"What was she wearing" is the bailey, a prepared and easily defended talking point they try to drag everything else towards or retreat to when they're losing grip on the narrative. It's not neurosis but self-serving dishonesty that they constantly try to pretend reasonable questions about the circumstances of an allegation are all just "what was she wearing?".

Really it's not surprising to me they'd keep that con going and extend it to their other cult-y beliefs too, they're so used to forcing that phrase into inapplicable situations they probably don't even bat an eyelid anymore.

"What was she wearing" is the bailey, a prepared and easily defended talking point they try to drag everything else towards or retreat to when they're losing grip on the narrative. It's not neurosis but self-serving dishonesty that they constantly try to pretend reasonable questions about the circumstances of an allegation are all just "what was she wearing?".

Really it's not surprising to me they'd keep that con going and extend it to their other cult-y beliefs too, they're so used to forcing that phrase into inapplicable situations they probably don't even bat an eyelid anymore.

"What was she wearing" is the bailey, a prepared and easily defended talked point they try to drag everything else towards or retreat to when they're losing grip on the narrative. It's not neurosis but self-serving dishonesty that they constantly try to pretend reasonable questions about the circumstances of an allegation are all just "what was she wearing?".

Really it's not surprising to me they'd keep that con going and extend it to their other cult-y beliefs too, they're so used to forcing that phrase into inapplicable situations they probably don't even bat an eyelid anymore.