Trap?

It's technically not a trap. You can't see the dong in the picture xD

DragoBruder said:
It's technically not a trap. You can't see the dong in the picture xD

Schrödinger's schlong?

DragoBruder said:
It's technically not a trap. You can't see the dong in the picture xD

I mean, how can you tell he/she is a trap? Is he/she a known character? Because there's no character tag.

Thorcsf said:
I mean, how can you tell he/she is a trap? Is he/she a known character? Because there's no character tag.

From the work's title (refer to the Source field)?

Serious answer: It is if the artist says so, via title/description/etc.

The way I feel about it is: if you cannot see anything, even the slightest hint of a bulge, then it's not a trap because it's BS to say something is there and show no visible trace of anything especially when the clothing is easily revealing enough.

It's like drawing something with a blue sky in it and then saying in your description that the sky in your drawing is pink. I mean, sure you can say that if you want to since you are the artist, but we're well within our rights to go "yeah, right" too.

Xcalibur said:
Serious answer: It is if the artist says so, via title/description/etc.

The way I feel about it is: if you cannot see anything, even the slightest hint of a bulge, then it's not a trap because it's BS to say something is there and show no visible trace of anything especially when the clothing is easily revealing enough.

It's like drawing something with a blue sky in it and then saying in your description that the sky in your drawing is pink. I mean, sure you can say that if you want to since you are the artist, but we're well within our rights to go "yeah, right" too.

That really depends on the story/world that particular character is in. For example: yamada_taeko is a trap even if "she" looks like a girl most of the time, because "she" has ways to become that.

No, you're wrong Xcalibur.
Even if we can't see something, if it's a guy, then it's a guy. Your metaphor would make sense if we could see any female genitalia, but we can't, so knowing it's male, "trap" is technically, and in any other way too, correct.
Also you have to have a pretty mediocre trap radar if you can't see the hints of masculanity that makes it obvious it's a trap.

Xcalibur said:
It's like drawing something with a blue sky in it and then saying in your description that the sky in your drawing is pink. I mean, sure you can say that if you want to since you are the artist, but we're well within our rights to go "yeah, right" too.

Sounds SO MUCH like the people which responded to me when I pointed out that a character from "Azur Lane" looked WAY too young(like a 6 years old), and the response was that "Technically" all the "Ship" characters in Azur Line are 50+ years old ships, so therefore, doesn't matter if one looks like 30, 20, 10 or even 5 years old, 'cuz the lore (or the real life ship they take the name from) says they're 50+ years old.

Aside from the Azur Line serie which is at least "Consistent" with its lore (with all girls being anthropomorphous ships), it's obvious that some animes uses that kind of "" excuse "" to "" justify "" the depiction of obvious way underage girls. And I said the word "" justify "" because otherwise I strongly doubt they would have some "" convenient "" type lore behind it.

TheUnspoken said:
No, you're wrong Xcalibur.

That's a pretty definitive statement about a hobby whose contents are 100% fictional. You guys take all of this stuff a little too seriously.

The problem with viewing the world in black and white the way you do is this: sometimes some of the shades of grey in-between you are refusing to see can be beautiful.

moonian said:
From the work's title (refer to the Source field)?

Yes, I assumed it could be where you based from, that's why I checked the translation before I ask, and Google translates as: "Masturbation support with plenty of immorality squeezed by a man's daughter". Where in this text says she is a trap? It says: "a man's daughter", not "a man's son".

TheUnspoken said:
Also you have to have a pretty mediocre trap radar if you can't see the hints of masculanity that makes it obvious it's a trap.

You mean this drawing specifically? Where do you see "hints of masculinity that makes it obvious it's a trap"? She totally looks like a girl to me. OK, she has small breasts, but so does Koneko Toujou from High School DxD and Black Rock Shooter, for example.

Thorcsf said:
You mean this drawing specifically? Where do you see "hints of masculinity that makes it obvious it's a trap"? She totally looks like a girl to me. OK, she has small breasts, but so does Koneko Toujou from High School DxD and Black Rock Shooter, for example.

