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

[Wintermoot]

this is not ethical. like any other form of personality (like Autism) we shouldn't heal it, it,s not a disease!

You do realize that without proper care and treatment, those with severe Autism would not even be able to feed themselves. There are different degrees to everything. For mild autism, it should be up to the individual to decide. Who are we to tell them they can't be treated?

you got a point but with most forms of autism "treatment" is impossible the only thing doctors can do is suppress

 

[Sandernista]

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

personally this is my favorite quote and explains alot of my view on the world and such
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
the pale blue dot from carl sagan check it out and really think about it. that picture is the most distant image of earth every taken.

We are not insignificant. Can the universe understand us? Or will we understand the universe?

 

[Eatbrainz]

Just use the pills Smithers has in The Simpsons!
"I LOVE BOOBIES!!"

 

[Terminal Blue]

Vampire Sam Neill said it best, "What's to cure?"

Tell you what, we could waste vast amounts of researcher time and consumer money on borderline ethical and exploitative medical treatments which probably won't do very much because human sexuality =/= mouse sexuality (in fact, mice don't have a sexuality) or we could just fix the homophobic society we live in so that we don't even have to. Just saying.

If homosexuality is caused by a 'chemical imbalance' then heterosexuality is also caused by a 'chemical imbalance'. Imbalance is a relative term.

 

[gideonkain]

If it was determined with advancements in medicine, that homosexuality was determined by a chemical imbalance in the brain--

All objectivity lost.

It's also fundamentally flawed, this is like saying "If it was determined with advancements in rocket science, that farting can propel you into space--"

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You cannot expect people to change medical terms in order to be more "sensitive" rather people should be educated on medical terms to understand their meaning. Would you rather them say "below normal range for an average male between the ages of ... " or should they just not say anything at all, instead show a graph with the normal levels of the general population and then then show a level much lower? I think nit picking at words is silly. I do not expect them to have to "tip toe" around a fact to spare sensitivity. They should just state it as accurately as possible to make sure the person affected is gaining a proper understanding of the information.

I'd prefer the graph and the range, because a great many people fall wildly outside that "normal" range. (I'm one of them.) The actual PROPER way to determine whether you have an "imbalance" is to compare your own personal "normal" levels with the levels you have when things aren't working right. Granted, this takes more effort and thus is more expensive. But this fetish medicine has with taking a median and calling that "normal" is bullcrap.

Yes, I too prefer a visual aid, but that is not always feasible. Though it gets one thinking if there is actually a big difference in chemicals that affect sexual attraction, could that also impact other health risks?
For example:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-gay-men-cancer-idUSTRE7480GE20110509

What if this chemical imbalance actually increases cancer or other health risks?

I know we like to think that we are "advanced in modern medicine" but in reality, I am sure one day they will look back on these times as "medical dark ages" and wonder, "oh my how could they have ever thought that?!" or "how barbaric!"

 

[jpoon]

I would be actually quite fine with it, if they so chose. You would probably also be able to direct the sexuality of children that way, which I would also be fine with.

The only thing that would be bad about it is that your kid would have a raging gambling problem.

 

[Dexiro]

If medication could control sexuality then the lives of gay people would get a whole lot shittier.

I'm gay and I love it, it's shaped the experiences in my life and defined who I am. Would I want some religious nut pressuring me to become straight? Hell no. And I never want to hear the sentence "if you want to marry the person you love then you can just become straight".

If anything we'd be making more people gay to control overpopulation, but even with the massive benefit that would have I wouldn't want to force a change in anyone's sexuality. It's honestly like forcing someone through a gender change but with less drastic methods.

 

[EvilEggCracker]

Actually, I could see this getting rid of a lot of social stigmata for homosexuality. I would probably "go gay" for a while with a pill to see what it was like. Y'know, curiosity. Likewise, if ever mocked or anything, one simply needs to say "I was curious. I quite like it, actually, you should give it a go." It'll help create understanding.

Currently, in some places, homosexuality is seen as a sin. It would be unfortunate if these ignorant and socially inept places forced people to take a pill to ensure that they are all "hetero". Hell, if someone started doing that I'd probably become as gay as possible in protest - and no doubt love it. Any issue of forcing someone to change their sexuality has to be dealt with in the law - just because something can be abused doesn't mean it has to be banned. There can be other safeguards.

Ultimately, it all comes down to choice. And more choice is never a bad things (forgetting Sophie for the time being).

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

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.

I dunno, would a black person take a pill to "cure" him or her into being white? I know such an example may be extreme, but being gay, for many people, is part of their identity and who they are. They wouldn't want to get rid of that, which is fine, because it is normal. Suggesting that maybe there should be medication to do away with it implies otherwise. As for the whole sex/love thing, I know for a fact that your statement isn't always true. It really depends on the person- some people can have a relationship without sex, others need it as an integral part. So some people can only love who they are sexually attracted to, meaning that sexuality and love are not two "completely different" issues. And that's ignoring all the social factors involved wherein the two are automatically assumed to be intertwined with each other.

