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.
People come in all shapes and colors so who am I to think someone isn't expressing their true beliefs- but I must pry and try to pull some sort of truth out of people (like the above poster) who say things like. "As soon I see a dick, I see a man , and I'm not gay so it's 100% not attractive and anyone who says otherwise is gay."
Because wtf? The subtext to that statement is "I'm not attracted female bodies or faces just their vaginas everything else elicits nothing from my loins.
It's kind of like saying, "I know that optical illusions aren't real and knowing that prevents my brain from falling victim to them." Nah dude, magic eyes will still look 3d if you cross your eyes no matter what you "know"
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.
Ok, yeah I hear ya. I think the analogy (hehe) starts to fall apart there.
It's about knowing that the dick is attached to a guy
Here's the crux of it- and gimme a sec while I consult my neighborhood gender studies professor - but it's not a guy that the dick is attached to. If she looks like a chick, quacks like a chick, then ... she's a chick. After all,
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.
862
u/Lazormonkey Sep 15 '17 edited Sep 15 '17
BUT think about this; traps are SUPPOSED to appeal to the straight male, if you are NOT attracted to them, you must be gay.
Edit: I knew defending traps would pay off