Sexuality, mice and medication What if medication can control sexuality?

[Neo10101]

We took homosexuality out of the DSM so it can't be considered a disorder anymore which would fall under a chemical imbalance.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

I'm guessing we shouldn't treat sick people also.

OT: Sexuality happens in the womb and it does not happen due to a chemical imbalance. In fact, it hasn't yet been determined what causes homosexuality. Either way, I'd be against such medication. There is absolutely no reason why research should be put into creating a medication that changes sexuality when all that money could go to use on AIDS or cancer research.

 

[KefkaCultist]

I wouldn't take any form of "anti-gay pill"
I'm quite happy with my sexuality, thanks.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

If an anti-gay pill were designed, I could see religious organizations forcing their members to take it. It would open an entirely new world of fear and hate for homosexuals. It would set human rights back about 300 years. In other words... fuck that.

The only real problem here that I can see is that this would throw out all the "gay is a choice" argument they use. If they do this they are admitting that these people don't have a choice without the medication.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

First of all: the idea that the medication turned this guy gay (and made a sex fiend and gambler of him) seems a bit fishy to me. And when I hear about drugs like this, I can't help but think "mind control."

If all heterosexual people became gay, human life would be destroyed in a generation.

Let me guess: because no one would have babies any longer. You're ignoring IVF, surrogacy, et cetera.

If all homosexual people became straight, no adverse effects would be had.

So turning everyone gay would wipe out humanity, but turning everyone straight would not cause an unsupportable population explosion? It's a bit disingenuous to disregard medical intervention in one case, but not in the other.

This. I can't see any possible way a "gay pill" wouldn't be abused by some family, community or congregation somewhere to "cure" their children against their will.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Also, your icon is adorable.

Spoiler: Badass symbolic drawing!

I love that image and its intent, and am bookmarking it at once.

No, no. No no no no no.

I'm openly bisexual and if someone came up to me, offering a pill that would "cure" me from my "condition" I would punch them in the face.

I think you might have to stand in line.

You do realize Restless Leg Syndrome is real right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_leg_syndrome

Just checking.

Yep. And it was first described in the 17th century.

But it really comes as no surprise to me that people misunderstand neurological conditions.

 

[Xojins]

I bet if it were possible, they would only make a medication to turn gays straight, and not the other way around. The fact that people are trying to control it with medication at all is fucking disgusting.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

There are already treatments to maintain functionality for either low or hyperactive libido. But the answer to this one is no, as it alters that functionality into an abnormal state, crossing a clear ethical boundary.

Do you feel an ethical boundary is crossed when they allow sex changes? What about when they treat ADHD? Autism?
Where exactly is the ethical boundary drawn?

No. No. No. Here's your other answer:
In the medical field the role of the doctor and the scientist should always be to improve lives. For example, you compared this to the treatment of ADHD. The treatment of ADHD is not to alter them into someone else, but to improve their lives, their functionality, their ability to cope and manage ADHD. This experimental drug does not fall into that category of treatment, does not improve the life of another, does not give them functionality where there was nothing, and may even have the opposite effect to this.

I disagree with your assertation that the treatment of ADHD does not alter them into someone else. I was one of those children they attempted to "treat" for ADHD. When they put me on the medication, it hindered my creativity. Sure it will make you more obedient, it will make you sit still in class, it will make it easier for you to organize your "thoughts" because you are actually having less thoughts.

Instead, for me, I decided against the treatment for ADHD, and yes, I still see like many channels all at once giving me information, I have learned to organize them myself and have found that doing things a different way than society teaches you to do, that I am able to accomplish a great many things at once rather than focus on one thing at a time.

Making someone compliant to the way most people function in society should be a matter of choice. For some, they can see this as an improvement to their life if they are unable to figure out other ways to do things that do not fit within the "norm". ADHD is like having 150 televisions on different channels playing at once in your mind. It is much easier for some to be able to focus on one channel, whereas if you learn to organize your thoughts, you are actually able to receive a lot more information all at once. It is a matter of being able to teach yourself another way to do things, or not, because currently educators do not have the resources to do so.

