Poll: Would you take a pill that makes you bisexual?

[jawz13]

Would you take a pill that changes what books you enjoy?
Would you take a pill that alters your religious inclinations?
Would you take a pill that makes you look like Brad Pitt?

No?
You are who you are. Be happy with that.

 

[silverhawk100]

Oh dear lord, there's so much wrong with this premise that I don't know how to be concise.

First of all, most of the potential reactions to the premise are a trap. There are, from what I can tell, two 'correct' answers to this question that don't immediately have either bi-erasure, privilege, or ignorance encoded into them:

1. Yes, I'd like to see what it'd be like/I want to be able to experience everything every human being CAN experience.

2. No, It's not correct to want to change a person's sexuality no matter the circumstances/the ethical implications of such a pill are too problematic. (Sidenote: this does not include the "I don't want to change myself" argument, because the counter-argument is that this clearly won't permanently change you so if you are unwilling to open yourself up to a new experience then that means you're narrow minded.)

Now, here're the problems with both of these arguments:

1. You're willing to commodify sexuality and my experience (bi the way) simply because you are curious about what it'd be like? This isn't like the "magic pill to change your sex for a day" thought experiment, because the end result of that is a transcendence of gender (pun intended). In that one, you're not consuming and discarding a trans-person's experience and struggle for acceptance, but in this one you definitely are consuming and erasing a bi-person's experience and struggle. If you argue this, then you are truly a consumer-capitalist in the worst possible connotation. So, while your logic is mostly acceptable from an LGBT perspective, you are everything that is wrong with our modern-day culture.

2. While your logic is (refreshingly) faultless, simply saying that the ethical consequences outweigh any perceived benefit speaks to a certain brand of cowardice to contemplate the ethical dilemmas involved with the eventual existential end to LGBT philosophy: transhumanism. So, while you're correct today, and you'll be correct tomorrow, you won't be correct when the next social change comes along and you'll be part of the inertia preventing it.

As for which damnation I would personally choose (were I not NA by virtue of already being bisexual), yeah I guess I'm okay with trivializing and commodifying human sexuality and bisexuality. Only because while I am firmly bisexual, I do kinda behaviorally occupy the headspace of pansexuality and firmly support and evangelize the erasure of gender as a social concept. Yeah, that makes me a consumer-capitalist and my previous statement applies here, but it also makes me show my Neo-Futurist leanings and I think the benefits outweigh the ethical complications. And yes, I did just slightly erase myself. Shut up, it's something I'm struggling with.

 

[Silvanus]

So, while your logic is mostly acceptable from an LGBT perspective

What's 'an LGBT perspective'?

2. While your logic is (refreshingly) faultless, simply saying that the ethical consequences outweigh any perceived benefit speaks to a certain brand of cowardice to contemplate the ethical dilemmas involved with the eventual existential end to LGBT philosophy: transhumanism. So, while you're correct today, and you'll be correct tomorrow, you won't be correct when the next social change comes along and you'll be part of the inertia preventing it.

I'm really unsure what all this means. How would transhumanism bring an end to LGBT philosophy? How does the belief that the pill is unethical imply that the person in question would stand in the way of future social change?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Oh dear lord, there's so much wrong with this premise that I don't know how to be concise.

First of all, most of the potential reactions to the premise are a trap. There are, from what I can tell, two 'correct' answers to this question that don't immediately have either bi-erasure, privilege, or ignorance encoded into them:

1. Yes, I'd like to see what it'd be like/I want to be able to experience everything every human being CAN experience.

2. No, It's not correct to want to change a person's sexuality no matter the circumstances/the ethical implications of such a pill are too problematic. (Sidenote: this does not include the "I don't want to change myself" argument, because the counter-argument is that this clearly won't permanently change you so if you are unwilling to open yourself up to a new experience then that means you're narrow minded.)