 

[Anchupom]

If there will be an "anti-gay pill" it'll be forced upon children by their bigot parents.
And all those people who refer to sexuality as a choice will be technically right. Can you imagine this scenario with homophobes in a bar?

Bigot:Fuck off, bender.
Homosexual:I didn't choose to be gay, you know.
Bigot:Yes you did. You chose not to take the anti-gay pill.

The idea of this makes me sick to my stomach. A person's sexuality isn't a choice, and it should never be reduced to one. If this ever gets drafted as a possibility, I will quite happily campaign against it publicly.
I genuinely will not stand for this. Those scientists, as far as I'm concerned, are a disgrace. We should not be messing with nature the way we are now, so why should we start messing with the nature of sexuality?

Well if it did turn out to be a chem imbalance in the brain (which I doubt) then the person would not in fact be a bigot, they would be correct, you were choosing to be gay. If there was a pill that cured a genetic form of blindness and you didn't take it you were choosing to be blind.

In the comment you responded to, I'm also saying they would be correct. But that doesn't stop them being a bigot, as they still hate someone for their sexuality.
Using your example of blindness, it would be like them hating someone for being born blind. And besides, being blind is a disability whereas (as far as I know) being gay isn't.

 

[tofulove]

i just want to say, chemical imbalance is a matter of opinion, our existence is nothing but chemicals and energy reacting to each other. we need to be careful with meddling with natural selection, for if we were able to understand our brains, our brains would be fare to simple for us to understand.

 

[coppah20HE]

What about Bi-Sexuals, Pansexuals, Omnisexuals, Transsexuals, Anthrosexuals, Pangengers, Gengerqueer, etc

 

[mcnally86]

I support human neurodiversity. Everyone is broken and no one needs fixing. There is no such thing as a sane person. Its to what extent can you hide your flaws.

 

[Caliostro]

There are different degrees of everything.
A cleft, for example can either be severe enough to prevent a child from feeding properly, or it could just be a minor cosmetic abnormality that people may discriminate against for employment, relationships, and in social settings. For those with a minor cleft, their life could be enhanced by removing the negativity from discrimination. The same would apply here.

I'll remind you once again that a physical condition and emotional questions are not the same thing. A cleft is a genetic deformity. One you could easily "reacquire" with absolutely no danger to yourself if you wished, and would change nothing of who you are. Homosexuality isn't.

Really think about this for a second and consider how incredibly backwards this notion is: Only inherent difference between gay and straight people? The gender they like. The gender they feel attracted to. This much is easy to establish, yes? Ok.

First: If you like something, why would you want to stop liking it, if it's not bad for you at all?

Second: Why would you want to change what you like to something you don't like like?

You see how absolutely senseless this is? The only reason people would ever take this "treatment" would be out of social pressure... Which would only get worse by the very existence of this drug.

As for "remove it to ease discrimination", yeah that's a perfect logic. Should we start giving black people drugs to become white? I mean, it is possible. Should we? I mean, it would ease whatever discrimination they're suffering right? I'm sure that's what Dr. King had in mind when he spoke of his dream of tolerance and understanding.

Kind of a backwards idea to change the victim and not the culprit, no? Perhaps we should be working out how to stop homophobia instead of homosexuality.

 

[Anchupom]

*snipped to shorten the post*

The question shouldn't even be whether or not it's a choice.

Under normal circumstances, it isn't. We haven't got the power to mentally change our brain chemistry.

Everything about who we are is down to brain chemistry. That's the short and slippy of it. Everything is chemical reactions and how our brains are wired.

The question should be, why does it matter to anyone else.

If a person chooses to stay homosexual even if given the choice to change it. Then that is their choice and everybody should respect that.

Just as everyone should respect someone's choice to not be homosexual if it became available to them.

Just as we should all respect a strait persons choice to take a pill and become bi sexual etc if they so choose.

The grand thing about the free world is that it's full of choices. Why should this one not be explored.

This is what I'm saying, in an ideal world (if and when this is introduced) people should be free to make that decision, but it isn't an ideal world and there will always be intolerant bastards out there who will condemn those who were born gay and didn't choose to take the "straight" pill, or born straight and chose to take "gay" one.

 

[Dismal purple]

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.

No one's trying to "cure" homosexuality. They're just trying to give people the OPTION of changing their sexual preference. Nothing more, nothing less. What's wrong with that? As mentioned in another post, we allow sex changes. So what's wrong with sexual preference changes?

Honestly guys, they're scientists. Not supervillains.

You don't choose to be transsexual though. HRT and SRS asserts your gender, it doesn't change it.

Comparing this to transsexuality is pretty dodgy unless you're talking about anti-trans pills that changes your neurological gender to make trans people cisgendered or cis people trans.

There were other posts in this thread making the same comparison. I didn't quote them all but consider this post directed at those as well.

 

[Nimcha]

I don't think it's proven that sexuality is determined by some chemical imbalance in the brain. Of course it's in there somewhere but like everything personality related I don't think it's as simple as just disabling or altering a little cluster of nerves. Changing anything in the brain has so many unforseen effects because of how interconnected everything is.

In other words, I think this research is wasted money.