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

[Theseus32]

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

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

Not soapboxing here, just pointing it out.

Something in innately wrong about changing something someone was born with that does no harm to them and provides healthy living. No one will ever tell me my parents (2 lesbians) are diseased. The idea to me is the same as saying black people are diseased with too much melanin.

Well, by your argument, allowing people who are bipolar access to medication is equally wrong. No disrespect to your parents, but there are major differences between genetic race and sexual preference.

 

[blankedboy]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

Exactly what he said. This pisses me off to no end, sexuality is no 'medical condition' to be 'treated', it's perfectly fucking normal and all these people saying it isn't can gnaw on a cock because they have no clue what they're talking about.

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

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

Not soapboxing here, just pointing it out.

If all homosexual people became straight, the already-huge overpopulation would skyrocket and kill most of us anyway >.>

1) what do you consider a medical abnormality?
2) do you believe birth defects to be an abnormality with the option for treatment?
3) who do you feel should have the right to determine whether or not another individual has a right to choose their sexuality?

1) Something that isn't normal. More likely than not something that negatively effects the individual.
2) If you're saying what I think you're saying, then just shut up. Seriously.
3) Nobody.

we allow sex changes. So what's wrong with sexual preference changes?

Because people in today's society understand that being female or male is fine either way, but a massive amount of them don't understand that being gay is okay. It's something for them to understand/find out about/etc, not something for them to easily force their way out of.

EDIT: Actually, go read Caliostro's post. Number 37. It sums up my position alot better.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If it were optional it would be very welcome, as anyone could determine their lifestyle independent of genetic predispositions.
But I can already smell from the OP howmuch abuse this would get, because obviously we all haveto be the same way...
I welcome the technological progress and fear what human stupidity end up using it for.

I for one would like an anti sex pill (as in not attracted to anyone), because it is bloody irritating being dumbstruck by every beautiful woman that passes my way and then being tortured by the thought of not having her.

So how could this be abused if they treated it the same way they treat "having your tubes tied"?

1) For women, they usually refuse to tie your tubes on request. You have to prove to them you are ready to have the operation. They do not allow others to be in the room with you during the multiple interviews. You must write in detail why you wish to have this done. You must answer a questionare explaining that you fully understand what is being done to you and why you wish to do it.

2)You have to be over a certain age.

3)It is reversable, unlike other things that are already allowed such as a vastectomy, hysterectomy ect.. If you stop taking the pill, your chemical levels can return to the way they were before.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yeah, now if only we could have a drug that turned everyone Caucasian, or Aryan... White skinned, blue eyed, blond haired...

...Oh wait, we kinda tried that before did we? And we had this big "war" thing over it. Cause of how extremely wrong it was to try to change what other people are, their identity, for absolutely no reason but personal taste? Funny how quickly we forgot that...

On a more serious note, I'm very much against this simply because it'll become a social scapegoat. "Yeah, see, we're ok to hate the gays now! They're choosing to be gay! they could stop being gay and take the damn drug! Nevermind that the very idea of asking anyone else to do this would be utterly appalling!".

And why would a gay person actually want to stop being gay for any reason other than to avoid social stigma? This isn't even like a visual change. Changing people's skin color could potentially have a merely cosmetic and non-discriminatory reason for being, you know. You could potentially want to change your skin color simply due to aesthetic reasons. Not because you're ashamed of your heritage, or to avoid social stigma, but much in the same manner you use a different suit. This doesn't really work with your sexual orientation. Why would you change what you like? "I want to change my sexual orientation because I like something else!". No you don't, otherwise that WOULD be your sexual orientation.

I could see something like this maybe being worth debating whenever we live in a world where gay people aren't considered "subhuman" and "defective" because they had the misfortune of liking something the majority doesn't. Today? No. I have a hard time seeing any reason for this research other than the same very misguided reasons that fueled the likes of Joseph Mengeles' research.

Would you deny the individual the right to choose their sexuality due to homophobes?
What would you describe as a heterophobe?
What if they loved someone of the opposite sex and just wished to adjust their sexual desire to fit?
This could be said for both genders, and for both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

[Theseus32]

Yeah, now if only we could have a drug that turned everyone Caucasian, or Aryan... White skinned, blue eyed, blond haired...

...Oh wait, we kinda tried that before did we? And we had this big "war" thing over it. Cause of how extremely wrong it was to try to change what other people are, their identity, for absolutely no reason but personal taste? Funny how quickly we forgot that...

On a more serious note, I'm very much against this simply because it'll become a social scapegoat. "Yeah, see, we're ok to hate the gays now! They're choosing to be gay! they could stop being gay and take the damn drug! Nevermind that the very idea of asking anyone else to do this would be utterly appalling!".

And why would a gay person actually want to stop being gay for any reason other than to avoid social stigma? This isn't even like a visual change. Changing people's skin color could potentially have a merely cosmetic and non-discriminatory reason for being, you know. You could potentially want to change your skin color simply due to aesthetic reasons. Not because you're ashamed of your heritage, or to avoid social stigma, but much in the same manner you use a different suit. This doesn't really work with your sexual orientation. Why would you change what you like? "I want to change my sexual orientation because I like something else!". No you don't, otherwise that WOULD be your sexual orientation.

I could see something like this maybe being worth debating whenever we live in a world where gay people aren't considered "subhuman" and "defective" because they had the misfortune of liking something the majority doesn't. Today? No. I have a hard time seeing any reason for this research other than the same very misguided reasons that fueled the likes of Joseph Mengeles' research.

>implying that in another 50 years people won't randomly decide to turn themselves hot pink to keep up with the latest fashion. Implying they won't do the same with sexuality.

