to prove that they’re not rapists. This stunt was a perfect, though Puritanically outdated, example of exploiting the court of (slut-shaming) public opinion versus exercising actual legal rigor. Society and the law need to be way beyond the “look how she was dressed” rhetoric in he said/she said cases.