William Burroughs was fucking hot!

He'd sure make me explode my ticket, if you swipe my meaning.

hes already dead dummy

he had a small, feminine penis according to some memoirs and letters

>that hairline

>ywn be bros with late stage dementia Burroughs

“In homosexual sex you know exactly what the other person is feeling, so you are identifying with the other person completely. In heterosexual sex you have no idea what the other person is feeling.”

what did he mean by this

He said crematorium, we can dig him up and burn him

Cooler, sexier motherfucker than you all the while possessing THAT hairline.

>ywn get hammered shoot guns and discuss orgone energy with Burroughs

You can't figure this out?

Its impossible for Homosexuals to truly love as they're really just masturbating rather than transcending their personal intentional horizon

no, im dumb

Whatever you say gay granpa

don't you think burroughs has been through enough? let him rest in peace

fpbp

He stone cold murdered his wife

It was a tragic accident.. He only wrote about the incident once.. He couldn't face what he had done. That's what happens when you give your life up to booze and junk.. You destroy everything you touch, especially those you love.

Whoah...how can you even *see* us from all the way up there?

>accident

Dude he shot her clean in the head, his excuse at the time being it was a made up game they never played before.

It was not an accident, it was a subconscious impulse at best but even that is being way too generous

There were witnesses who said she placed a glass on her head after he drunkenly said "time for our William Tell act" (which, in fact, was NOT a thing they had done before)
>William Tell Act
>"Made Up"
How old are you exactly?

I'm obviously referring to the fact there was no such precedence to the act, which served as a neat excuse to those around him

Yeah, it's pretty doubtful that a drunken junkie and a drunken speedhead would have made a rash decision.

>He stone cold murdered his wife

it was fashionable at the time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Murder_Your_Wife

spousal abuse was practically required. "one of these days, alice.. one of these days.. POW! to the MOON, alice!"

he also raped lots of underage boys, as is to expect from a homosexual

Did they?

Was HST just pretending to be Burroughs?

>southern gentleman
>edgy dissident
>counterculture icon
>author
>druggy
>gun enthusiast

that pumpkin is unsettling

nathan fillion

Nobody tell him

He stone cold murdered Steve Austin

the so called 'beat poets' are hacks who only got famous because jews and gays will always advance their kind over others. I mean, they can't help it, the species is tribal by nature.

Drunk as hell is the opposite of stone cold.

Also it was just a prank.

it wasn't rape. they were in Marrakesh, and they were whores. he had to pay them.

no. HST never moved to the middle east to fuck boys and shoot heroin, and the closest he ever got to the experimental "cut up" method was that poem he wrote with the lines:

Norman Luboff
Should have his nuts ripped off
With a plastic fork

>moved to the middle east to fuck boys and shoot heroin
moved to puerto rico to fuck girls and do speed
> and the closest he ever got to the experimental "cut up" method
i'd say that his equivalent would be gonzo journalism

all i see is more parallels m8

homo

hetero

>moved to puerto rico to fuck girls and do speed
im losing my mind just thinking about doing this

>go see the fucking parrot keekee

that movie is super good, the book was too edgy didn't read lol

I was listening to the liberal radio station some months ago and they went into Burrough's personal life, giving one anecdote of how he'd had a teenage boy at around age 70. This was after the drug use and general degeneracy. Burroughs, the great artist, it seems. The tone of the radio program was triumphant in its way - This American Life IIRC.

Patti Smith could be mistaken for a man, yes. But more sadly is that she has spent her past thirty years as an old crone-husk, remembering for whoever cares to look, or listen: "oh, me and my gay friend Mapplethorpe that one time. Oh, just us mixed-up kids in New York. I was in pictures, I was relevant once. New York, guys, Punk music........"

This picture deserves to be contrasted with another popular meme-image which depicts an older gentleman wielding a giant sword, just like this, in a kitchen, with a little toy-dog popping out of his shirt.

[invents mystical bullshit when in all relationships people just animally use each other as they are able in certain transactional ways which release the appropriate chemicals at the appropriate intervals]

homosexuals are abnormal but they have a capacity for love which isn't significantly less than how men use women for their bodies as men are able to do, and how women use men for their protection, status etc are women are able to do. It's all a dishonest mess of supply and demand and desire and the regrettable state of being caught in nature, which has abnormal offshoots like homos. To put metaphysical superstructure on this is stupid in its way.

>hating on Patti Smith
what a faggot, Horses is a great album

Yeah yeah, projecting your inability to feel or recieve love onto others all you like. This is nothing to do with mysticism its the clear phenomenological implications of what it is to intend towards being intended by the other, the true breaking point through which the real becomes constituted not as an adversarial horror but a necessary, a demanded experience.

But I'm wasting my words, a naive positivist eternal boy of questionable sexuality like yourself will take far too long if you can ever understand what can truly be between a man and a woman.

kek

This is what I had in mind when I made the thread, not all the gaybashing.

>I've always been attracted to men 30 years older than me
I guess it all started when I watched Indiana Jones when I was 6...

if there ever was a sexy 90y old person, this is the one

I'd love to be Wild Boys with him if you sniff a whiff of my drift..

As expected, more posturing and invalid theology.

Here's a tip: difference also exists between two beings, even when they happen to be of the same sex. Your theological chasm-crossing is not the unique province of male/female, and the reason why this is so is because homosexuals are also thinking, feeling beings who desire romantic companionship, imagine it, ideate it, and periodically find it.

In invalidating homosexuxal relationships, you would be far better served to point to their short length. Your continental nonsense isn't the way to go about doing it.

>no woman will ever react to a picture of you like this

Talk about a salty meatball..

Talk about a heartless roastie..

>and the reason why this is so is because homosexuals are also thinking, feeling beings who desire romantic companionship, imagine it, ideate it, and periodically find it.

You say that but its really just cultural mimicry, a sort of prescribed behaviour. Like the joke that is gay "marriage", its a flacid attempt towards fabricating a denail of their romantic illegitimacy.
A gay man has only one affection and its for himself the short length of relationships you allude to is caused when the inevitable traumatic point is reached when he finds this being he lay beside periodically is not infact himself.

The entitlement of you queers is incredible, how you think you can have orgies and love side by side. You're a disgusting childish menace.

>William Burroughs
where do i start with this man?

this

HST is Burroughs with half the vocabulary and a fourth of the intelligence

>Invalid theology
> Chasm-crossing
Coming from the "man" who spouts his stance as fact, simplifies an argument to mental gymanstics, and pseudo-bullshit.

tl;dr typical contrarian

A pair of ad-homs and other flagellations which have abdicated the substance of the argument, which is this: the initial claim which started the whole argument going, that "it is impossible for homosexuals to truly love", because xyz, is false.

The other poster has done far worse in terms of "mental gymnastics and pseudo-bullshit". Unpleasant as it may be to imagine, it is nevertheless fairly easy for a human being to hold the mental image of two men who hug and kiss and enjoy each other's company and have a kitchen garden. The image might be unpleasant or aberrant or warrant their throwing from buildings depending on your view, but it does not have the /metaphysical impossibility/ which was previously and incorrectly ascribed to it. That is the point, and that is the reason why I am right, and why the other guy is wrong. To equate such a mental image with the command "Imagine a square circle" is therefore a confusion on the author's part between his own /disgust/ at the idea, and his own capacity to imagine same idea in principle. He wants to banish it on a metaphysical level, but he can't, and once he understands, he knows that he can't. That is why I've even helped him to couch his argument instead in terms of simpler facts as opposed to his confused metaphysical shitposting.

And imagine he does, as in the later post , he simultaneously halfway concedes the negation of his original, central point, abdicates the highfalutin metaphysical stance in favor of "I don't like thing" (commendably, a more honest approach, though it obviates the earlier argument), projects, and (this is a quibble but I think it's worth making just now) misspells "its", "flacid", "infact", "denail" and maybe one or two others. One or two typos are fine, but if you want to use ten-dollar words and be taken seriously, you have to watch the details.

The other user's opinion as it is presented, is both simply false, and dumb. He could have easily done much better to argue his corner from fact-based items (general aberrance of homosexuality), and not from his idiotic metaphysics. That is why I've matched and beaten him at his own game, with my own ten-dollar words.

The real point is not to defend the gays but to point out that the other user's line of rhetoric is dumb. Last bit: I've noticed on this website that when I win an argument with sufficient rhetorical force, a common retort is that I am "presenting my opinions as fact". This objection simultaneously misses the point of rhetoric, and fails to read between the lines of a text. It's like you don't want to win internet arguments or something.

William Burroughs was a disgusting homo though. If you want to put down homos, simply refer to the person in the OP, for example.

i know a guy who took care of burroughs in his advanced age
what are some (serious) things you'd like to me to ask him?