Something that has commanded a great deal of my thought as of late has been the question on the sexual nature of those men who choose to imitate women- that is, if it would be indicative of homosexuality for a male to feel sexual attraction towards someone with many of the aesthetic qualities of a female, including mannerism both physical and emotional, dress, and so on, but who was in actuality a biological male, this lattermost fact being known to both parties. This has nothing to do with transvestitism or whatever queer (no pun intended) word is used for the filth the anti-American, anti-Christian bourgeoise cosmopolitan elite are pushing on children in the modern day, but rather, a phenomenon largely resultant from Western exposure to Japanese culture where young men simply choose to sexually act as women in a way somewhat indescribably but inarguably different from “traditional” versions of the thing, such as drag queens and simple flaming homosexuals. I must admit I know little about traps as a whole- my n for interacting with traps has been quite small, and I don’t hope to extrapolate much definite data from those few I has spoken to or know, but there are definite separable differences, most notably that traps generally recognize that they are not actually female, and that a surprising number ascribe to authoritarian, hardline, esoteric or right-wing ideologies.
Now, long has the question been asked if traps are gay, and generally it’s been whimsical, with no one seriously considering or caring about the answer. This has often been used as a catch-all question, and I often see people arguing on multiple levels to discuss the sexual nature of traps, without recognizing the distinction between what their positions address. Generally, there are two things that are debated when this is discussed- there is the aesthetic question of whether traps are gay, and the moral question on whether they are gay. However, rarely is a distinction drawn between these two things, so you will have one side rightfully arguing that it is not a sign of homosexuality to sexually like traps, or at least, pictures and drawing of traps (which they, through no fault of their own, inaccurately phrase as ‘traps are not gay’), and another side rightfully arguing that just as homosexuality is a moral wrong, so too is sexual attraction to traps (which they, similarly blamelessly, inaccurately phrase as ‘traps are gay’).
For quite a while, I was of the opinion solely of the first group, although not of the extremists who inaccurately claim it is straight to like traps. Scientific study has proven that heightened attraction to androgynous and cross-dressing men and women is not something seen in totally homosexual or heterosexual people. The implication that many draw from this is that liking traps is a wholly bisexual phenomenon (an idea commonly espoused when one views sexuality as a linear spectrum), and that is close to the truth, but not the truth exactly- liking traps is something that is separate even from bisexuality as there verifiably exist those who like traps but are not interested in the masculine. Now, this means that it is not straight to like traps, but it’s not gay either- it’s an abnormal sexuality that exists wholly outside of the gay/straight paradigm. Oftentimes, bisexuals and others like them will also like traps, and this is to be expected- bisexuals, those who are attracted to the feminine and the masculine, would often be attracted to those who represent an intersection or rejection of both, but quite often as well, are not attracted to traps. However, like all abnormal sexualities, liking traps is often found with other abnormal sexualities, adding to the general confusion of the thing.
However, a short while ago, someone I met through Nick (whose name I will not reveal here but simply refer to by his chosen display name of “S P A C E B O I”) presented me with a meme of Plato and Aristotle discussing traps. The meme posited that Plato would have argued that traps are not gay, while Aristotle would have argued the reverse. This is something I had been thinking about at the time, and I was having a bit of thinker’s block. Any who follow me on twitter and most people I know in real life would be able to tell you that I am quite the fan of Plato, and I readily defend Forms as being verified in the Bible. However, this left me in quite the pickle- would I say that a not-insignificant amount of Plato’s work was wrong because of this application, or would I turn my back on Biblical truth opposing the practice of same-sex relations? The latter was obviously not an option- the Bible is clear here, even in the New Testament (despite some ‘theologians’ attempts to confuse the matter), and infallible in this regard. However, the stance given to Plato seemed very much in keeping with his stances, and also very much wrong. I muddled on this for some time, until recently I thought back to a very early part of The Republic, which clearly helped lay the foundation for the Theory of Forms. In it, Socrates is said to have inquired on the nature of justice, and after some dialogue, have stated that justice could have the working definition of “doing good to one’s friends and bad to one’s enemies.” However, this was somewhat simple, and as Socrates pointed out, would have (if they had been in keeping with the definition of “good” which they laid out prior) commanded one to give arms to a madman if he was a friend and had given to you for safekeeping while he was sane. The same is true with traps. One must support the friend unless one must restrain him if he has gone rogue. Similarly, one must like the form reflected in the trap, but reject the rogue incarnation of it out of love for it. Therefore, I must also state that morally speaking, consorting with a trap would be a form of sodomy undeniably linked to homosexuality, just as one who gave arms to a madman would inarguably be more responsible for his demise than the procurer of said arms, a position wholly in line with any form of Platonism.
Now, there is a question to be raised- do these truths not come into conflict with one another? It’s somewhat hard to verbalize, but some may recognize a disconnect here. God is beauty, and truth, and justice, and therefore, it does not make sense that something immoral and unjust could be aesthetically “good” or properly enjoyable. However, this only proves that it is not virtuous to like traps, something I have never argued. It is not perfect, and imperfect men like imperfect things. This is an inarguable truth of philosophy, and something borne out by further psychological studies which show people are often attracted to those on a similar level of attractiveness. This is also one reason why I do not think that the perfect man, Jesus Christ, married- there would not be a woman he was sexually attracted to. In conclusion, I must generally reject the question of traps being gay, as it does not provide a useful answer. It is not aesthetically gay to like traps- that is, you are not gay if you like them, just as Plato would likely argue. However, it is [unfortunately] morally gay to act on such an attraction, a statement that is wholly in line with Biblical and Platonic teaching, both of which are yet to be wrong.