Now, here're the problems with both of these arguments:

1. You're willing to commodify sexuality and my experience (bi the way) simply because you are curious about what it'd be like? This isn't like the "magic pill to change your sex for a day" thought experiment, because the end result of that is a transcendence of gender (pun intended). In that one, you're not consuming and discarding a trans-person's experience and struggle for acceptance, but in this one you definitely are consuming and erasing a bi-person's experience and struggle. If you argue this, then you are truly a consumer-capitalist in the worst possible connotation. So, while your logic is mostly acceptable from an LGBT perspective, you are everything that is wrong with our modern-day culture.

2. While your logic is (refreshingly) faultless, simply saying that the ethical consequences outweigh any perceived benefit speaks to a certain brand of cowardice to contemplate the ethical dilemmas involved with the eventual existential end to LGBT philosophy: transhumanism. So, while you're correct today, and you'll be correct tomorrow, you won't be correct when the next social change comes along and you'll be part of the inertia preventing it.

As for which damnation I would personally choose (were I not NA by virtue of already being bisexual), yeah I guess I'm okay with trivializing and commodifying human sexuality and bisexuality. Only because while I am firmly bisexual, I do kinda behaviorally occupy the headspace of pansexuality and firmly support and evangelize the erasure of gender as a social concept. Yeah, that makes me a consumer-capitalist and my previous statement applies here, but it also makes me show my Neo-Futurist leanings and I think the benefits outweigh the ethical complications. And yes, I did just slightly erase myself. Shut up, it's something I'm struggling with.

....... Eh?

Could you perhaps simplify this? A lot of this seems to be talking about things as if most of the people know what you're saying.

But from what I can understand from this, you're already wrong in terms of what the "correct" answers are. A lot of people, most of them actually, here said, "I'm happy with my current sexuality." In other words, a lot of people are content with being heterosexual or homosexual right now.

 

[tofulove]

You need to have a im already bi sexual option. The lack of it makes your poll very inaccurate. Those who are bi may say yes because they are. Im bi but i answered no. Im uncomfortable with living in a world where one can change there sexuality with a pill. The age of technologically improving humanity scares me. I want humanity to move forward, but i do not want to be the one making those steps.

 

[Breccia]

So, we're discussing cures for heterosexuality now? If I followed your sports metaphor, I should be angry at God for making me only attracted to women, and want to kick His ass. Or am I misreading your baseball/basketball example? Are...are you calling Michael Jordan bisexual?

Maybe it's because I'm late to this thread, but when I see a poll of the type "Would you choose A or B, bear in mind I chose A and I don't think anyone could possibly choose B" I find that professionally offensive, leaving aside the subject matter itself.

 

[Something Amyss]

Kinda like a girl not being interested because she's a racist - are you really losing out there?

Except you were trying to talk about the expansion of your dating pool, and I'm pointing out a common, pervasive obstacle to that notion. You can argue you're not losing out, but the point in question was about the benefits you'd be gaining. To borrow your comparison, it'd be closer to becoming black in the south in the 1940s (minus the violence and such, merely the attitude).

I dispute the notion it's not a loss, either. I mean, technically it's for the best--not dating someone who dislikes you on some bigoted level would seem to be preferential--but the heart still wants what it wants. If there wasn't a common thread amongst humanity dealing with this sort of thing, our literature, art and music would be a lot different. We reflect upon loves that are wrong for us because those strike a chord with people worldwide.

ON a personal note, it's been nearly 13 years since I was dumped by a girl who was totally bad for me. She was a bit of a sociopath, though I didn't see it very well at the time. I know I'm better off. I don't want her back. But it still fucking hurts.

Have you ever been head over heels for someone only to find out she's gay? It's bad enough if she can never be attracted to you. Now imagine it's something as superficial as she dislikes the notion that you could be attracted to dudes, too. Yeah. Kinda worse.

