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

[Talshere]

I dont see the problem with making this available to those who want it. Going either way tbh.

Noone can argue against this point in ANY community. Small breats are not factors in any way in health or lifestyle yet we allow enlargments. Being overweight can be solved, usually, by controlling diet and excersice, yet we allow lypo and tummy tucks.

The 2nd toe being longer than the big toe is normal, yet people having one of the bones removed to shorten it is fairly common...And this really is pointless in every way except to the self.

Given that we allow these procidures without complain or pause, to deny people the right to a pill that would make them more comfortable in themselves and their sexuality is simply wrong. The straight nor gay communities can possibly argue against this when they ALL participate in beautification which matters to noone but themselves.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

If a pill to make me straight was available, I'd spit it back at the person who tried to get me to take it.

FUCK heterosexuality!

 

[tappajasieni]

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.

 

[Exosus]

Meh. As long as it's voluntary I vote we put every single efficacious chemical ever developed on the market. Put out a straight pill, a gay pill, a bi pill, and an asexual pill and let people do whatever makes them happy. It's no one's business if someone decides to change their sexuality, or anything else about themselves for that matter.

 

[Jonluw]

I don't see why it shouldn't be made available. It would have to be prescription medicine though.

Alternatively, here's a more interesting idea: How about we force a bisexual-pill down the throat of every newborn infant?
That'd be nice. Maybe it'd help treat overpopulation.

 

[HotFezz8]

dangerous, peoople shoudl be allowed to decide if they want to stay the way they were born

 

[mike1921]

Whether people like it or not. We ARE the highest authority we can prove to exist. And what makes us utterly brilliant is our desire to poke and prod at the very nature of existence. Nothing is a step too far as long as free will always remains a constant.

Eh? Sorry, but just because we are the dominant species of this planet doesn't give us the highest authority. Just enables us to do what the hell we want. Maybe it sounds like it is the same thing, but it isn't. Because we CAN do whatever we want towards others of this planet, doesn't mean be should. Doesn't absolve us.

Just because as an authority there are things we shouldn't do doesn't mean we're not an authority. Infact, authority is absolutely meaningless if it can't be used and misused in certain ways

Also, tell me then, who has the highest authority.

 

[mike1921]

If there will be an "anti-gay pill" it'll be forced upon children by their bigot parents.

That's not a problem with the pill , that's a problem with the way we wouldn't regulate it enough if it ever comes out.

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?

Really, I don't see why it matters if they're right it's a choice. They don't gain any logical ground because they have no half logical justification for why being gay is bad in the first place.

I don't see why you think you're reducing sexuality by making it a choice, as opposed to promoting this. To me, choice is the basis of all morality, to make something a choice is to remove the confines of the way you just happened to be born, to allow you to be whatever you want to be as opposed to what you got stuck with.

"Don't mess with nature" arguments are so dumb. We should mess with nature as much as we damn well please unless it's actually having a negative consequence other than hurting the feelings of people who think appeals to nature are actually right as opposed to bullshit. There is no reason to leave things the way nature would have them without us. The only negative effect of fucking with nature in and of itself is the effort it takes.

Those scientists are no disgrace. They are expanding upon our knowledge of sexuality, a great thing.

 

[shedra]

Such a drug makes homosexuality truly a choice. So the "it's not a choice" argument goes out the window.
But who cares?

This man is gorgeous. No amount of medication could make me think otherwise.

 

[BoBEllingson]

Imagine you take an environment, like a college dorm, that encourages sex and experimentation and add a drug that increases bisexuality and nymphomania to the drinking water.
24 hour bisexual everyone on everyone orgy.

 

[Thespian]

As a homosexual... There's nothing wrong with this. If people feel that they have been born in a way that conflicts with their personality, they have every right to try and change it. However, this should be attempted through psychological or social means before a physical change is attempted.

Besides, I think this could be applied to those of (not that it is something that needs a cure) paedophilic desires. From what I hear, it's something they can really struggle with seeing how socially disapproved of it is.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

Actually, I do not think changing someone's tan to be as deep as changing their natural desire, though I am sure if there was a pill that would bleach your skin, Michael Jackson would have jumped on it in a heartbeat. For him, I think it was important, and I am not going to tell someone they can't do something to themselves they feel is important.

