Post some different concepts, and the anon after you must mix

File: gps.jpg (677KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1024x768px

>Gothic Purple Surrealism

File: 1476092252465.png (218KB, 600x568px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 600x568px

>>8715961
This is pure Berserk.

File: really.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>8715938

>Tfw the screenshots are the only good part of that video

>>8716023
what video is it?

>>8716059
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph574e644900a7a

>Personal reminder. Never start a thread with a picture more interesting than the thread itself.

test

Can I see her weiner?

>>8717391
Surprisingly not a trap

>>8717394
What's with the trend of girls that look like they'd be traps actually being girls? It seems like this is becoming more common, is the pendulum swinging the other way?

>>8717404
Traps are just getting more numerous and sophisticated in their trappings, subsequently the threshold of recognition moves closer to actual feminine facial structures in our mental trap-spotting computations, giving us more false positives as a result.

Or maybe you are just imagining things.

>>8717394
Now that is surprising. Impressive.

>>8717428
>Or maybe you are just imagining things
Yeah, this could certainly be a thing, but look at this thread
>>>8716650
You think it's gonna be a trap, what with the huge shoulders, but then ends up being just a girl with a fucked up bone structure. I swear I've been seeing more of that in please-look-at-my-thread pictures recently. Is there some "xenotestosterone" in the water instead of "xenoestrogen" now?

>>8717448
Shoulders just look huge compared to her unnatural wasp waist. Maybe corset training from an early age combined with anorexia, which is masked by her booby implants.

>>8717448
>You think it's gonna be a trap
Nah.

>>8717504
You haven't been tricked enough.

>>8717510
I think it's more that I don't want to be tricked enough bro. There are no mistakes.

>>8717519
I don't either, but it happens. You'd be more vigilant that way.

File: sigmund-freud-photo.jpg (52KB, 330x363px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 330x363px

>>8717530
>I don't either
Sure bro.

>>8717404
That's very interesting.
Assuming that traps are men who reach the boundary between man and woman through simulacral, feminine traits, but are still separated by the sex barrier, does that make a woman who looks like a trap a polar opposite to the trap (female with simulacral masculine traits)?
Or would that be a tomboy, and the females like the one on the pic nothing special/small anomalies?

>>8717601
A reverse trap is a woman who genuinly looks like a guy. If she looks like a trap, then that would be a tomboy.

>>8717601
I think it's either more masculine women trying to be more feminine, or men and women are merging closer together.

File: 1478902230088.jpg (82KB, 717x960px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 717x960px

>>8717614
And is there a specific terminology to such "reverse traps"?
I assumed that "tomboy" referred to "girls with some masculine traits". But if this is settled, what is the threshold of difference that distinguishes tomboy and reverse trap?
Is it subjective?

>>8717627
Traps are defined by their function.

A guy is a trap if he convincingly looks like a woman. I.e. a trap for heterosexual men.
A woman is a reverse trap if she convincingly looks like a guy. I.e. a trap for heterosexual women.

Tomboy is just a blanket term for any woman who looks boyish to varying degree. There is no clear definition.

>>8717644
So the distinction lies on whether the conflicting traits are simulacral or natural.

I think it's the pink wig and the fact that she's sticking out her chin that makes us think of a trap

>>8716005
Please don't post this again.

>>8715938
>gnosticism
>new sincerity
>brutalist architecture
>Henry Kissinger