But even if I didn't dispute that point, you were telling me about the benefits I hadn't considered. I'm telling you they're not generally benefits. Maybe you do get a pocket of friends and get really lucky, but I'm not talking about a trivial thing, nor an experience unique unto myself. In fact, I seem to do better than the norm. Somehow. I don't freaking know how, to be honest.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, we're discussing cures for heterosexuality now?

Wouldn't it be monosexuality?

Are...are you calling Michael Jordan bisexual?

One can hope.

Maybe it's because I'm late to this thread, but when I see a poll of the type "Would you choose A or B, bear in mind I chose A and I don't think anyone could possibly choose B" I find that professionally offensive, leaving aside the subject matter itself.

I take it as a simple act of "establish yourself" followed with "explain yourself."

I disagree with his basis, but I don't find it offensive. Then again, as a bisexual maybe I'm inclined not to. >.>

 

[WarpZone]

*stares*

I don't understand the question.

Like. Why would you want to be bisexual if you weren't already? The only reason I can think of anyone would want to do that would be if they were already in a relationship with someone they weren't attracted to, on account of that SO being the "wrong" gender. In that situation only, I suppose taking the pill is more ethical than forcing the other party to get a sex change. But if it were me? I'd probably just get out of the relationship. On account of, you know, it being built on a web of lies and all.

Seems like quitting the relationship would also be cheaper than buying a sexuality-change-pill. If this is not the case where you live, you either have incredible healthcare or shitty civil rights.

 

[WarpZone]

I don't like football(real football, not your pussy armor wearing american egg holders rugby wannabes). I know there's a significant amount of tactic involved in watching a game and not just watching where the ball goes. I know that the team spirit and fandom is a brotherhood in itself and is something I can definitely understand, since I'm a biker and we have a similar bond.
But no matter how hard I try, I can't stay focused on it. Playing fifa with friends bores me, going to a match bores me, playing actual football bores me and well.. it's just not me. But I wish it was. I'd love to be able to nerd over stats, team compositions, odds, go to matches and be a part of what's happening in the stadium as well as just play fifa with the guys.

I know there's a huge difference between feeling included and having your sexuality changed, but this isn't just about inclusion, it's the fact that I'm the same kind of nerd when it comes to other things and I don't know why football bores me. I might say the same for American football, but I'd probably be bored to death by commercials and frustrated by the lack of actual content.

If there was a pill to enable me to do that, I'd swallow it immediately.

See, I don't get your Football Pill, either. You're not into football. That's allowed. You're allowed to not be into football. This isn't a problem. Why fix it?

Would you also take a painting pill, movie pill, video game pill, interpretive dance pill, and all the other pills required to be as into various cultural touchstones as total strangers are? And what if the human brain can only store so much? Are you willing to overwrite your *actual* interests, just to make room for *more popular* ones?

The whole question seems absurd to me. But maybe this boils down to an "independence VS connectedness" thing? It's starting to look that way. I dunno, what do you think?

 

[darkfox85]

I?m happy and comfortable with my current sexuality and have no interest in my own gender (men.) There is nothing aesthetically appealing to me, and the thought of dating another man makes me feel grossed out... so yeah, I?d definitely take the pill as I have everything to gain and nothing to loose.

I...um, I really don?t understand the criticisms of this thought experiment. I mean, reallyreally don?t understand.

 

[WarpZone]

It is a problem. A first world problem maybe, but something that annoys me anyway.

Okay, fair enough.

OP states there are no side effects. Would liking something really overwrite liking another thing? By that logic, there's already space used on something we dislike and it'd make little difference.

Well, you made it sound like you were gonna really get INTO the sport. Like some kinda football nerd. And my thinking is, you can only be nerdy about so many things at a time. Let's say the "no side effects" clause gets you an *interest* in football, but actively developing that interest is up to you. And there's only so many hours in a day. So. What would you give up doing/thinking about to make time and energy for football?

