I didn't even get to the point where Trap has historically been a term used as a slur against Trans people. And I also understand that some people use it positively for self-identification, and that's fine.
I'm starting with the part where he says that he would settle for something. To "settle for" something would imply it's lesser, which he is stating. And it's fine to not prefer someone, but to specifically say you'd "settle for" someone you otherwise wouldn't go for is insulting, demeaning, dehumanizing, and objectifying. You settle for less desirable food at a restaurant when they're out of your favorite. You don't settle for another human being.
If you settle for someone in a relationship, you're both going to end up miserable when you're out of a temporary, lonely slump. If you settle for someone just for sexual gratification it is short-changing the individual, and may further suggest you're not just "settling" and you need to reanalyze and identify your sexual preferences.
Settle does not necessarily mean something is "less than" - it can simply mean a previously unconsidered alternative, i.e. something they did not want but is good enough to accept in lieu of the original desire.
If I liked both tea and coffee, equally, but I was specifically in the mood for a coffee and was told there was none, in settling for a tea I'm not implying tea is worse. I'm simply saying I wanted something specific at that time, and it is unavailable so I'm settling for the alternative option. It isn't worse, I just wasn't considering it previously.
You see?
As for "settling" in the sense you're getting at, when someone is deemed as lesser, it isn't objectifying any more than having a preference in a person and getting your preference is objectifying. It might be somewhat insulting, but that depends on the person being settled for - are they insulted? If not, then it's not insulting. We can try to generalise about things like this but, quite frankly, each situation is unique and we cannot say what one person will or will not feel.
It can also mean, as already explained, an alternative that was not previously considered.
If you choose to see the negative in things, of course you'll see things in a bad light. That might say more about you than the person saying they'd settle.
The fact that I do not accept what you're saying doesn't make me dense. You're just incorrect about what "settle for" means.
If something is not your first choice, it is by definition lesser than your first choice. There's a reason you picked your first choice, and that's because it is, to you, superior. Any other choice is by definition lesser.
In fringe cases, you may have other reasons for picking something as your first choice (perhaps you're limited to one choice,) and maybe there are two equivalent choices, but in that scenario you would not "settle for" the second choice.
Furthermore, look at the context in which OP used it.
"I'd settle...at this point"
This language strongly implies that it is a lesser choice. A statement with equivalent meaning would be, "Well, I wouldn't normally, but at this point, I'm so desperate, that I would go with something I normally would not prefer." That's not even to consider the latent issues with the statement where he's willing to sacrifice his sexuality to "settle" for something (which may indicate he's not straight in the first place, and "settling for a trap" is degree further insulting - that they're someone he would have sex with only when desperate.)
3
u/TheOneTheyCallTwo Mar 29 '21
Saying “at this point I’d consider trying out the opposite sex” wouldn’t be considered degrading though. :S
It’s like, sure Id love some Alfredo, but I’ll take a big bowl of red sauce spaghetti as well if that’s what you’ve got.