Anything else? Does anyone have any more to share?
Anything else? Does anyone have any more to share?
What a dick
Not bad at all...
This is my first post. Just wanted to say thanks a lot for your sharing, You guys are really very cool.
Course we are. Welcome to the crew!
Holy Prostate Exam Batman! That was AMAZING!!
That guy doesn't look Indian?
Any more stuff? I'm looking for vids now!
Dear PixelHerder, I love your taste in men!
thanks for welcoming me, eurimouse. yeah that guy looks indian. Here's another:
The only Indian guy in porn (amateur) I've seen is this "Omar" guy:
that Omar is HOT! super hot.
mmmm...... Omar.... does anyone have any videos of him? I wish that site would let me download them.
I wanna see him in a vid! *cries!*
I need more!
oh hell yeah! lpve them indian guys...
Wow - some really hot guys in that collection!
Colored boys are hot but I'm not attracted to Indian men, everyone in our firms' IT dept. is an Indian immigrant and although they are a friendly bunch and have lovely cuisine, costumes and music not one of them is shaggable.
Bollywood actors are sometiomes very fit but they're not representative of real Indians, Bollywood actors look more Pakistani or Kazakhastani than your average Indian, the reason is a lot of their actors are at least partially of non-Indian descent such as Italian, Afghan, Arabian, Persian or Pakistani which gives them a Medditerenean look.
I'm British and not many Westerners can tell the difference between different brown people but I can, I say give me Latino, Pakistani, Persian, Turk, Arabian etc. anyday but hold the Indians.
By the way half the porn stars in this thread being passed off as Indian are actually Latino or Arabian.
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!
What you say is true and there are a few fair skinned Indians mostly from northwestern India but they are a very small minority (maybe 1-2% if that) however Iíve seen plenty of Mediterranean looking Pakistanis. My hot, green eyed, wheatish skinned, brunette boyfriendís grandparents were Pakistanis (but heís British born) and he tells me the reason why people from Pakistan and a few from neighbouring NW India are fair skinned compared to the rest of South Asia is they are at least partially descended from Vedic Aryans (White Caucasians) who invaded and settled in those regions of South Asia centuries ago, some of them did move to other parts of India such as the Brahmins but even they assimilated into the local Aborigine and Dravidian populations and mixed their Vedic religion with local cults which created present day Hinduism and all this has been confirmed by National Geographic.
Thereís other Indians who are sometimes fair skinned too such as some Zoroastrians, Jews, Muslims because they are at least partially of Persian, Hebrew and Arabian descent.
Another reason Iím not attracted to Indians is theyíre not usually very muscular and they donít have sexy ruffian faces like other brown people. Amongst brown people North Africans, Central/West Asians (Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Arabia, Persia), South/Central Americans and Latinos sure as hell do rock my boat.
Oh and I do like an ample sized cock that works instead of a shrivelled up prune, Indians wont do anything for me if I keep reading articles like the ones below...
Condoms too big for Indian men
Indian army get inflatable penises
Wow, Zacksexy, the frame of reference you're using is so Colonial and 19th century, I don't know where to begin my flame on this topic. Perhaps, I'll start when finals are over.
But I'll sign off for now with with this food for thought: "Pakistan" was "India" for a thousand+ years prior to 1947. The same goes with Afghanistan and many other countries surrounding the subcontinent (including south east asia, Burma, which was once part part of an Indian empire). The boundaries of nation are flexible with time and dubious with race, which with its categorization has no anthropological or scientific basis. The characterisitcs that define race occur such gradation that there is more variation within a categorical race than there are between them. Moreso, the idea of an "Aryan Invasion" was constructed as part of 19th century colonial discourse in which the colonialists needed a historical justification to subjugate "the darkies." There is no, nor has there ever been, any archaeological plausibility of an Aryan Invasion (Scarre & Fagan, 2005).
Ok, that's enough steam. I'm off my soap-box. I don't want this to come off as a personal attack onto anyone. As a "brown person", I'm just tired of having to confront the same old tired discarded dialogue about race and beauty.
Also, a comparison: Viagra is a western invention. The Kama Sutra is an Indian, Hindu invention.
Arjun honey don't kid me I've studied geography and history of that region.
The term "India" was coined by us British for our South Asian empire (the name India was later adopted by the presentday country India), India was never a nation, an empire is not the same as a nation/ethnicity, lots of empires ruled South Asia before we named it India, the Mogul, the Turkic, Afghan, Arabian, Ashokan etc. Lots of nations, empires and civilisations inhabited South Asia in the past but they were not one nation so this idea that India was a homogeneous country like Ancient Greece or Ancient Egypt which has existed since day one is a big lie.
