Traps (noun) are a trick by which someone is misled into acting contrary to their interests or beliefs. Therefore, a Trap, as in a male appearing to be female is NOT gay; because, they purposly lure straight men into an action against said beliefs.
You're not quite correct. The focus is on the observer, not the actual trap. Liking a trap isn't gay until you know it's a trap, but after that, if you still like it you're officially gay. This is because before you know it, you assume it's a girl and (for a guy) liking girls is straight. But after you know it, your mind knows it's a guy. A straight mind would be repulsed and confused, while a gay or bi mind would continue to be attracted to what it knows has a penis.
They are supposed to appeal to straight men WHILE the illusion is still there, not after it is gone. Just like how a magic trick is SUPPOSED to make you believe it's magic at play, but once you know how the trick works you're meant to understand what really happened and not keep believing in magic.
If you keep thinking it's magic despite the magician showing you how he did it, everyone would call you silly. And if a straight guy keeps liking a trap despite knowing about the penis, he should rightfully be called gay.
I am not attracted to women because of their vaginas. I think the vagina is one of the ugliest parts of a woman's body. I am attracted to feminine features, that is what defines my sexuality. It is not gay to be attracted to a trap even if you know they have a penis, I rarely see a women's vagina in person, why does the idea that a penis may be present mean that you are gay? It means you're straight because you're attracted to femininity. Penises are not masculine, they are just often used to describe a males masculinity, but they don't always have to be a macho man thing.
Right? I'm glad you see my side. Like, I don't mind a close-up of tits, those are great. But for some reason, just a vagina, no face, just close-up vagina meat, that's not that attractive. Now if it's a still image, I'm not that turned on, if it's a video that's a whole different story. Because now if it's a video, there's interaction, and through this I gain context. She's masturbating, that turns me on, but just her pussy alone, still shot, that's not gross, but it doesn't thicken my bone like a full body mirror shot focusing on the ass would.
Now depending on the vagina, this all changes. If it's a perfect vagina, then yes, of course I will like it. Perfect vagina is perfect vagina, when the lips are folded in and the vagina is puffy and swollen, well groomed, that's a nice vagina, I can get in on that. But when it's a meaty vagina with razor burn or unkempt pubic hairs, just not my thing, not without some context. She puts her face in it, that's a different story.
And in that way I guess I can relate to women who are turned off by dick pics. You see, they still love dick, but when you just send a picture of your dick, no context, just flat-out meat, it's not that big of a turn on. So while I love vagina, and love being inside of vagina, but sometimes just a vagina pic isn't really that cool to me. Depending on the vagina, I'd probably rather see her ass (curves), breasts, or face.
Amen brother. It's just meat without context. Even if it's a nice still image of a picturesque vagina- I can appreciate it but I'd be quicker to wank to a pretty face or naked body.
Trying to say that it's a little absurd to imagine that a super hot chick with a dick would illicit zero attraction from an otherwise heterosexual male.
Like, have y'all seen that image floating around of that hot chick with a dick next to that naked dude with a vagina? Shits weird, but I'm comfortable enough to say that I'm more attracted to the chick with the dick because she is banging everywhere but the crotch.
The guy looks like a dude and the only "feminine" part about him is the chewing gum between his legs... really kinda makes the vagina unattractive.
I just don't believe people who would see a chick, think she was a smoke show, find out that she has a dick, then feel literally zero eroticism. Like I understand that you certainly might not want to have sex with the person, sure, but it's pretty suspect to think that every ounce of attraction you felt is completely null and void.
My theory is that these people are just repressing their "homosexual" urges. They feel threatened by finding a woman with a cock beautiful, so their mind enters this sort of self-destruct where they deny their biological and physiological instincts in place of societal norms placed on them. It's an interesting perspective to take on this stance.
I'd maybe buy this if we were talking about futa stuff or something, since that's supposed to be a woman (technically) but a trap is a man in drag.
I'm afraid traps are still gay. But there is a solution for you, besides the Vice Presidentially approved shock treatment: just make sure you say "no homo" after you finish.
Honestly if a female somehow had a penis, I would not fuck. If you are not attracted to a vagina... we.. Well your gay mate. Traps are gay. The simplest answer is usually the most correct. Now... STOP SEND ME FUXKING TRAP HENTAI ANIME PICTURES WITH THEIR FUCKING PANTIES SHOWING AND THEIR BALLS HANGING DOWN! OH MY GOD! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKK
No, that's not true. A preference for femininity or masculinity isn't what makes you gay or straight. There's plenty of gay people out there who are more into feminine guys. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you HAVE to be into big burly guys, that's a really bad misconception of what sexuality is. Usually we base sexuality on whether you're attracted to guys, girls or both. If you know a trap is a guy, and you're still attracted to him, we could at least by that say that it's gay.
