Heh heh. “Non-lethal blow.”
If this wasn’t already the premise for a gay porn movie it is now.
:eek: What if this technology fell into enemy hands? Would we have to revise our “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? :smack:
It is. I had to go thorugh it looking for things to review once. (I write for an adult magazine.) I am sorry but I can’t remember the name.
Liked the little commando outfits, though.
What? I can’t enjoy a little gay porn every now and then?
Ink
- who is a gal.
PS - for the rest of the OP, may I just shake my head in bewilderment and wait for the world to implode from the weight of all the stupidity? Gay Bomb.
Worse yet, terrorists might get their hands on them! Obviously we need an immediate deployment of Gaydar stations across the country.
Useful for cruising purposes, too!
Surely it would’ve become a boost to morale? 
The worst thing about this is the hypocrisy. If the government doesn’t like homosexuality, then they shouldn’t be coercing enemy troops into gay sex. Especially since the enemy troops don’t approve of it either.
That would invalidate the classic line “War. War never changes.” in the Fallout games 
So would this bomb turn all the gay troops straight?
Bummer, no fun then.
This was the plot of (at least one) erotic novel. Commandos on a tropical island chasing terrorists who got ahold of the sex bomb. They explode it, hilarity ensues.
This goes against all I know of medical and psychological science. And I say this as a fully-qualified English teacher.
No aphrodisiac has ever been produced for serious medical purposes, let alone one that could work on a battlefield. No way. Hoax.
Sure there’s a link-but to what? An article pulled from the deepest, darkest anals of journalism, such that your posting it is beyond laughable-it’s pitiful. :rolleyes:
I don’t know what you’re smoking up there in Minnesota but it’s gotta be primo shit, because the straws at which you’re grasping are further and further into the land of lost left sox with every post.
Oh, this has got to be intentional. It’s too good to be an accident. 
But I have doubts about this myself. Since when do there exist effective aphrodisiacs sufficient to increase the likelihood of sexual relations between people who would normally find each other attractive, let alone chemicals that coerce people into sex with people they normally wouldn’t feel any attraction to whatsoever?
I would more quickly call this article bullshit, if I didn’t believe in the abiding stupidity of my government.
The science can’t be real, but the stupidity very well could be. And I’m going to keep focusing on the stupidity, because the idea of forcing people to have sex with each other as an instrument of war is really sick. On the plus side, this is very easy to laugh at.
It was intentional. 
intentianal I presume.
Anyway where the hell can I get hand of this stuff. I wanna target my wife - and any other female I happen across.
Obviously, the Pentagon forgets their history. The Spartans were no wimps. (Was it a Spartan who opined that a man may fight more fiercely for his lover than for his friend?)
What the fuck is your damage? The article is from New Scientist, and dated today (probably tomorrow for you). A current cite from a reputable scientific news journal is “the deepest, darkest anals of journalism”? How many fucking rolleyes you want with that, you wanker?
Pucker up, buttercup. In case you haven’t stayed tuned, it is regular activity for the left to demean the credibility of a cite which doesn’t support their theme, so I was simply offering a tablespoon of the same medicine.
Put the same article in the New York Times or Washington Post and I’ll afford credibility, but until that day, wank on yourself, mate.
…New Scientist has no credibility??? 
cite?
That really is funny. Anyone remember Jayson Blair? :smack: