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

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Well there are already hormone therapies that cut out your libido. Alan Turing was forced to take estrogen injections after he was deemed to be a security risk because he was gay. Two years later he was dead by possible suicide. Of course you can argue that his chemical castration (misnomer because he wasn`t actually castrated) wasn`t voluntary, so not the same as someone who would voluntarly take the drug. Also, medroxyprogesterone acetate has been used in the past to eliminate sex drive in convicted sex offenders. Its use is naturally controversial in those particular cases, but it is interesting to note that despite it having low side effects and therefore considered a relatively safe drug, its not used commercially for people who want to eliminate their sex drive. Maybe if you asked your Dr. would give it to you, but its interesting that drug companies who jump at the chance to make drugs people don`t really need for conditions they just made up (restless leg syndrome anyone) don`t tweak the molecule for a patent, market it as a brand new lifestyle drug and rake in the billions. Probably because the pill won`t sell. I mean think how well Viagra sold. It sold so well it changed the entire pharmacuticle industry. I`m sorry but despite what a surprising number of peoples on the escapist think, most people are happy having sex, and wanting to have sex, but this is all off topic.

Yah, I think its okay for someone to choose to remove their sex drive, be they homo- or heterosexual, but it is not a decisions that should not be made lightly. Examine all the options, that`s what I say, mostly because I don`t feel like writing any more.

And what if the medication increased your libido with whatever sex you chose to be attracted to?

 

[rutger5000]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

When God himself/herself/itself comes down to earth and tells us all not to, or he'll pull an armagedon on our ass. Otherwise never.
"It's in humanities nature to overreach."

 

[Wyane380]

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.

Well if all white people became black no adverse effects would happen either, or all blacks white, or all Mexicans became Canadian by your logic. The loss of diversity itself is an adverse effect.

OT: I can't call this wrong, but it isn't a good idea. People could force, trick, or covertly make people take the pills. This kills many aspects of individuality by letting people decide how other people should be.

 

[Summerstorm]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

Hopefully never. Come on, we NEED to have it all. Perfect control, perfect future.

Well, i am myself on the side: Any adult with (relative) sound mind should be able to decide what to do with his/her own body and state of mind:

If you want to drug up, take whatever you want.
If you want to cut off your arms and legs for mighty ROBOT limbs, do it.
If you want to be gay for a day, to have sex with your mancrush, by all means.
If you want to be hetero because you want to have a 100% natural genetic child: sure, why not.
If you want to screen and enhance the genes of your baby before it is conceived/born: Sure.
If you want take your own life: go ahead.

But the one thing you ALWAYS have to consider: Everything you do has consequences.

 

[FeanortheBrave]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

I find offence in this comment. due to the fact that if humanity wasnt so obsessed with playing """god""" and making advances in medical science me and my mother would have died before I was born. When humanity wakes up and realizes we are not special we are not privileged we were not created by some God that watches over us and judges us. we are very very small insignificant specs in an infinitely large universe

Playing God=/=regular scientific progress. And it 'is' just a phrase, not an advocation for God one way or another, so there is really no need to take a jab at theists either. That's probably one thing that irritates me about fellow Escapists; they always find a need to bring their religion, or lack of it, into an issue.

But yeah, something like this is indeed playing 'God', because you are essentially messing with something that really doesn't actually NEED to be messed with. As someone in this thread already said, if a gay man preferred sex with women, then he would, indeed, be having sex with women. Society might push certain people into either taking the 'gay' pill OR the 'straight' pill, and it'd just be a mess.

 

[AwesomeSuperMelon]

I dont like the part where they refer to sexuality as being "treatable"...

 

[rutger5000]

Depends on the region. Here in the Netherlands I would tolerate it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd tolerate it. I don't think hate would increase in the significant areas. So what if homosexuality becomes a choice? "If you want to choice for homosexuality, then I'm fine with that." That would be the general opinion here. Sure we have a few vilages even a whole region were people probably wouldn't feel like that. But gaybashing is already quiet big there, it can't become much worse without getting responses from the police.
I'm sorry for all Dutch gays if I'm wrong about all this, but that's how I think it is.
Though the government would have to (brainwash) reeducate, the lower social (not economic) classes. But I'm all for that anyway.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

Well if all white people became black no adverse effects would happen either, or all blacks white, or all Mexicans became Canadian by your logic. The loss of diversity itself is an adverse effect.

OT: I can't call this wrong, but it isn't a good idea. People could force, trick, or covertly make people take the pills. This kills many aspects of individuality by letting people decide how other people should be.

The same could be said for treating a variety of "medical conditions" whether it be ADHD, erectile disfunction, Anxiety, Depression, Autism, Thyroid problems, Bipolar disorders and many many more.

Should we not allow a choice to be made there as well?

Considering I have had ADHD my entire life and choose not to be treated because the medications decrease my creativity, I still think it is a personal choice that should be available. Also, as a female who has had relations with both males and females, I also feel that anyone who wanted to choose their sexuality should be able to do so. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't?