If you're already watching a bunch of football games "to be social," and just not enjoying yourself, then the time commitment works out. But then you become like the hypothetical person in the loveless marriage in which suddenly being bi would solve everything. The question becomes *why?* Why do something you're not interested in in the first place, to the point where a football pill would come in handy? Is pretending to like football really that much of a game-changer? Can it get me money? Fame? Power? Friends? Would all of these things evaporate if you suddenly went "You know, guys, I don't think I actually like football very much?"

I do have a friend who might suffer from something like this already, an entrepeneur who's started his own electric car company and sleeps 4 hours a night. He has so many interests and hobbies going on, that his biggest problem is finding time for just half of what he wants to do.

Now THAT'S a first world problem!

I think in my case it'd be good with a bit of ambition and more to do that I could really get behind, so why not.

"If I really, REALLY applied myself, I could like football."

What?

I think the question in itself brings up a lot of things and comes to what you'd change about yourself if you could. I know a lot of psychological and physical changes that I'd want, but can't realistically do.

Erm. *looks around* I think if we were making wishes I'd probably alter the world, not myself. Maybe that just shows how psychologically under-developed I am, but... like... any physical or psychological changes I can think of would be utterly minor and inconsequential, hardly worth burning a reality-altering wish on. Unless I could get away with something really weird like "capable of flight" or "become fearless at will," but I suspect those are deliberately out of bounds lest the rhetorical exercise lose all meaning.

I doubt it'd make a huge difference if you were already strongly independent. Out of all the people who state a flat no to the bisexual pill, I'm sure that a large portion of those people are completely comfortable with their position in life and like a good deal about themselves(Whether that's being smarter or being blissfully ignorant, is a tough question). Could it create a phenomenon of diversity addiction?

Not sure what you mean by "diversity addiction." Not sure whether you mean within the individual or society. Not sure what you're implying creates it. But I think you're right that for anyone happily straight or happily gay, a bi pill would just be an added inconvenience. One more crazy life change to get used to. Remember, humans are risk-averse. If you're already happy and comfortable, why change anything?

People might want to be more and more open and crave an interest fix that would severely damage them and make them unfocused, for the single reason that everything is now interesting to them.

I'm a little fuzzy on your cause-and-effect here... are you positing that the mere availability of such a pill would poison peoples' minds by making them want to try new things? And that this would make them lazy and lower their attention spans, eroding the very fabric of society?

My dear good sir or madam, I regret to inform you that this has already occurred. In fact, ask any given generation of humans what causes this phenomenon, and they will tell you it's whatever the younger generation is getting up to. Why, according to historical records left by old people, this already happened with the popularization of written correspondence, the printing press, magazines, the invention of the motor-car, Jazz music, swing music, rock music, SCARIER rock music, rap music, radio, television, movies, the internet, smartphones, table-top role-playing games, and MOST of all, that most DASTARDLY of newfangled mind-rotting get-off-my-lawn-preventing of inventions: THE VIDEO GAME!

It makes you wonder how we managed to invent all these things since we apparently keep getting dumber every generation.

Would some people abuse it to be more accepted by others? Undoubtedly.

Is that "abuse?" Do you mean to imply that your aim with the "football pill" *wasn't* to be more accepted by others? Why do it, then? I am seriously still confused on this point.

Why would you want to want to do something that you don't want to do?

I think we just have to stick to the strictly personal level, since every other option spirals the whole thing out of control and everything loses context.

Agreed.

In short; I think you're right, it does look like independance VS connectedness. For me it's more selfish and the idea of controlling things about me, than just being connected or included, though that certainly plays a part.

I will say this. Give me a TOGGLE that I can switch on and off at will, about sexuality or football or anything else, and I have no problem with that. Why would I? I can just NOT TURN IT ON if I'm that attached to my status quo. Or flip it for a day, then flip it back and compare notes with myself. AND I SHALL CALL THIS INVENTION "COLLEGE!"

