SHE pulled it from her sleeve like a magician. Waving the thong in front of jury members, defence lawyer Elizabeth O’Connell relied on an old trick. She asked them to consider the underwear.

“You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

In a case at the Central Criminal Court in Cork in Ireland, O’Connell's 27-year-old client was acquitted of raping a teenager, even after a witness saw him on top of her, in the mud, with a hand around her throat.

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?”

The evidence being her underwear. The implication that a woman consents automatically when she gets dressed. The suggestion that you can’t wear a thong and then be sexually assaulted.

Of course, the display worked. Don’t we all know that a lace-fronted thong is international underwear code for “please have sex with me without my consent”? The same goes for underwear with “Little Devil” written on it. Both are an invitation to overlook the wants and desires of the wearer.

In a society wired to exonerate abusers and shame women, of course that’s what they mean. No upstanding citizen can credibly claim ignorance of the cryptography of a lady’s underpinnings, surely…?

READ MORE: Ending rape myths, not corroboration, will improve justice system, says expert 

I, for one, would like some clarification on the specifics of the magical underwear a woman is supposed to wear to stop her from being raped. As far as I’m aware, no-one has ever stated this explicitly, and I’m concerned that I might be telegraphing that I and other unsuspecting women and girls are “open to meeting someone” when we get dressed and leave the house.

Perhaps it’s time underwear came with a safety label. “Warning: this product may put you at risk of sexual assault, and may decrease your credibility in court.” Maybe it’s time pants came with an age restriction. Or, conceivably, all women could sign a waiver at the point of purchase: “The risks include, but are not limited to, non-consensual touching, rape, discredited testimony, shaming, blaming and unethical courtroom theatrics.”

I’m sitting in my living room right now, and across from me is a drying rack teeming with knickers. Which of these do I wear at my own risk? Which of these do I have to assess against my personal safety? Which of these might be pulled out of a solicitors sleeve and used to call me a liar? Some consistent instruction, some quantitative and qualitative proof that pair A is safe and pair B is not, would be immeasurably helpful. I am in the dark, as are many, forced to draw our own potentially incorrect conclusions.

For starters, I don’t own any thongs – but are they inherently problematic? I have several pairs with some cheek coverage, though they’re sheer which is certainly a no-no. I can see pink lace shorts, definitely a safety hazard. There are several pairs of stretchy boy-style shorts, entirely opaque but intrinsically figure-hugging – that has to be bad, surely?

The variables are many. High-waisted, low-rise, high-cut, bikini, cheeky, hipster. Where do I even begin to assess their risk factor? Which are the safest pair of pants to wear?

The last time I checked I didn’t have the rate card that would allow me to do my knicker calculus before I get dressed each day. Lace = bad. Sheer = bad. Too much cheek = entirely-your-own-fault-if-something-happens. God forbid you own a pair with a slogan. Then you might be asked to hold them up and read it aloud to a jury. Like 17-year-old Lindsay Armstrong from New Cumnock, who killed herself three weeks after her rapist’s trial – even though he was found guilty.

All women need to consider their safety and reputation seriously. With this in mind, I suggest they invest in some plain white full briefs, 100% cotton, 100% pure, 100% no funny business. Preferably ones that come up to (and even more desirably) over the bellybutton. Err towards the pants a nun would wear, the pants of a woman who does not consider anything below the waist beyond absolute necessity. In fact, it’s probably advisable to double up, and wear two pairs just in case the message isn’t abundantly clear on the forced removal of the first pair.

OR: We could stop blaming women’s clothes.

We could stop blaming women’s behaviour.

We could stop pretending that anything other than affirmative consent is consent.

When men rape women, they do not use their underwear as a litmus test. They are not resorting to mathematics in lieu of asking for permission. They are not reading her underwear like a tarot spread, trying to divine whether she’s game or not.

When men rape women they are taking what they want, regardless of her feelings, regardless of her clothes regardless of the consequences. Because in courtrooms where her thong is his weapon, he’ll most likely get away with it.