To me the thing I noticed the most are the wide man-like shoulders, then the conveniently flat chest, lastly the head shape isn't really masculine but not very feminine either.

If I had to put it in % and without knowing already I would assume that the probability that the person is a trap is 75%.

Thorcsf said:
Yes, I assumed it could be where you based from, that's why I checked the translation before I ask, and Google translates as: "Masturbation support with plenty of immorality squeezed by a man's daughter". Where in this text says she is a trap? It says: "a man's daughter", not "a man's son".

Actually Wikipedia has a page for this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokonoko

Pretty much the same as what Marona said.
His whole frame is large and not feminine, really like a man trying to look like a woman.
In fact he is among the least convincing traps I've seen in art.

moonian said:
Actually Wikipedia has a page for this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokonoko

Oh, thank you for the clarification. Nothing as someone who has good knowledge of Japanese to clarify us about these terms. :) So, according to the article on Wikipedia, to Google Translator, and to my very basic knowledge of Japanese, the term Otokonoko (男の娘) has a double meaning. It can be translated as a "man's daughter"/"daughter of a man" and it can also be "male daughter"/"male girl", referring to a male crossdresser. Although I personally think it would be more suited for a female crossdresser, since the English term "shemale" refer to men who cross-dress as women; so a "male daughter" or "male girl" should be a woman who cross-dress as a man. :P

Marona762 said:
To me the thing I noticed the most are the wide man-like shoulders, then the conveniently flat chest, lastly the head shape isn't really masculine but not very feminine either.

If I had to put it in % and without knowing already I would assume that the probability that the person is a trap is 75%.

TheUnspoken said:
Pretty much the same as what Marona said.
His whole frame is large and not feminine, really like a man trying to look like a woman.
In fact he is among the least convincing traps I've seen in art.

I disagree with you guys. Apart from the tiny chest (that real girls can also have), I don't see other obvious hints of masculinity on her. I don't think her shoulders are overly wide in a masculine way, and her face and head looks pretty feminine to me. I don't think she has a large, masculine frame either.

OK, I know she is a trap, by what Moonian informed. I just think she is a very convincing one (apart from the chest). And just for the record, I'm referring to her as "she" 'cause I take it that a person who acts and dress like a woman in their daily lives wants to be treated as such; unless of course if it's just crossplay or a costume for a party. :P

You can refer to a drawing however you want.
But if you think that this is feminine to you, you're not really good at looking at the more subtle details, mate.
The chest can be tiny on real women, yes, but the pec definition at the middle is something you won't find at any flat girls.
Stuff like the long face paired with narrow eyes, pointy chin, square shoulders, flat hips, long limbs are all details that are not exclusively masculine, but all put together makes for a very clear masculine impact overall.

TheUnspoken said:
You can refer to a drawing however you want.
But if you think that this is feminine to you, you're not really good at looking at the more subtle details, mate.
The chest can be tiny on real women, yes, but the pec definition at the middle is something you won't find at any flat girls.
Stuff like the long face paired with narrow eyes, pointy chin, square shoulders, flat hips, long limbs are all details that are not exclusively masculine, but all put together makes for a very clear masculine impact overall.

Oh, I see now the pec in the middle, veeery subtle. But I still disagree with the rest you said; specially the "flat" hips; I think her hips and thighs are her most feminine aspects, specially the thighs, they're nice. And again about the chest part, she has very convincing feminine nipples, they are even erect. :P

As I said, the only masculine traits I see in her are the flat chest and, now that you pointed it out, the very subtle pec in the middle. But the rest, a very convincing feminine trap. :P I've seen many clearly masculine traps in my life (both real and in drawings), but this is not one of them (for me).
You see, I cannot be that wrong or "not good" at noticing, as DragoBruder and Xcalibur seemed to agree with me up there. But it's actually not a question of being right or wrong, just different opinions and different ways of viewing. ^^