I think you might have to stand in line for this one.
How can we submit photos for you to caption?
You can always send me an email at email@example.com, but I can't guarantee I'll use your submissions. I'm sort of picky about which pictures I use simply because they have to match a story (and have to be fairly easy to modify for me - time constraints).
Okay, Mz. Jenkins;Please, forgive my transgression of carrying our former conversation into a new post but, as my roughly 1/2-century on this planet and long-since removal from more, shall we say "urban" settings, has left me behind the ebb-&-flow of popular culture, I must admit that the term "trap" is one which has been eluding my understanding for some time. So, thank you for posting this definition!!!However, I must wonder about its accuracy. You see; I LOVE women! And the genitalia of the female gender!! Beyond these to facts, I feel that sharing in sapphic sexuality is among the most beautiful, erotic & emotional exchanges of human experience. So, if I could (have) manage(d) to assume or develop a sufficiently-feminine appearance/carriage, it would be my aim to draw the attention of a woman in hopes of engaging in a "trans-lesbian" encounter rather than to "trap" a man (and risk severe injury in so doing) into what he might consider a homo-erotic situation.Now, I am not pointing a finger at you in this regard, simply asking your opinion about the usage of the word and its application as a generality.Is it reasonable to assume that any CD/TV/TS wants to "trap" a man merely because he/she dons the likeness of womanhood or is actually taking the steps to transition thereto? My point being that, just like the term "sissy", "trap" carries a presumption of motivation/inclination/orientation/proclivity which may not be known without direct contact with the individual pictured. And the reason I ask this is because in my prolific wanderings of "image-surfing" (okay, you could call it "feeding my porn-addiction" as well), I often see tags/categories of "traps" which do not limit the images to those of pre-transitional persons, nor do they necessarily know with any certainty the orientations of the individuals pictured.Is it just my imagination, or is such "classification" not a result of the viewer's bias more than that of the one in the image? After all, there is a great degree to which one can only become "entrapped" if one wants to... right?Just asking.Oh, and b.t.w., the chick in this pic is a cutie! I'd love to see more of her as her progress continues!! Or is that little bulge in her panties a particularly puffy mons-veneris?Peace,Love&Kisses;Elle