>>282219646
There is enough room to be agnostic on the issue if you’d like. Stocking’s virginity falls under the “presumption” of innocence standard, it can’t be proven either way.

>>282211360
>Fact number 1: Stocking isn’t a virgin
Proof?

>>282191053
You’re not intellectually equipped to handle this conversation, or you’re pretending not to be. Really slow now:
>“Might” be telling the truth
Means…? What falls outside of that?
>Disprove her words
I haven’t made a positive claim, the burden is not on me to “prove” anything (pic related).
You’ve said it yourself, her words are “plausibly true” (not definitely true) and thus are “plausibly false”. If the only evidence you have is “plausibly false”, then she’s innocent until PROVEN guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt, your burden as the one making a positive claim).
If you would like to amend your position from “she has definitely had sex” to “she may have had sex” or “I headcanon her as someone who has sex”, then okay, different ballgame.

>>282178462
Oh no it’s retarded