>>30341
You're doing a terrible job pretending the last post didn't affect you emotionally, what with putting half of your post into a analhurt tirade of shitty insults. Did that take you long to write, friend? Was it worth proving you're an insufferable idiot who can't control his temper?
>the site has no credibility because it's literally a collection of random stories that all literally source back to erotica sites like http://www.femmerotic.com, ERP forums, or have no sources at all beyond "i got this from a website that no longer exists."
Attacking the source, I see. Where the posts came from is irrelevant. The credibility in the posts lies in the content, of which the crux of your denial lies, your insistence that these are all fapfics simply because they come from fapfic sites. A fapfic is meant to be fapped to, to be read for entertainment. There is very little erotica in many of these, they are described in events, , much like a greentext post. whether or not the sources still exist, these are messege/communication format writings, very hard to duplicate, especially with the diverse variety in writing styles. In short, these texts came from a third party source, highly unlikely to be fictional.
You have to realise that theres nothing on consensual encounters at all. No research, no studies, no papers, nothing. When your data consists of anecdotes or assumptions/theorys, the anecdotes become the hardest data there is. And with multiple dozen cases, that's a considerable amount, considering the shit the "victim" gets for revealing this, evident by the "I do not support adult child sex" precautions in many of these, and the remarks of the respective users gaining disapproval.
>cry some more for me you pathetic sniveling little faggot. fucking lol.
I can taste the tears in every word.