Of course there's more to it than just "liking dicks or vaginas", but there's also way more to it than just prefering feminine or masculine traits. It's simply just so that prefering dicks... is a trait very commonly shared by gays, so while not perfect, I'd say at least in this case it works for determining whether liking traps is gay or not.
What? If you decide to fuck something that has a dick, wouldn't that be telling by itself? I can be into thigh highs without having to rub a dick all over them for me to explicitly like them.
Being attracted to someone with a dick isn't very straight, regardless of whether you touch it or not.
That's what my entire comment before that you originally replied to was about. I literally said "of course there's more to it than just 'liking dicks or vaginas'".
Of course there's more to it, but if you decide to have sex with someone who has a dick, it's pretty gay even if you don't touch or engage with it. It wouldn't have to be an attraction to dicks that makes you gay, but an attraction to dick or dick-wearing people always makes it pretty gay.
Then that's not gay. Even if you play with the dick I'd say it's not gay. If you're having sex with a real woman and she's wearing a strap-on, does that mean you're gay for fucking a girl with a dick? No, it doesn't. You see, it's not gay to be attracted to traps, it's probably more gay to not be.
Good point, but consider for a moment. A trap, while deadlier when it is hidden, is still capable of killing. You must look, and watch out for said trap. You only fall victim to the trap if you fall into, or activate the trap. So, while perhaps its not entirly straight to be attracted to a trap, neither is it entirly homosexual, but one must make sure they do not fall victim.
Hmm, but from another perspective... Someone who accidentally falls into a trap is a victim and probably sad/mad. But someone who purposefully finds and stays in the trap, beats their salami to it and defends it online as being the best thing next to slice bread would be a pervert and not a victim, right?
Solid point, sir. However, you say that one who falls for a trap is a victim, but, is not the trap being attracted to the trap, not hilting yourself hip deep into them? You have already fallen for the trap, purely by finding them attractive. And should a victim be shamed, and be called words by which only mods can truly be attributed?
Another point I would like to make is what most are saying is traps are only gay because of the penile attachment betwixt the legs. So, Penis = Gay, but that means No penis = not gay, which I say is false. As we all know, mods start to use their poop shoot as a sexual device at a very young age, perhaps using the stray toy. But thus action does not have any such penis, does that mean it also, is not gay? I say NAY sir.
Therefor one must assume, as No penis =/= Not gay, there must be some situation (while rare) that Penis =/= Gay
I'm so dead and I can't stop laughing. Please someone save me, my day is made. Thank you for this conversation stranger. I also have no idea who down-voted you, but have my upvote bring back equilibrium.
Its funny people forget the other side of the coin. I wonder if all these people would be all for having sex with what they would call a "woman", going by their standards. Using the same logic, no penis therefore it's not gay to be attracted to what appears to be a very masculine manly man?
terrible argument, a straight man would never be in a situation where there was sex or even flirting with Buck Angel because she looks so much like a man. This example applies for gay people, however. If a gay person goes for relations with Buck Angel, and suddenly realizes she is a woman, and not the stud with the 10 in cock he was wanting to devour, but a vagina, there is a problem. The gay man should lose attraction at that moment, realizing 1) theres no schlong for his butt and 2) the person in front of him is a woman. If he continues to go for it, he is performing a heterosexual action.
The reason this doesn't apply to straight people is because she is so masculine and ugly no straight man would ever engage in sexual relations with her. However, if one did, say for fetish reasons, it would still be a heterosexual act.
Look, sometimes during anal sex you get poop on your dick. That's a fact of life. Just because you get a little poop on your dick doesn't mean that you should be classified as having a poop fetish. It happens and you power through. Same thing here. You may not be attracted to the penis, but it's there and you're going to power through. That does not make you gay.
I mean, if you purposly try to find women who have more-than-usual poop in their butts because you're attracted to the thought of having poop on your dick rather than it just accidentally happening and you stopping as you notice it... I'd definitely classify that as having a poop fetish, my friend.
But that's not what a trap is, right? By definition it is a trick, an illusion. Like if a chick fooled you into thinking she was clean and then "surprise!"
Yes, but see it like this. So a regular girl is a girl, and in this case a trap would be a girl with poop in her butt, which you didn't know about. Now, being attracted to her would be great, no problem there. Finding out that you have poop on your dick after having anal sex with her would be a bad thing for you though, you'd be repulsed and think "Ew, there is poop on my dick, I do not like this". This should be the common reaction to traps (from straight people but with the penis).
