>>282168037
>Prove she’s lying
The difference between you and me, is I’m not accusing Stocking of anything. My point isn’t that she *is* lying, but that she *could reasonably* be lying, having motive, opportunity, and a pattern of lying under similar circumstances. As this is the *only* canon evidence available for the accusing party, and it isn’t proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), or even particularly compelling evidence given the standards of this show (every other main character having sex on screen canonically), the presumption of innocence applies to the statement “Stocking is not a virgin”. If you would like to adjust your position to “Stocking may not be a virgin”, your burden of proof would be far less severe, though it would still be flimsy headcanon on your part.
