Talk:Gay bomb

This article should be deleted

This is a blatant hoax. It discusses sarcasm as if it was real. Its sources are as dubious at best, including many that appear to be hoaxes themselves. All discussion of this issue appears to be tongue in cheek, and this isn't even that funny. It does not make clear from the begining that there was no "gay bomb" or "halitosis bomb" and such things are not even conceptually possible. It is not encyclopedic material, and it is not presented in an encyclopedic manner.

Furthermore, the article is not coherent. It discusses several wildly divergent hoaxes as a single topic. Some paragraphs are related to odor, some to homosexuality. Although bad breath is the ostensible nature of the "bomb" the article goes on to talk about phermones and body odor. This weaves together a number of blatant hoaxes into patent nonsense.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but you all need to take the juvenalia to another website.

Avgusztyn (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

but it’s funne tho stfu…. 78.79.173.167 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

8 years later, and I will have to sadly agree. This article is genuinely grasping at threads.. and I think it is safe to land a spot here. Pax Brittanica (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

It was mentioned on France 24 T.V. just now. It will apear on the web page tomorrow, due to a time lag.[[1]]--[2] 86.25.52.201 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] --86.25.52.201 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The France 24 'gay-bomb' news web-page artcle is up and running. [7]--86.25.52.20 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay Leno's parody clip

Jay Leno mentions the Gay Bomb and had a parody clip of the bombs going "Wee Wee" also the bomb hitting crowd of protesters and turning them into a gay parade 172.145.58.142 UnicoGirl

I need that StarburstBish (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Image request?

Exactly what sort of image does one expect? A whole group of soldiers participating in a homosexual orgy on a battlefield perhaps? I really think asking for images is taking things just a bit far. --AussieLegend 11:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no images, exsept for 2 rather misrable chimpanzees in a South Korean lab after they were allegidly exsposed to it by a group of American army boffins.--86.25.51.206 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive not found any pictures either!--86.29.251.181 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is abnormal, compulsive behavior?

"The remote inducement of artificial homosexual, pedophile, nymphomaniac and other abnormal compulsive behaviors are indeed possible..."

Umm... what the hell?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.54.67 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I deleted it as it was unsubstantiated nonsense. Jaysbro (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Backfire

What happens if the enemy forces found a way to "have sex" AND fight back their attackers at the same time?

Wouldn't infiltration/invasion be unfeasible, if the invading forces get infected from the same thing?

Or if the enemy forces start butt fucking all their American POWs. Now that would be messed up! :)

If everyone ended up "having sex" with eachother at both sides, indisriminately, wouldn't it quickly end the conflict? (Was that the main intention of The Pentagon???)

88.105.109.234 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for wordsDarkproxy (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

...What the hell Holduptheredawg (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the point of the bomb?

What is the point of this bomb.... the lead doesn't describe what the bombs purpose is.... does it somehow turn you gay?????.... because it has a sexual orientation category.--cooljuno411 05:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG, it's quite entertaining. Different weapons would be used in different ways all presuming that those affected would be easily detected as enemies for their gay actions. The mind reels. -- Banjeboi 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that they will start caring for one another and start to become ineffective as a combat unit, or did these fools think that trained heterosexual solders would instantly start craving gay sex. (what about all the gay solders that don't behave this way now?). This sounds like a hypothetical example of a non-lethal weapon. A really stupid hypothetical, I grant you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.183.6 (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

it is nonsense, but the purpose of a non-lethal chemical weapon is to work as an incapacitating agent, so there would have to be a few underlaying assumptions. That they could chemically rewire a brain mechanism to modify modes of sexual attraction and break down inhibitions and that they could generate intense sexual desire to overcome other senses in the combat environment. Another assumption is the need to rewire sexual attraction must be predicated on the idea that combat units are exclusively male, hence no females available for incapacitation by sexual activity.Wwengr (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I find this hilarious. They would essentially have to be Gods to be able to do something complex and particular. I’m honestly dubious this was actually discussed seriously as an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7601:7D57:608A:CF16:704D:A43A (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is amazing, I don't have any sciency facts. The gays shall control the world one day StarburstBish (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gay bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604064743/http://pubget.com/site/article/19118174 to http://pubget.com/site/article/19118174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225074430/http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html to http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because Its a dank meme page and it should live forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.112.83 (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Positive

This could be Positive revert: [8] not providing a reliable source. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Gay bombs

These are amazing things and should be used all the time StarburstBish (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gay frogs

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_2#Gay_frogs -- œ^™ 13:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason for there to be so much of the article dedicated to pheromones and other divergent topics

This is not an article about the biology of sexuality, it should be centered mostly on the gay bomb history itself as it’s self evidently preposterous scientifically.

There are numerous secondary sources that review the scientific literature finding no relation that supports the idea of the pheromones causing a change in orientation or anything similar, yet we have following studies that (for some reason) discuss how pheromones are linked to sexuality etc etc. i would primarily emphasize the reviews first and get rid of separate primary sources with little direct relevance to the subject of the article. It’s not bad research and it’s interesting in regards to biology, but not to this article in particular. At least trim it down.

The article over all needs to stay focused and concise. It’s already criticized to the point of deletion nomination. Let’s try to do a little better here and not insta revert everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7601:7D57:608A:CF16:704D:A43A (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)