GirlChat #504029
Re: Begging the question
Posted by Lateralus on 2010-June-11 16:15:45 EDT, Friday
In reply to Begging the question posted by Dante on 2010-June-11 07:28:40 EDT, Friday
I would say that's a high estimate. Even dyed-in-the-wool gays don't seem to go higher than 3% according to the best studies, and I can't see how we would be higher than that, even taking into account BLers and GLers as a whole. I would be surprised if the numbers of exclusive MAPs reached 1%, though even that is quite a lot if you think about it. As for "blendeds," I'd say probably most people have had at least some attraction to a child at some point in their lives. In fact, I believe their repulsion to their own occasional attractions or feelings (overcompensation) is partly responsible for the moral panic surrounding pedophilia.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- I can
- qtns2di4 on 2010-June-12 08:13:33 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 6)
- Re: I can
- Lateralus on 2010-June-12 18:03:04 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 5)
- Does Evolution give a fuck? - Sigma on 2010-June-12 21:59:27 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Re: Does Evolution give a fuck? - Lateralus on 2010-June-13 16:58:41 EDT, Sunday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Re: I can - qtns2di4 on 2010-June-12 20:47:35 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Is pedophilia a viable reporoductive strategy? - Hen-Wen on 2010-June-12 20:24:45 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Re: Is pedophilia a viable reporoductive strategy? - Lateralus on 2010-June-12 20:36:38 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Does Evolution give a fuck? - Sigma on 2010-June-12 21:59:27 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Re: I can
- Lateralus on 2010-June-12 18:03:04 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 5)
- Re: Begging the question - Discerner on 2010-June-11 18:48:14 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 9)
- Re: Begging the question - Lateralus on 2010-June-11 19:17:33 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 8)
- Non-blood-related - Dante on 2010-June-11 19:38:55 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 7)
- Re: Non-blood-related - Lateralus on 2010-June-11 21:23:47 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 6)
- Incorrect - Dissident on 2010-June-12 08:34:29 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 3)
- Mischaracterization - Lateralus on 2010-June-12 17:52:23 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- You should have been more clear... - Dissident on 2010-June-13 14:57:38 EDT, Sunday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- I thought it was obvious, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-June-13 18:04:37 EDT, Sunday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- You should have been more clear... - Dissident on 2010-June-13 14:57:38 EDT, Sunday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Mischaracterization - Lateralus on 2010-June-12 17:52:23 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- I'd like to see some unbiased statistics - Discerner on 2010-June-12 01:19:50 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Oh but there are - qtns2di4 on 2010-June-12 08:07:02 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Incorrect - Dissident on 2010-June-12 08:34:29 EDT, Saturday - (1 / 0 / 3)
- Re: Non-blood-related - Lateralus on 2010-June-11 21:23:47 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 6)
- Non-blood-related - Dante on 2010-June-11 19:38:55 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 7)
- Re: Begging the question - Lateralus on 2010-June-11 19:17:33 EDT, Friday - (1 / 0 / 8)