But, no, seriously, we already have an invention that lets you experiment without the pill: the human imagination. (Or "Google." Or "dating.") We can perform the experiment. The only thing the pill would do is let you change the RESULTS of that experiment, which is why it makes me scratch my head. I don't see an inherent benefit to doing that.

Come to think of it, OP didn't mention whether the pill lasts for 2 hours or is, in fact, permanent. I guess my brain instantly went to The Matrix and assumed that, since it was a magic pill anyway, it must be permanent. If it's short-duration and you don't build up a resistance to it, I suppose it's functionally indistinguishable from a toggle? Would resistance be a side-effect?

This poll is weird, man.

 

[DanDeFool]

No.

Got nothing against bisexuals, but I have enough problems being attracted to the gender I'm "supposed" to be attracted to (for lack of a better way of describing how I fit into the gender-normative paradigm). I don't need to want to have sex with every sex and gender.

 

[WarpZone]

No.

Got nothing against bisexuals, but I have enough problems being attracted to the gender I'm "supposed" to be attracted to (for lack of a better way of describing how I fit into the gender-normative paradigm). I don't need to want to have sex with every sex and gender.

Seeeee? This is what I'm talking about. Risk-aversion. Inconvenience.

 

[WarpZone]

I?m happy and comfortable with my current sexuality and have no interest in my own gender (men.) There is nothing aesthetically appealing to me, and the thought of dating another man makes me feel grossed out... so yeah, I?d definitely take the pill as I have everything to gain and nothing to loose.

I...um, I really don?t understand the criticisms of this thought experiment. I mean, reallyreally don?t understand.

Huh. This response puzzles me. It probably puzzles DanDeFool, too. What exactly are you gaining by doubling the number of people you are attracted to? Or do you see a lot of guys making out in front of you as part of your job or daily life, to the point where you're constantly getting grossed out all the time?

I just got done saying people in your situation (strong sexual identity, happy and comfortable,) would have *nothing* to gain. You completely threw me a curve with this one. I dun get it. Please explain?

 

[darkfox85]

Huh. This response puzzles me. It probably puzzles DanDeFool, too.

Who?s that? Why the fuck should I care?

What exactly are you gaining by doubling the number of people you are attracted to?

Oh, y?know. More of an appreciation really. More options, less discomfort, new experiences, broader horizons, etc. Whatever. ?Why not? is the better question. One no one has answered.

Or do you see a lot of guys making out in front of you as part of your job or daily life, to the point where you're constantly getting grossed out all the time?

Nnnnno. That?s a really odd thing to say. Also, I am indifferent to all homosexual activity and I?m confused you presupposed I?m grossed out by others.

I just got done saying people in your situation (strong sexual identity, happy and comfortable,) would have *nothing* to gain.

lol. I don?t care what you ?just got done? saying. There?s *everything* to gain. I really don?t see what the big fucking deal is. Seriously, this response is weirder than anything I said.

And there?s more I don?t understand, than what you don?t understand, and I?m so sick of arguing on other peoples terms in this forum. You can elaborate or leave me to my insanity. I don?t mind.

 

[WarpZone]

Huh. This response puzzles me. It probably puzzles DanDeFool, too.

Who?s that? Why the fuck should I care?

Post before mine. Nobody's saying you SHOULD care, I'm just using him as an example.

What exactly are you gaining by doubling the number of people you are attracted to?

Oh, y?know. More of an appreciation really. More options, less discomfort, new experiences, broader horizons, etc. Whatever. ?Why not? is the better question. One no one has answered.

Um. I did. I said that such a drastic life-change could be interpreted by a happy comfortable hetero- or homo- as an unwelcome complication. DanDeFool did too. He said "I have enough problems being attracted to the gender I'm "supposed" to be attracted to," which with very little unpacking basically says the same thing.

Here are some more reasons I just thought of: Being attracted to people can be a CHORE sometimes. Being friends with someone you're not attracted to can be blissfully simple by comparison. Hooking up can ruin otherwise functional relationships.

