The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
-
Hi Guest - Some things to know about this forum:
If you're new, please read the Posting Guidelines. Banned content is in "List of Content Never Allowed on JUB".
The most important thing to know: images of persons under 18 years old are never allowed here. If you cannot verify that the person in the picture is 18 years or older, don't post it.
Indian guys needed!
- Thread starter EuriMouse
- Start date
- Status
tx_doc
Anything is possible.
that Omar is HOT! super hot.
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Posts
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
mmmm...... Omar.... does anyone have any videos of him? I wish that site would let me download them.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Posts
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
http://www.newboynudes.com/Photos/default.asp?AT=U&PC=&SB=indiancock&MyAction=+GO+&OB=D
oh hell yeah! lpve them indian guys...
I think you'll find there are many, many different types of Indian guys - you'll be surprised. Indian guys working in call centres are not just the only type there are - you will find them light and dark, tanned and hazel, tall and fat, exotic and antique... I find the ethnic look (tanned and dark hair) a huge turn on... so Indian is so very apt!
Oh no - what has this thread turned into!
But since it has, let me add to it.
Zack darling, the first thing that struck me about your little essay back there was the little bit where you said 'Even India today is not one nation but rather a collection of nations, the different nations within India seem to have a cultural underpinning but they are still quite distinct with different heritages'. This is so utterly wrong. No proof is needed to know that India is recognised as one nation in present times. Yes, it used to be a collection of very different people, and it still is, but India has always been an ecclectic mix; it's one of the places where civilisations have thought to have started from (like the discovery at Bhimbetka, for example). The Indus Valley civilisation is possibly the first proper civilisation to have sprung in India and this was followed by the Vedic civilisation, at which time India had already taken shape, albeit loosely.
The idea that India was a word that 'you' British gave us is also preposterous. Granted, it was named Hindustan before (and also Bharat) - and India is no doubt the present product of many years of British occupation - but the word India has existed for a long time. It originated from the Indus river most probably... here is an extract from the Bible:
1:1 and 8:9, where the extent of the dominion of the Persian king is described. The country so designated here is not the peninsula of Hindustan, but the country surrounding the Indus, the Punjab. The people and the products of India were well known to the Jews, who seem to have carried on an active trade with that country (Ezek. 27:15, 24).
Regarding Asoka - he was already a Hindu at the time but converted to Buddism much later; so it would follow that Hinduism was an established religion at the time.
One thing to understand about India is that because it has such a turbulent past, a variety of inhabitants and many other things besides, it should always be seen in the context of a culture. Britain too is indebted to many other cultures and people: Anglo-saxons, Romans, Vikings etc. But India has only ever been ruled by people from within its culture like the Moghuls and Persians etc. It was only the British occupation that was from such a distance.
The words 'cilvilisation', 'empire' and 'nation' are 3 different words. The Moghuls for instance were a civilisation who had an empire, but never a nation. From my understanding, Emperor Asoka's times are never referred to as 'Ashokan', because he ruled the Mauryan Empire.
But to put us all back on track: Indians, as people, should never be looked over as an homogenous group; they are very varied and different, and not all have small dicks, for instance, and neither are all dark. There are some damn hot Indians' about! Ahem.
But since it has, let me add to it.
Zack darling, the first thing that struck me about your little essay back there was the little bit where you said 'Even India today is not one nation but rather a collection of nations, the different nations within India seem to have a cultural underpinning but they are still quite distinct with different heritages'. This is so utterly wrong. No proof is needed to know that India is recognised as one nation in present times. Yes, it used to be a collection of very different people, and it still is, but India has always been an ecclectic mix; it's one of the places where civilisations have thought to have started from (like the discovery at Bhimbetka, for example). The Indus Valley civilisation is possibly the first proper civilisation to have sprung in India and this was followed by the Vedic civilisation, at which time India had already taken shape, albeit loosely.
The idea that India was a word that 'you' British gave us is also preposterous. Granted, it was named Hindustan before (and also Bharat) - and India is no doubt the present product of many years of British occupation - but the word India has existed for a long time. It originated from the Indus river most probably... here is an extract from the Bible:
1:1 and 8:9, where the extent of the dominion of the Persian king is described. The country so designated here is not the peninsula of Hindustan, but the country surrounding the Indus, the Punjab. The people and the products of India were well known to the Jews, who seem to have carried on an active trade with that country (Ezek. 27:15, 24).
Regarding Asoka - he was already a Hindu at the time but converted to Buddism much later; so it would follow that Hinduism was an established religion at the time.
One thing to understand about India is that because it has such a turbulent past, a variety of inhabitants and many other things besides, it should always be seen in the context of a culture. Britain too is indebted to many other cultures and people: Anglo-saxons, Romans, Vikings etc. But India has only ever been ruled by people from within its culture like the Moghuls and Persians etc. It was only the British occupation that was from such a distance.
The words 'cilvilisation', 'empire' and 'nation' are 3 different words. The Moghuls for instance were a civilisation who had an empire, but never a nation. From my understanding, Emperor Asoka's times are never referred to as 'Ashokan', because he ruled the Mauryan Empire.
But to put us all back on track: Indians, as people, should never be looked over as an homogenous group; they are very varied and different, and not all have small dicks, for instance, and neither are all dark. There are some damn hot Indians' about! Ahem.
OPHELIA_HARDIN
Sex God
I'll take a dravidian any day of the week!
neruda
Ex isled
I liked that little erudite intervention from students of Indian history and culture.