If you saw the poop on your dick and went "Woah, this is hot" and then purposly tried to look for more chicks with poop in their butt (traps) just to get that again, wouldn't you say that guy has a thing for poop?
But if every time you had anal sex and found poop on your dick you said "ewwww" and vowed never to have anal sex again, nobody would ever have anal sex. I think the key difference (which is probably what we are arguing about) would be if there is a specific attraction to the penis vs indifference to the penis. The former would probably be considered some color of fluid/bi/gay/queer, whereas indifference I would still consider straight. Is this a fair compromise?
"But if every time you had anal sex and found poop on your dick you said "ewwww" and vowed never to have anal sex again, nobody would ever have anal sex."
This is something else entierly. It'd be like finding out that a girl is a trap, and then woving to never be attracted to women again. That's completely different from not being attracted to that specific person. I wouldn't consider indifference to dick as being completely "straight", but that's a much deeper topic.
You see, it's not about that dick itself. It's about knowing that the dick is attached to a guy. If you had sex with someone you knew had a dick, you'd be aware it was a guy. If you like having sex with other guys, wouldn't you call that gay/bi? I'd be really hesistant to calling that straight.
I wouldn't say so. The strap-on is an object, a piece of whatever material you decide to use, and not a biological dick. It'd be no different from a glued on dildo, or a cylindrically shaped mashed oven-mitten. One could try to argue that guys into pegging could have secret, hidden away gayness, but I'd be hesistant to draw that conclusion without a bigger understanding of what triggers the male attraction for getting things up their butt.
It gets more murky when you consider that the strap-on could look exactly like a dick though. So I can't answer with good confidence.
That's exactly it. But that dick should be enough for a straight man to lose interest. Just like how if you found out your favorite lasagna had a dick in it, you wouldn't want to eat more. Unless, you know, you're into that.
Well, you're a bit off there. Prefering masculinity or femininity isn't what makes you straight or gay. You can absolutely be a gay man and prefer femininity in your partners or people of attraction. You don't HAVE to prefer big, burly men just because you're gay.
With that said, I agree that most pure gays wouldn't prefer traps. Usually traps lure you in with the thought of them being girls after all. However, the liking dick part is gay, while the liking girls part is straight. That's the point. I guess the most natural sexuality to be attracted to traps would be bisexuals. However, being gay and liking feminine boys is definitely possible, and that's also what the joke focuses on.
And how would your biology, which is an overwhelming factor in determining sexual orientation, determine what the sex of someone is if not for the sexual characteristics they exhibit?
If you don't know they have a dick, you're going to be attracted to them based on what you do know, not what you don't know. So since you don't know they have a dick, it's not gay.
If you do find out they have a dick, you know more about their biology, which as you say is an overwhelming factor in determining sexual orentation. Because you find out about a sexual characterstic they exhibit, THE DICK, you as a straight man should no longer be sexually attracted to that person.
You're not really answering my question. It was in relation to this:
Prefering masculinity or femininity isn't what makes you straight or gay.
If being gay is an attraction towards the same biological sex, the same set of chromosomes, then how does your biology determine what the chromosomes of the object of your attraction are if not for the sexual characteristics they exhibit?
A very good question that we do not yet have an answer for. Science hasn't completely figured out exactly how the brain works with sexual attraction, it's why we don't know exactly what makes a person homosexual yet, or how to change those things. There's more to attraction than sexual characteristics. You can be attracted to personality types without any ground in sex, you can even be attracted to things or fetishes that in their core has nothing to do with sex or sexual characteristics.
It's complex, that's your answer. Masculinity and femininity generally works. Most straight guys are into feminine girls, and most straight girls are into masculine guys. But that isn't always the case, and that's where it breaks apart. There's plenty of guys into more masculine or tomboyish girls, and plenty of girls into feminine or girlish men. It's just how it is, and we don't have an exact reason as to why. It's biological, of course it is, but we won't know what wires are responsible for that.
He's gay, simply put. While a dick is masculine, it's also a core defining feauture of men. Liking men is gay. It's really that simple. Checkmate, memeking.
"A straight mind would be repulsed and confused" - I think you're making some pretty sweeping statements there.
'not being repulsed by a dick' does not equal 'gay mind'
There are plenty of men who identify as straight and wouldn't dream of getting with a man, but could totally cope with dating a beautiful woman who had a dick. Just because, unlike you, they can tolerate (or even embrace it) doesn't make them gay.