ADHD treatment can be a good or bad thing depending on the individual. You make a sacrifice by either choice. The same could be said about having sexuality forced on you by nature. Some may see changing their sexuality as a benefit to the quality of life they will live, some may choose to " opt out" as I have from ADHD treatment and deal with their life in another way.

Morning.

I actually agree with you on this one. I too, flat out refused. Drugs as a form of treatment, much like surgery, should always be a last resort. There is always risks involved with surgery and there are always side-effects with drugs.

Now, what I see nowadays is this; Should you tell someone that you're sick, and they ask what's wrong. If you say "I think I've got a bit of a cold," they may say something like "oh that's no good, hope you get better soon." But if you say "I think I've got a sickness in my mind," they will automatically shrink back, and straight away assume it's some kind of twisted neurosis, and it is complete and utter bullshit that pisses me right off (no, no, not at you, don't panic). So what happens a lot, is they say... Nothing. Nothing, to anyone about it. And it's usually something simple and very treatable, like depression, and in most cases without drugs. Depression IS the equivalent of the common cold! And you have people boarding up their windows and going all one-man-army with it. Not saying self treatment is bad, but sometimes people who are not experts do screw up, or just don't have the strength to manage it. Imagine what it would be like if everyone who needed it could get treatment, and none of the bullshit, none of the worrying about bad treatment, none of the having no options about treatment. Imagine what that would be like.

Anyway, that's probably enough ranting about this.

I am one of those that believe treatment should be optional in the majority of cases. Everything has a good and bad side, just many fail to understand that. For me, Refusing to be treated for my ADHD has allowed me to flourish. It has allowed me to learn to use the "gift" I was given. Many look at ADHD as a " problem" whereas I see it as my "gift".

Most people can only think through a very narrow train of thought, but when you are receiving a vast amount of information at once, and learn how to process it properly, you can think of many things, see things through many views all at once. I do hope in the future, rather than try to make those different conform to what society can handle, that they allow the different gifts people are given to flourish.

From my gift of ADHD, I have been able to solve problems in my community that would otherwise have not been possible, I have been able to help family members in bad situations work their way through, and obtain an insane amount of skills. Not to mention that sofa where the throw pillows come out from inside it.

I do not think I would have been able to do any of those things if I had continued the medication, because it was the combination and application of the sheer amount of information I receive at once that allowed me to come up with the solutions I needed.

 

[mike1921]

Ok, I was overreacting a bit when I called the scientists a disgrace. It just rattles me so much that we go so far to change everything about us and the planet we live on. A pill or process that can change sexuality just seemed like such a massive step forward I went to ostrich mode.
Actually, come to think of it, I've overreacted in every aspect, but I still don't agree with it. You make good points, and I can't argue with the fact that choice is a basis for morality, but at times I just feel like we've stopped making changes to negative things and just started messing around with characteristics. I think I've mentally put this in the same category as boob jobs and cosmetic surgery in generalm and that's just something I can't shake out now. =\

Why do changes have to be towards things accepted to be bad? Why is something wrong with boobjobs and cosmetic surgery? I mean , I even prefer women's boobs small/medium but I don't see why there's anything wrong with them getting them bigger if they decide they want to pay for that. It's their characteristics, what's wrong with making them the way they want to?

 

[Anchupom]

Ok, I was overreacting a bit when I called the scientists a disgrace. It just rattles me so much that we go so far to change everything about us and the planet we live on. A pill or process that can change sexuality just seemed like such a massive step forward I went to ostrich mode.
Actually, come to think of it, I've overreacted in every aspect, but I still don't agree with it. You make good points, and I can't argue with the fact that choice is a basis for morality, but at times I just feel like we've stopped making changes to negative things and just started messing around with characteristics. I think I've mentally put this in the same category as boob jobs and cosmetic surgery in general and that's just something I can't shake out now. =\

Why do changes have to be towards things accepted to be bad? Why is something wrong with boobjobs and cosmetic surgery? I mean , I even prefer women's boobs small/medium but I don't see why there's anything wrong with them getting them bigger if they decide they want to pay for that. It's their characteristics, what's wrong with making them the way they want to?

I think it's petty, needless, a waste of money, and in some cases pathetic. Getting a boobjob or a new nose is just striving to achieve some fantasy superficial goal. I just disapprove of the process, I don't think it should be a thing.