 

[GraveeKing]

I was wondering if this was going to happen and let's be honest - I don't care if we -play god or not, if it makes some sexually insecure man who can't stand the thoughts that his manly friends would hate him if he has even the slightest thought of another man stop worrying then I really don't care.

It should be administered only with that persons consent, and as long as that happens I don't care. It'll take more than a little medication to get rid of us

 

[Caliostro]

Would you deny the individual the right to choose their sexuality due to homophobes?
What would you describe as a heterophobe?

Why would anyone want to chose their sexuality if not for homophobia?

Think about it. A person likes the gender they like for a myriad of reasons (much in the same way they like anything else). Why would you WANT to like something you don't?

As I said before, there's no reason to change what you like. "Oh I'm a gay guy that wants to like women! Because I prefer to have sex with women!" No you don't, or you'd be having sex with women! You say you want to have sex with women because saying you honestly prefer having sex with men causes you to be discriminated against.

>implying that in another 50 years people won't randomly decide to turn themselves hot pink to keep up with the latest fashion. Implying they won't do the same with sexuality.

Sexuality isn't an aesthetic factor. See above how changing what you like and changing what you look like are completely different.

That said, I couldn't care less if people change the color of their skin to purple for fashion reasons. There would, literally, be no reason to change your sexuality for "fashion" reasons. You'd still be lying, so might as well not take drugs.

 

[teebeeohh]

if it's possible to make an "anti-gay" pill it will most likely also be possible to make a "gay" pill. That makes me wonder: could i lace the drinking water at Westbro with this stuff?

 

[Kraj]

aside from the fact that the posts containing "playing god" pre-suppose that god exists, and therefore add an a priori to the discussion at hand,
who cares what someone does with their own personal life so long as it causes no harm to others?

really?

should one care if the guy across the street is boning your brother because he was BORN that way or CHOSE to be that way?

If their happy and I'm not harmed, I don't see an issue.

I am not pretentious enough to think my way of life is the only right way. "not saying that many of the previous posts were implicating that" however some were.

 

[Nurb]

The irony would be religions would finally believe sexuality is genetic when they find the gene and have a chance to "weed it out"

 

[thiosk]

Yes it should be made available to the public. People who scream for the availability of gender-reversal surgery and treatments are somehow abhorrent of a person who would like to feel comfortable in their own body rather than go under the knife (many times)? Sure, the article only lists controlling sexuality, but transgendering opens a whole new dimension to the utility of these drugs.

Maybe researching similar mechanisms and drugs can help reduce recetivism of rape or pedophilia crimes.

 

[iblis666]

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?

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the implications of your phrasing and point out the other big question: Could a 'gay pill' be made with the same science? I rather think this would be a brilliant solution for people who enjoy sex, but never want to have children and/or don't get along well with the opposite sex.

I am sure they could make a " gay pill" if it is simply altering chemical levels in the brain. I guess there could be a " nympho pill" too. LOL

this could have so many applications, maybe i could finally achieve my dream of getting 3 attractive women that are only attracted to me and each other even if it is through the use of drugs to turn them bi (you all know you were thinking it)

 

[Olrod]

It would be useful to be physically attracted to the gender of the person you're in love with. As long as it can work both ways.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

Exactly what he said. This pisses me off to no end, sexuality is no 'medical condition' to be 'treated', it's perfectly fucking normal and all these people saying it isn't can gnaw on a cock because they have no clue what they're talking about.

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

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

Not soapboxing here, just pointing it out.

If all homosexual people became straight, the already-huge overpopulation would skyrocket and kill most of us anyway >.>

1) what do you consider a medical abnormality?
2) do you believe birth defects to be an abnormality with the option for treatment?
3) who do you feel should have the right to determine whether or not another individual has a right to choose their sexuality?

1) Something that isn't normal. More likely than not something that negatively effects the individual.
2) If you're saying what I think you're saying, then just shut up. Seriously.
3) Nobody.

we allow sex changes. So what's wrong with sexual preference changes?

Because people in today's society understand that being female or male is fine either way, but a massive amount of them don't understand that being gay is okay. It's something for them to understand/find out about/etc, not something for them to easily force their way out of.

EDIT: Actually, go read Caliostro's post. Number 37. It sums up my position alot better.

First, "Gay" is a blanket. As a woman, I will be the first to admit that women have it much easier than men in being accepted as "Bi" or " Lesbian" by both males and females alike. Men have it much harder. Hetero men accept lesbians easier than they accept gay men.

A medical abnormality is determined by what the " majority" consider to be " normal".
Let's take condions such as Autism for example. Different degrees of Autism can be either beneficial or harmful. In people who have advanced coding skills and higher levels of mathmatical ability, it can be considered a "bonus". In cases of severe autism where they cannot feed themselves properly or be potty trained, it is considered debilitating.

Then when you look at something as simple as a cleft, sometimes it prevents the child from properly feeding, other times it just " appears abnormal" to others when it does not actually interfere with any function at all. It is still considered a birth defect, even when the only negative impact on them is socially. The same could be said of sexual orientation. Whether it be hetero or homo. It depends entirely on the environment. A woman being Bisexual can be a bonus in the eyes of many where as a man being gay is often, regretfully by society, is often ridiculed. The same men who drool over the possibility of a threesome with females will also cringe at the possibilty of a threesome with males.

If nobody has the right to tell another whether or not they can choose their sexuality, then of course you would support an individuals right to a medication that would aid them in their choice.

 

[Mannayz]

I don't have a problem with it... buuut... anything for science. I guess.