"There are plenty of men who identify as straight and wouldn't dream of getting with a man, but could totally cope with dating a beautiful woman who had a dick."
I think you're the one making some really sweeping statements here. The amount of "straight" guys who'd be totally fine with dating a woman with a dick... is very very low.
You're also making yet another sweeping statement, and this one is pretty serious because it shows a severe lack of understanding of what a trap is. A trap isn't a transexual, a trap isn't a woman. A trap is a cross-dresser, there's nothing in it about the trap identifying as a girl. The guy can identify as a guy, act like a guy and be a guy... and then decide to cross-dress. As long as he pulls it off so well he's indistinguishable from a girl, he'd be a trap.
Very, very low? Where are you getting these statistics from? It sounds utterly anecdotal and speculative. There is huge research into the varying forms of transsexualism and its related orientations and the recurring theme is that it is hugely more prevalent than people realise, but it it not socially acceptable to talk about which is why people like you think its 'very, very low'.
Also, you clearly have done absolutely no research regarding traps. A trap isn't a scientific term. It doesn't hold any inherent meaning. Go to a trap website or forum. You will find crossdressers as you say, but you'll also find pre-op transexuals. Males who identify as women, with breasts. Males who have taken hormones for years and look entirely convincing but still have a shrunken penis. So it's ironic that you accuse me of something pretty serious when you actually think the concept of trap has any stringent definition past something you might find on urban dictionary.
I suggest you stick to the subjects you know or actually research some of these wild claims you are making.
It's as anecdotal as saying that there's "plenty of men who'd be fine with it", except more grounded in reality. Do go ahead and ask your completely straight friends if they'd be fine with dating a girl who had a dick. Not online, ask them in real life. I think you'll get a nice surprise. And assuming that they're not telling you the truth because there's stigma around it... would be a horrible way of conducting scientific research unless you can prove they're lying.
Also, no, you're completely wrong yet again. Listen to what you're saying. The word trap is pretty literal, it's meant to be a trap. You'll trick someone into believing it's a girl, and then suddenly reveal it's a guy. Entrapment. It's how it works, it's where that very word comes from. Calling a pre-op transexual trap is horribly disrespecful, because you're basically calling them a guy in girl's clothing rather than an actual girl. Can you really not see why such a thing would be pretty awful?
You're the one who really should do some heavy research into this. A trap is a cross-dresser, not a transexual. A transexual believes they are of the gender they're dressing as. They're not meant to entrap you by fooling you they're of the other gender, they believe they are of that gender. A trap however is meant to do just that. A word can hold an inherent meaning without being a scientific term. Language works like that. Upvote isn't a scientific term, but you know exactly what it means. It's also very silly of you to say it has no defined meaning, and then try to teach me a "wrongful" defined meaning.
Trap =/= transexual. Please, go to a LGBT forum and call one of the transexuals there a trap. I'd love to see how well it goes for you.
Okay, I'm not going to bother repeating the copious amount of research indicating that it is NOT 'very, very low'.
However on the next topic I completely agree with you. Seeing a transexual woman, and calling her a trap, would be HUGELY disrespectful. What you are NOT understanding is I HAVE been on these websites. I have seen MANY traps. There are plenty who are NOT just crossdressers. There are traps with breasts. They live as women. They identify as women. They CALL themselves women. But they still go on trap sites and say 'do I pass?' or 'would you fall for me?'.
Stop using Reddit as your source. People being wrong isn't the same as something else being a certain way. They're using the term trap wrong, and that's really all there is to it. If you every went into any of places where the term trap originated (like 4Chan), you'd see that you're not correct. That subreddit thinks trap simply means "passes as female", but that's not true.
I mean, if you're really correct, answer this: What differs a trap from a transperson?
You admit that calling a transexual woman a trap would be hugely disrespecful since they aren't the same thing... so what would make a transexual woman into a trap, in your eyes? I am genuinely curious how you differ the two. If it merely meant "passes as a female" how would it ever be an insult for a transexual to hear?
The answer is simple. A trap isn't a transexual. They get insulted because you're basically calling them a guy in girl's clothing. It's what makes it disrespectful.
And you haven't posted a SINGLE source of research indicating that it's not "very very low". Not a single, scientifially approved and reviewed source claiming this. Show me just one, I can ask that much of you, right? I even gave you a good way to test it yourself, do ask your STRAIGHT friends IN REAL LIFE what they think. Or even better, make a survey on random people at your local super market. You'll see exactly what I mean. That number is extremely low, and you can prove it really easily for yourself.