 

[Spacelord]

If it was determined with advancements in medicine, that homosexuality was determined by a chemical imbalance in the brain, do you think that a treatment should be made available to the public on a volunatry basis?

As a scientist this has always irked me.

EVERYTHING is a chemical imbalance. Feeling gay, straight, sleepy, hungry, thirsty, sad or happy. That's what neurotransmitters DO. They serve to transmit data from one bit of the brain to the other bit so that all the bits are coördinated into the magic that is you.

Which raises a bigger issue: who decides when to medicate whom?

 

[darron13]

Well first of all, you're seeing it as a one way street. If you say it can change a straight man gay, and vice-versa, then it's not a solely Homosexual issue. One can adopt the idea of seeing it better to be straight or better to be gay.
Now as for your question, I am a gay man who lives in a part of the world where it is illegal to be gay. Now even so, if given the choice to be straight, I would refuse. Reasoning? Because I used to hate myself because of my sexuality, and it took alot of time and pain for me to come to accept myself as I am. Now that I have accepted it and that I am now comfortable with it, I have about as much interest in changing my sexuality as any straight person. Even if it makes life easier, it won't feel like how I've come to accept myself being.
Sadly if this thing really does come to pass to work with humans, many religious types will force it on their children and even themselves...I do not like the idea of that as it might justify hate against gay people by the religious as they will take it as a 'cure'.
Ontop of that they will continue to (stupidly) point to gay people as being sinful because there is now a 'choice'. Of course forgetting all the crap they said before about it not being a choice.
Then again, they'd take whatever chances they get as long as they can spread more of their hate and get more idiots to join them, but that's off topic.
Anyway, I've made my point and that was it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If it was determined with advancements in medicine, that homosexuality was determined by a chemical imbalance in the brain, do you think that a treatment should be made available to the public on a volunatry basis?

As a scientist this has always irked me.

EVERYTHING is a chemical imbalance. Feeling gay, straight, sleepy, hungry, thirsty, sad or happy. That's what neurotransmitters DO. They serve to transmit data from one bit of the brain to the other bit so that all the bits are coördinated into the magic that is you.

Which raises a bigger issue: who decides when to medicate whom?

I think that should be determined by the individual. If a person with ADHD for example, sees this as a problem and wants to try medication to see if it helps them with their life, they should have the option to choose to do so, or choose not to do so. Some with ADHD, like myself have learned how to manage it in another way, and see this as a "gift" not a punishment.

I feel the same should apply with any condition. Some may want to change their chemicals to make them "within the normal range " some are happy the way they are.

 

[101flyboy]

First, this is not a discussion of "Love", as sexual attraction and love are 2 separate issues. It is possible for someone to love people of any gender without sex being an issue, so this is strictly a topic on " sexuality".

Now with Pharmaceutical manufacturers having adverse sexual side effects on their warning lables and lawsuits such as this, where a man claims their medication turned a heterosexual man into a gay sex addict and gambler, in combination with the studies on mice that have allowed them to impact sexuality through controlling chemical levels in the brain, that it is possible that sexuality may become a treatable medical conditon, such as ADHD, or anxiety.

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/health-news/man-sues-drug-maker-over-gambling-gay-sex-addiction.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71586/title/Brain_chemical_influences_sexual_preference_in_mice

This leaves the big question:

If it was determined with advancements in medicine, that homosexuality was determined by a chemical imbalance in the brain, do you think that a treatment should be made available to the public on a volunatry basis?

Also what kind of impact would this have on the homosexual community, relationships, and lifestyles?

I am not saying this has been determined,or if it is even ethical to do so. But as advancements in medicine push forward, it is conceivable that they could essentially make medications that would guide sexuality in the future, and it is interesting to see how the general public would respond to such advancements.

Homosexuality is not an illness.

/thread.

 

[101flyboy]

There will never be a cure to repair homosexuality because it doesn't need repair, it's not a condition nor illness, and there are ZERO accredited medical organizations who believe as much.

BTW, mice aren't humans. They aren't animals. They are rodents. This thread is extremely offensive. Medication hopefully will be created to cure people of the true disease----homophobia.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Brilliant. Just turn everyone gay. Population control made simple.