 

[cthulhumythos]

OOOOO OOO, OOO Pick Me!

i wanna be asexual, then i can divide into smaller me's and continue the process until i can TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

as for a somewhat more serious discussion, i don't really care. If people wanted to change their sexuality, it's their choice. i personally don't care. in fact, the idea of less kids running around is quite appealing...

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Pray to god this never falls in the hands of a major government in the world, otherwise we're all screwed THAT much more :/

Talking about a half-life-ian society here where the government can suppress babies...

Bad times.

 

[Moromillas]

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.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Pray to god this never falls in the hands of a major government in the world, otherwise we're all screwed THAT much more :/

Talking about a half-life-ian society here where the government can suppress babies...

Bad times.

LOL they are going to turn everyone gay by forcing them to be medicated?
And here I thought I was paranoid because they may impose a tax on all virtual goods in the future.

 

[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?

 

[Floppertje]

Depends on the region. Here in the Netherlands I would tolerate it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd tolerate it. I don't think hate would increase in the significant areas. So what if homosexuality becomes a choice? "If you want to choice for homosexuality, then I'm fine with that." That would be the general opinion here. Sure we have a few vilages even a whole region were people probably wouldn't feel like that. But gaybashing is already quiet big there, it can't become much worse without getting responses from the police.
I'm sorry for all Dutch gays if I'm wrong about all this, but that's how I think it is.
Though the government would have to (brainwash) reeducate, the lower social (not economic) classes. But I'm all for that anyway.

Urk would love it

I don't see why this couldn't happen, scientifically speaking. there's drugs to suppress sexuality (used on GI's in vietnam), there's drugs to stimulate sexuality (aphrodesiacs) so why couldn't there be a pill to change sexuality?

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Pray to god this never falls in the hands of a major government in the world, otherwise we're all screwed THAT much more :/

Talking about a half-life-ian society here where the government can suppress babies...

Bad times.

LOL they are going to turn everyone gay by forcing them to be medicated?
And here I thought I was paranoid because they may impose a tax on all virtual goods in the future.

They'll put it in our water I say!

And they can't impose tax on virtual goods because of boundary crossings. If they started trying to do that, they'd first have to outlaw proxy servers, and crack down on and and all private servers possibly through Apache itself and such organizations to control the ENTIRE internet.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's about as plausible as my theory.

Another reason us gamers should segregate and build our own country.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

Well if all white people became black no adverse effects would happen either, or all blacks white, or all Mexicans became Canadian by your logic. The loss of diversity itself is an adverse effect.

OT: I can't call this wrong, but it isn't a good idea. People could force, trick, or covertly make people take the pills. This kills many aspects of individuality by letting people decide how other people should be.

The same could be said for treating a variety of "medical conditions" whether it be ADHD, erectile disfunction, Anxiety, Depression, Autism, Thyroid problems, Bipolar disorders and many many more.

Should we not allow a choice to be made there as well?

Considering I have had ADHD my entire life and choose not to be treated because the medications decrease my creativity, I still think it is a personal choice that should be available. Also, as a female who has had relations with both males and females, I also feel that anyone who wanted to choose their sexuality should be able to do so. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't?

The thing you're not seeing is that ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, etc stop people from living a healthy life. Homosexuality does not. There's your difference. Why cure that which harms no one?

I think it is you who are not seeing how all of these things may be seen as good or bad by the individual being affected. This is a case by case basis.

 

[Vornek]

This is a thing that is like all things, subjective.

Whether or not it is ethical depends both on the situation, and the individual (and in the case of guilt, society also enters the equation).

On whether this is a good thing or not:
Personally i have no idea of my opinion. I tend towards that if i can't answer a question or issue, i'll avoid the thing altogether.

Concerning peoples reactions to this:
I think that society as a whole isn't ready for this.
It's the same opinion i have towards guns really. We shouldn't be given what we can't handle responsibly. So... i'm guessing what i'm saying is that regulation should be strict.

I'm unsure how to tackle this issue. Thanks for giving me something to think about, i owe ya one.

-V

 

[WarpZone]

In order of importance, the following three things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis:
- Does the prospective patient actually *want* to change?-- THIS IS PARAMOUNT.
- Is the drug safe and reliable? (This includes checking the patient's medical history and observing their initial reaction to the drug.)
- Even if the drug is effective, what are the side-effects? Are these better or worse than the problem the patient wanted to treat? (You see a LOT of this with antidepressants and anti-psychotics-- tinkering with the human brain is just inherently risky.)

Just in general, I see no harm in further research and development along these lines, (especially if we also learn how to do the inverse,) but I would want to see a tight leash on public policy makers if it ever made it to market. Straight drugs (or gay drugs, or bi drugs) on the market and available for sale is all well and good. Forcing people to take them is not.

I think we (Americans) have a long way to go culturally before such a drug could be responsibly administered to anyone. If you know a homosexual and you want to help them lead a normal life, guess what? We already have a pill for that. It's called "stop being a douchebag towards homosexuals."