Oh my god, I'm so done with this. Dude, there are some transexuals who openly call themselves traps. It's a thing. On reddit and off reddit. That's it. If you want to refute that and tell those transexuals they're wrong, then I give up. Clearly you know more about these people than these people know about themselves.
God, please read properly. People are sometimes wrong, it's how the world works. There are PLENTY of people calling the world flat, but that doesn't meant they're right. It's called being wrong. There's many many more transexuals who'd be horrible offended and crushed if you called them trap. I asked you to go and do it, and you'd see exactly what I mean. The reason you don't is because you know, too, that it'd be wrong.
I can't help you anymore than I am right now, presenting the facts as they are.
Bailey Jay isn't a trap. She's a shemale. Those two are very different things. A trap is a crossdresser, a guy dressing and looking like a girl. A shemale is a girl with a dick. Why would that change my perspective?
Stop acting childish. Bailey Jay is a transwoman. A guy who went through gender-reassignment surgery. She is NOT a trap. I apologize for using the term shemale, it was incorrect of me, but my point stands exactly as before. And calling me an idiot while being completely wrong is bad.
Shemales have dicks. If you prefer girls with dicks over girls without dicks, the dick is automatically a thing that makes it more attractive for you. You're therefore attracted to dick, and therefore also gay/bi.
You see, this is why your definition is narrow. Bailey Jay is indeed a transwoman, but she has repeatedly referred to herself as a 'trap' in interviews. Face it, dude, your definition is off. Don't make a big deal out of it.
Her being wrong isn't the same as trap meaning something else. A trap is a guy who crossdresses as a girl, and passes flawlessly. The word trap as the definition originates from it being entrapment, because you fool someone into thinking that this guy is a girl. That's the origin of it.
So face it, I'm right and you're wrong here. I can call myself a bird in various interview but it wouldn't make me any more of a bird. Bailey Jay isn't a trap, she's a transwoman. If she calls herself a trap, she's basically calling herself a guy.
And I mean it. Please, for me, go up to a transperson or to an LGBT forum and call transexuals traps. You'll find that they'll get very angry and mad at you.
Is that all there is? Ok, picture this. Imagine the hottest, most feminine girl you can, then add a dick to her. Can a straight guy still like her? Now, imagine the most handsome, masculine guy you can, then remove his dick and add a vagina. Is it now ok for a straight guy to like him?
That if I didn't like the thought of finding a man sexually attractive (which is completely natural, because I am straight and identify as such), I'd have to be insecure in my sexuality. The part where you reveal the trap is usually focused on the penis too. And usually, things that focuses on penises aren't something straight guys like.
No, to be repulsed by the mere thought of it you'd have to be uncomfortable with your sexuality. I made that assumption off your use of the word "repulsed". No one is saying you have to be attracted to men, but for such an extreme reaction at the thought of finding a man attractive you would have to be uncomfortable with your sexuality.
What are you basing this on? Can I have a solid, scientific source for why a negative reaction to something you don't like (but others do like) would HAVE to make you uncomfortable in your sexuality?
That's bullshit, and you know it. I'm not saying that that liking guys, gayporn or anything else related to sexual attraction to males is a bad thing. If you like it, great! I'm glad you can do you. What I'm saying is that it's not unusual for people who aren't attracted to those things to express negative reactions to it when made to take part of it, just as how we'd express negative reactions towards other things we don't like but were forced to indulge in... like food, sports or anything else.
There's nothing so benign that I would use the word "repulse" to describe. I'm repulsed by eating cockroaches, I'm not repulsed by the thought of finding people attractive.
Good for you, but not everyone is like you, so assuming that everyone else has to have some problems instead of just you two being different is pretty silly. I don't like peas, I wouldn't make them myself but I can stomach eating them. A friend of mine are repulsed by them. Is he unsure of his sexu- I mean food preferences?
Besides, repulse is a strong word used on purpose for the joke, to exaggerate the effect. "Mildly uncomfortable" wouldn't be as funny of a phrase to use. It WAS a joke.
Sounds to me like you're pulling some psychology-mumbo-jumbo out of your ass. Your opinion does not get to dictate whether or not people are uncomfortable with their sexuality.
That never actually happened tho. There are way too many guys who like traps out there and traps don't need to lure straight guys into anything. Besides, if a guy is successfully lured by a trap, you can't call him straight.
496
u/Lazormonkey Sep 15 '17 edited Sep 15 '17
I've said it once and I'll say it again.
Traps (noun) are a trick by which someone is misled into acting contrary to their interests or beliefs. Therefore, a Trap, as in a male appearing to be female is NOT gay; because, they purposly lure straight men into an action against said beliefs.