Talk:Gay bomb

message: 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)
thread_title: This article should be deleted

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Jay Leno's parody clip

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image request? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Don't worry, I deleted it as it was unsubstantiated nonsense. Jaysbro (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality is abnormal, compulsive behavior? 

message: 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)
replies: text: ...What the hell Holduptheredawg (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Backfire 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  What is the point of the bomb? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

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

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

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

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