This idea that all of South Asia was this great big ancient Indian nation is a farce, all of South Asia has been part of the same empires through certain episodes of histroy, that much is true but they were never one nation. Iran was part of the same empire as Greece for a long time but does that make Iranians and Greeks the same nation? Hell no, sameway Afghans are as different from Indians as night from day. I guess Pakistanis do seem to have cultural similarities with Indians but they together with people from northwestern India (such as clean shaved Sikh boys who are the only Indians looking like Pakistanis) are racially quite distinct from the rest of South Asia, due to the Aryan invasions/migrations.
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.
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.
This seems like it has the potential to turn real ugly soon. So, I'm just going to add my 2 cents.
ZachSexy, just wanted to say that you can't judge an entire group of people (all Indians) just based on the IT firm where you work at. I understand your point of view on skin color differences between northwest (lighter skin) and south (darker skin) indians. So yeah there's a difference, but the IT industry has mainly non-Americanized/Europeanized SOUTH indians working for them. If you choose to extrapolate and make judgments based on what you see everyday at work, then that's your choice. But just know that it's completely asinine.
I do not understand how people can say they're COMPLETELY turned off by a particular race or ethnic group. Every race/ethnicity has good looking people and not so good looking people. It would be like me saying... "all Africans (from Africa or African Americans) are not hot and I'm not attracted to them". But I know for a fact that there are some black guys that I find good looking (not just celebrities).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Indians, like any other ethnicity, come in different forms, sizes, colors, and shapes so don't be closed-minded. I was born in northwestern india, but moved to the US when I was 4 yrs old and have become very americanized and metrosexual. It's people like you that make me believe caucasians aren't interested in me because I'm Indian and they make unintelligent judgments about Indians as a whole group, like you just did.
I'll take a dravidian any day of the week!
That's the spirit, Ophelia! lol
I guess that ended that.
Any more vids?
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
Do tell me how that turned you on a bit - there's a fetish that many people don't know about! LOL
Well Zack, I'm sure Indian guys everywhere are just devastated they can't have you.
But seriously, skimming a Wiki article, having a self-hating Pakistani boyfriend and reading some of Niall Ferguson's writing (oh, and looking at a single study with dubious conclusions) doesn't actually constitute studying the region in any meaningful sense. Which is especially evident when you drop a steaming pile of bullshit that even a student in an introductory level South Asian Studies course could smell from a mile away (to say nothing of those of us who majored in the topic).
Anyway, on to stuff that matters -- does anyone have any pics of Indian/Pakistani who are bearish or hairy? In real life, I see plenty of brown bears, daddies (or should I say "uncles"?) and hairy guys--even lucky enough to have messed around with a few --but finding pics of them online? It's harder to find pics of them than it is to find pics of Indian guys in general.
I like to speak my mind, sorry if it offends people.
People from the parts of India bordering Pakistan are quite bonny. Are you Sikh? They're goodlooking people if they don't wear ball turbans and don't keep moustaches that crawl into their mouths.
I use to know a Punjabi family from India, boy use to go sunday school with me (he was hot), they'd converted from Sikhism to Catholicism.
I don't find all Indians unattractive, Sikhs are fit but sadly they're a tiny minority in India and other Indians give them a negative rep.
As for heritage and all that, demographs change, the nations/ethnic groups which inhabited India were not the same nations/ethnic groups that inhabit India today. All this heritage talk is bullcrap, it's like a Caucasian American claiming the heritage of Native Americans as his own, it's the history of their land yes but not their heritage.
You talk of the Indus civilisation and the Vedic civilisation, that's my point they were completely unrelated and the Indus civilisation is not even in India, it' was in present day Pakistan and so is the river you claim the name 'India' to be derived from.
The Moguls were not Indian, they were foreign invaders, they were Persianised Mongols, when did the Persians become Indian? The name "Hind" (from which we derived the name India for you) was also first given by foreigners (Arabians) to the South Asian part of their empire.
I admit many nations inhabited South Asia and many empires ruled it in the past but they are not the same country as presentday India, they are just a part of the history of the land India and it's neighbours own, but that's it.
All of South Asia and parts of Central Asia were not always this one big great country called India like Indians like to imagine it to be. Just because India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan (Central Asia) were part of the same empires for certain periods of history or embraced common religions for little periods of time does not mean that they become one nation.
You seem to have a very over glamorised and illusionary, incorrect picture of India in your heads.
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.
Cliffox, I think you're absolutely right... they are hard to get... but I think some have been uploaded in this thread!
Does anyone have any more vids/pics?