Turned me on a bit y'know
And yes Eurimouse - on with the real thing
Bring on a smoking brownie
Somebody
Anybody
Turned me on a bit y'know
And yes Eurimouse - on with the real thing
Bring on a smoking brownie
Somebody
Anybody
Just before I retort back - I'm Sikh so that makes me 'fit' in your books, Zack.
The next thing: you mentioned that a language defines ethnicity/nation and you also point out that India has many languages. That is incorrect. It doesn't have as many languages than dialects. If you know anything of the major tongues in India, namely Hindi, Urdu or Punjabi, you will know that all 3 lanaguages are interlinked and very similar. What's more, Bengali, Gujarati, amil and every other language that exists in India is very similar to each other. So from your theory, this would mean that there is only 1 true ethnicity/nation - my point exactly.
Secondly, you keep referring to Pakistan like it was never part of India. Let's not forget that the WHOLE Pakistani region was once part of India, undeniably, before the partition in 1947 - of which the history, I am sure, you are all too familiar with, since you keep implicitly highlighting the fact that you are better than us somehow.
And thirdly, the Mughals used to live in present-day India and came from the region that is now present-day Pakistan (formerly India). For this reason, they were Indians... Pakistanis' only exist because of their own state now.
And just to finish off: our vision of India is without doubt much more glamourised and correct than you can ever believe. Illusionary and incorrect, I think not; you'll find that that rests entirely with you.
The next thing: you mentioned that a language defines ethnicity/nation and you also point out that India has many languages. That is incorrect. It doesn't have as many languages than dialects. If you know anything of the major tongues in India, namely Hindi, Urdu or Punjabi, you will know that all 3 lanaguages are interlinked and very similar. What's more, Bengali, Gujarati, amil and every other language that exists in India is very similar to each other. So from your theory, this would mean that there is only 1 true ethnicity/nation - my point exactly.
Secondly, you keep referring to Pakistan like it was never part of India. Let's not forget that the WHOLE Pakistani region was once part of India, undeniably, before the partition in 1947 - of which the history, I am sure, you are all too familiar with, since you keep implicitly highlighting the fact that you are better than us somehow.
And thirdly, the Mughals used to live in present-day India and came from the region that is now present-day Pakistan (formerly India). For this reason, they were Indians... Pakistanis' only exist because of their own state now.
And just to finish off: our vision of India is without doubt much more glamourised and correct than you can ever believe. Illusionary and incorrect, I think not; you'll find that that rests entirely with you.
neruda
Ex isled
So whats the real India, wise man?
Unhorny, IT whiz kids I presume... oh sure were full of them
After all the Kamasutra was only invented when Pakistan existed.
No wonder all the horny blokes ended up there..
Zack, I am punjabi - and since you seem to think you know more about my motherland because you study some bruk down course that's obviously been catered for the white man - I'll have you know that ALL Sikhs are usually Punjabi's anyway.
For a British person who studies South Asian studies, I would've thought you possessed more of an inclination of understanding, but you probably only want to study it so you can spread even more shit about the fragmented Indian culture, which, may I point out, is all due to the British anyway. But you don't see us moping and groping about it. We've moved on, but you guys still can't get over the fact you got booted out of a country you obviously wanted under your wing.
Just because a country is of the same ethnicity doesn't mean it's more of a 'truer' country than people who are all the same. Britain, in that case, is not a 'true' country on account of it being multi-ethnic and multicultural. How about looking in your own back yard before you start poking in others?
India and Indians' are proud of their heritage. We're happy to sleep with the fact that our country is so varied and ecclectic, housing many toungues, cultures, belief systems and people - and they're all happy to be known as Indians, so why should you question it?
Gujrati and Bengali may be more related to Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi - but Tamil does have words that are similar to Telugu, Marathi and Kannada, which, if you stop being so bloody ignorant, you will see all are inter-related anyway.
As an afternote to your ridiculous knowledge: the Taj Mahal has never been proven to have been a Hindu Temple; nor did I say Moghuls were Indians - they just lived in India (you need a knowledge of religions to work that one out).
I just hope you're learning something here, because the way you're going, you're so gonna fail your exams! LOL
For a British person who studies South Asian studies, I would've thought you possessed more of an inclination of understanding, but you probably only want to study it so you can spread even more shit about the fragmented Indian culture, which, may I point out, is all due to the British anyway. But you don't see us moping and groping about it. We've moved on, but you guys still can't get over the fact you got booted out of a country you obviously wanted under your wing.
Just because a country is of the same ethnicity doesn't mean it's more of a 'truer' country than people who are all the same. Britain, in that case, is not a 'true' country on account of it being multi-ethnic and multicultural. How about looking in your own back yard before you start poking in others?
India and Indians' are proud of their heritage. We're happy to sleep with the fact that our country is so varied and ecclectic, housing many toungues, cultures, belief systems and people - and they're all happy to be known as Indians, so why should you question it?
Gujrati and Bengali may be more related to Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi - but Tamil does have words that are similar to Telugu, Marathi and Kannada, which, if you stop being so bloody ignorant, you will see all are inter-related anyway.
As an afternote to your ridiculous knowledge: the Taj Mahal has never been proven to have been a Hindu Temple; nor did I say Moghuls were Indians - they just lived in India (you need a knowledge of religions to work that one out).
I just hope you're learning something here, because the way you're going, you're so gonna fail your exams! LOL
- Status