Biblical Heroic Spirits What If the Nasuverse Included Heroes from the Bible? The Nasuverse, famous for blending real-world mythologies and history into its sprawling multiverse, has brought forth iconic matchups—Gilgamesh vs. King Arthur, Heracles vs. Achilles, and so on. But one vast realm of mythology remains unexplored in Fate: the Bible. What if biblical figures were summoned as Heroic Spirits? The result would be some of the most unusual, powerful, and dramatic Servants ever—warriors, prophets, and kings whose tales shaped the world. Below, we explore hypothetical profiles for Biblical Heroic Spirits in Nasuverse terms—complete with Classes, Skills, Noble Phantasms, and lore. ADAM (Rider) The First Man, Father of Mankind “To name is to command.” Identity & Lore: Adam, the first man formed from the dust of the earth by the hand of God Himself, tasked with ruling over creation and naming every beast. His existence predates death, sin, and even the concept of ‘humanity.’ As the ...
Here I'll attempt to answer the age old question: Are traps gay?
.jpeg)
First thing first, what are Traps? I define traps as males who are easily mistaken for female due to their appearance.
Now for the question. I feel the need to change it to something more precise, as it's pretty vague.
If a biological male who identifies as straight expresses sexual attraction toward a trap after finding out they are male, does that make him not straight but actually gay?
That's better. Before I begin, I want to make it known that I will be attempting to make an argument for why traps AREN'T gay. This isn't a hill I'm dying on, it's just a mental exercise for shits and giggles. It's nothing serious.
My full answer: If a biological male who identifies as straight expresses sexual attraction toward a trap after finding out they are male, it is technically gay, but not gay enough to pull one out of the heterosexual category, making it actually not gay.
I will make my case with 3 Arguments I thought up:
- The ratio argument.
- the characteristics argument.
- the direct proportion argument.
THE RATIO ARGUMENT
This argument makes the following 3 claims:
1. Everybody has a gay/straight ratio which technically makes us all bisexual.
2. Most people are overwhelmingly straight with levels of gay so little it's considered irrelevant. These people are considered heterosexual. Vice versa for homosexuals.
3. People who's gay/straight ratio is close to 1:1 are considered the true bisexuals.
This argument hinges on the fact that there is no 100% of anything: no perfect purity.
A cup of water isn't 100% H2O atoms, but that doesn't make it any less a cup of water. Likewise for an ounce of gold.
Same with a heterosexual man where the trace amounts of gayness don't make him any less heterosexual.
However there is a limit beyond which you can't with confidence call it a cup of water, but rather salty water or dirty water or the like.
The same for men who exceed a certain limit of gayness, and as a result are accurately labeled bisexual.
I argue that the amount of gayness within the bounds of heterosexuality includes sexual attraction to traps. Any gayness beyond that will put you over the edge and make you bi.
THE CHARACTERISTICS ARGUMENT
This argument states that each individual has a laundry list of different physical and behavioural characteristics each with different values and ranges which combined, represent a range of persons they'd be sexually attracted to.
These characteristics include, but are not limited to face, figure, curves, shape, sizes (including cup sizes), femininity, personality, voice, etc characteristics.
For most men 90% - 99% of individuals who match the characteristics are women. These men are what we consider straight.
For some men, 90% - 99% of individuals who match the characteristics are men. These men are what we consider gay.
For other men, 60% - 40% of individuals who match the characteristics are either men or women. These men are what we consider bisexual.
There's a gray area between the bisexuals and the other two. But let's just chuck that up to a handful of confused blokes and carry on.
Some would see the 90%-99% of those who qualified being women, and assume that it's because the man is attracted to women.
I on the other hand argue that those men are actually sexually attracted to an ideal which a female is overwhelmingly more likely to qualify for than a male. However some males (1% - 10%) do qualify for that ideal. They are called traps.
Therefore, the implication of this argument is that a when male requirements for sexual attraction is overwhelmingly met by the opposite sex (female), it cements him as heterosexual. As a result, sexual attraction to the remaining handful of males don't undermine this heterosexuality because they too meet the requirements for sexual attraction, and also because the heterosexuality has already been set in stone.
THE DIRECT PROPORTION ARGUMENT
This argument states that if a male's level of sexual attraction for another male is directly proportional to how closely the other male resembles a female, then being sexually attracted to a trap, which is indistinguishable from a female in appearance, is heterosexual.
Likewise, if it was inversely proportional, its gay. And if there was no change, it's bisexual,
The implication of this argument is that because a straight male is sexually attracted to females, sexual attraction for traps isn't gay because they're indistinguishable from females.
SUMMARY
And there you have it! Traps aren't gay. Debate me. In the comments.
Comments
Post a Comment