You are so ignorant of your own country it's not even funny, the name India might have existed for a bit longer than Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh because we gave it to a empire we made out of a bunch of seperate states we lumped together but it's an artificial state all the same, I think Bangladesh is the only true country (and maybe Nepal) because at least everyone (or the majority) is of the same ethnicity.
The reason I keep referring to Pakistan as sperate from India is because today it is seperate (even though some of its regions may share some cultural similarities with some parts of India) and even in the past they were not always a part of the same empire or country, South Asia wasn't always and always this one country called India which you seem to think with your pan-Indian mindset, I know you accuse us Brits of divide and rule but it was actually foreigners that kept all of South Asia under the same goverment for the most part.
The fact that you think that Gujarati and Bengali belong to the same family as Tamil just proves your ignorance, Gujarati and Bengali are more closely related to Urdu/Hindi and Punjabi than to Tamil, they're Sanskritic languages not Dravidian like Tamil, just for records the Rroma language of European Gypsies (of South Asian origin is also Sanskritic).
I'm doing South Asian Studies so I've a better understanding of South Asia than the Hindutva propoganda you were reared on (e.g. Moghuals were Indians, Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple and Aryans originated in India).
If you were Punjabi you wouldn't be getting your panties into a twist because they're hottt unlike most other Indians.
Is there any Indian gay porn?
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
taj mahal a hindu temple lol
from knowledge the prince/king built it for his wife as a burial place and he was about t build his own across the riv known as the black taj mahal but his son did not let him ( btw, they were muslims so where did a hindu temple come from?) and where are you taking this class? our history class in highschool was more accurate, but since eurimouse, me and others who are indians know more about our culture then whats in the textbooks, its like how you know more about yours then we do, i was born and raised in canada but i still dont know a 100% of the other cultures here, and pakistani's have a lot of similar thing with india not just the few places that line the loc, i am half paki and half indian pakistanis and a good chunk of india follow islam the only main differences we have religion, we all wear similar clothes, food, heck all watch indian movs, soap operah, and music, the only reason there a fights between pak and india are because of brits if they didnt make pakistan then there would have not been all the bloodshed, riots and stuff between hindu, sikh and muslims, through all these years
( no offence to anyone)
Yeah, I was a little Disappointed when I went to India, didn't see any of those Bollywood types, even when I went to New Delhi, the majority of them are so frail and skinny. Kind of like watching Mexican TV the soap stars just don't look Mexican, they look more like from Spain or Italy. But on the other hand, your pics are really great of these Indian guys and I am sure I will find my Indian dream boy one day.
Well, it seems like we'll never get through to zach_sexy no matter how much we try. He can remain ignorant and have distorted views of India if he wants to. It's just amazing what is being taught in this college course he's taking.
Anyways, back to posting pictures. Since I'm gujarati, here are my boys Ashmit Patel and Upen Patel.
Upen Patel 2
Ashmit Patel 2
Cheers Bidude Bhai (if I can call you that)
Well I hope this makes wise man Zack learn a little more about non Punjabi hot guys than he did from his erudite University.
So much for learning ALL about South Asia in a 101 course in some fucked up town in the western hemisphere ...
And Euri - chak de phadde - pal
Show it to the ignoramuses in this great thread you launched
go to http://www.newboynudes.com/Photos/de...ndiancock&OB=D for loads of pics
1. It is true that there are more dialects in India than languages, however please do not discredit the languages because they are very different. There are many different groups of languages spoken in India. These include, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Tibeto-Burman. Indo-Aryan languages such as Gujarati, Bengali, Hindi, Kutchi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, etc are all very different. Same goes for Dravidian languages such as Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, Tulu, etc. Althouggh languages fall under the same catergories, they are very different and it is not possible for a Gujrati speaker to communicate with a Bengali speaker. This is the same thing with Romance langues in Europe. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian,etc. are all Romance langues, however native speakers of Spanish cannot communicate with Romanians. India is a nation made up with many different ethnic groups however, they are not all the same.
2. Pakistan is a very diverse region just as India is. One thing that must be kept in mind is that Pakistan was not only carved out of India but also out of Afghanistan. Yes, pakistan was apart of India and so were it's Balochistan and NWFP province, However, before 1893 Balochistan and NWFP were apart of Afghanistan and historically they have always been linked to Iran and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of these two provinces are Pashtuns and Balochis which are Iranic peoples and they are divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. They are culturally, physically, linguistically and historically different from Indic peoples and the rest of pakistan.
3. The Mughals were not of Indian origin. They came from Central Asia and intermixed with Persians and Afghans. Eventually they became Indianized through marrying local women however, they are not originally from India or present day pakistan.