Yes, some people are only capable of loving someone they are attracted to, but not everyone is like that. I do not feel anyone other than an individual can make that decision for themselves. If they want to take a medication that changes who they are attracted to, and it is available, who am I to tell them what to do? That would be their decision, not mine. I wouldn't hold it against them either way.

I think it would be more comparable to something like ADHD, vs a cosmetic issue such as a tan. People are born with ADHD, some want treatment and some do not. Whether or not they receive treatment can affect other indivduals in their life, and ones entire life itself.

For some receiving treatment for ADHD is viewed as a good thing. For others receiving treatment for ADHD is a bad thing. Treatment for ADHD should always remain a personal choice left up to the individual. For me, I chose not to receive treatment after trying treatment. It greatly limited my creativity and the amount of information I was receiving at once. I chose to keep my increased level of information coming in at once, and my increased creativity over an easier life. I opted out for teaching myself a different way to organize information over their "medication". I would assume that if there was a sexuality pill, it would be done the same way. It would be a personal choice, made only by the individual.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Togs]

Well shock shock horror sexuality has a chemical basis, never saw that coming (/sarcasm)

In all reality this is a infinite mire of ethics- something like this could have horrible repercussions.

But then it cold also have fascinating advantages- unhappy with your sexuality? change it! A little bicurious? Try playing for the other team for a day!

 

[GeorgW]

I take it we're only gonna discuss homosexuality and heterosexuality, ignoring all of the many other sexualities? Ok then.
That would be a horrible idea. Maybe some time in the future when people are more accepting, but even though the homosexual community has come a long way there's an incredible amount of stigma and hate towards homosexuality. Only once that goes away could this be implemented, since then it would only be about personal preference (Yes, you can have preferences about your own preferences). I know several straight people that would rather be gay, I'm sure there are people that feel the that way on the opposite side as well. And if possible, if everybody would be bisexual wouldn't that be an improvement?

Now, if this would be implemented on paedophiles it would be a different story. I'm one of those people that defended the paedophiles during that big debate, since unless they act on it there's nothing wrong with it. However, I'm sure there are a lot of paedophiles that would want to change their sexuality. If they don't want to change it, then fine, they don't have to. But for those that want to, it'd be a very good thing. And of course it'd be mandatory for child molesters. I can't really see any problems with it, but feel free to point them out.

 

[sharpsheppard]

Way to miss the point people who would do what i was talking about realy don't care about regulation, access and law enforcement and we don't live in a perfect world so people will find thier way around anything in place.

 

[Anchupom]

If there will be an "anti-gay pill" it'll be forced upon children by their bigot parents.

That's not a problem with the pill , that's a problem with the way we wouldn't regulate it enough if it ever comes out.

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?

Really, I don't see why it matters if they're right it's a choice. They don't gain any logical ground because they have no half logical justification for why being gay is bad in the first place.

I don't see why you think you're reducing sexuality by making it a choice, as opposed to promoting this. To me, choice is the basis of all morality, to make something a choice is to remove the confines of the way you just happened to be born, to allow you to be whatever you want to be as opposed to what you got stuck with.

"Don't mess with nature" arguments are so dumb. We should mess with nature as much as we damn well please unless it's actually having a negative consequence other than hurting the feelings of people who think appeals to nature are actually right as opposed to bullshit. There is no reason to leave things the way nature would have them without us. The only negative effect of fucking with nature in and of itself is the effort it takes.

Those scientists are no disgrace. They are expanding upon our knowledge of sexuality, a great thing.

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. =\

 

[futahorse]

Last I read the change in sexual orientation with the mice may be scent related, making the discovery not applicable to humans.

 

[Verlander]

The equal rights movement does more than just allow people from different backgrounds human rights, it also helps people open their minds, and to think beyond their comfort zone. Treatment like this would put that kind of thinking back a hundred years, and for that reason at the very least, it shouldn't be done.