These are not reasons why being bi is somehow "worse." Nothing I've read or said so far has advocated that position. These are just reasons why I would anticipate that *suddenly forcing yourself to become bi via technological intervention* would probably cause more problems than it solves.

I am pointing this out because you seem unusually defensive, compared to the other people I've communicated with in this thread so far.

Or do you see a lot of guys making out in front of you as part of your job or daily life, to the point where you're constantly getting grossed out all the time?

Nnnnno. That?s a really odd thing to say. Also, I am indifferent to all homosexual activity and I?m confused you presupposed I?m grossed out by others.

You JUST SAID in your post that it DOES make you feel grossed out. I quoted it in my reply. Here, I'll quote it again:

I'm happy and comfortable with my current sexuality and have no interest in my own gender (men.) There is nothing aesthetically appealing to me, and the thought of dating another man makes me feel grossed out... so yeah, I'd definitely take the pill as I have everything to gain and nothing to loose.

My entire post to you was just me trying to make sense of your comment. Nobody's disagreeing with you here. I am trying to understand your point of view. You said that you're happy and have no interest, and that the thought of dating another man makes you feel grossed out. I wondered why you would then say you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. You seemed to be saying you're fine the way you are (I.E. nothing to gain.) Then you said men make you feel grossed out. I took a stab in the dark and went "oh, I get it, the gross-out part is an inconvenience, and the pill would give you a way around it?" Now you're saying the opposite, that it doesn't gross you out. Was your reply to me a typo?

I just got done saying people in your situation (strong sexual identity, happy and comfortable,) would have *nothing* to gain.

lol. I don?t care what you ?just got done? saying. There?s *everything* to gain. I really don?t see what the big fucking deal is. Seriously, this response is weirder than anything I said.

And there?s more I don?t understand, than what you don?t understand, and I?m so sick of arguing on other peoples terms in this forum. You can elaborate or leave me to my insanity. I don?t mind.

If you've been arguing in here all day, I didn't see any of that. Your post suddenly appeared between my post and some other peoples' and I assumed you were jumping into our conversation or else responding to the OP. Since that is not the case I will go back a few pages and read some of your posts. I suggest you do the same with my posts if you are interested in hearing general elaboration on my thoughts (they're all on the same page, here, page 8 of this thread, so there's literally no way that copypastaing all my other posts here would save you any reading-time) and I encourage you to ask specific questions of me. For your convenience, I will summarize:

Generally what me, Smilomaniac, and DanDeFool have said so far on page 8 is just us exchanging ideas. Smilomaniac is already pansexual, but he presented a metaphor about a football pill. I told him that I didn't understand why this would be inherently beneficial unless he was already in a relationship with football games, so I asked him to explain in greater detail how his argument worked. We agreed that, on the surface, this whole conversation *may* boil down to "independance VS connectedness." I said that I thought most people who are non-bi but happy with their current lot in life probably wouldn't take a pill to suddenly become bi, if only on the grounds that people are risk-averse in general and suddenly becoming bi would be a huge lifestyle change.

It's like moving house or changing jobs, or any other big lifestyle change. Everything would be different afterwards, so that makes it a risk. Humans are generally risk-averse. Therefore I anticipated that most people would not choose to take the pill. I myself cannot think of an intuitive reason why anyone *would* take the pill. If you don't like both genders, why would you wish you *could* like both genders? That's the part I don't get.

Also, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that taking the pill would be irreversible. If it were not irreversible, or if instead of a pill you gave me a switch I could just flick on and off, then my argument would not apply and I'd probably take one. (Assuming only I could manipulate the switch, I had reason to trust the security and integrity of the technology responsible for the switch, it was free, safe, and invisible, etc. You know, the usual covering-your-ass you do when posing hypotheticals to reduce tangential side-nonsense.)