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

[BrainWalker]

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.

"Not soapboxing?" Yeah, right. Do you really, seriously, honestly believe that if the entire population of the planet inexplicably turned to homosexuality that humanity would simply give up on procreation and allow itself to die out? There are other options besides fucking to produce progeny. There's in vitro fertilization for one thing. And I'm sure if such a massive and important need appeared, science would step in to fill it.

Besides, society would eventually evolve and the role of heterosexual sex would change. It would probably become seen as a purely mechanical process, used just to breed. You'd probably have close friends agreeing to be the father/mother of the other's child. This might actually lead to a more communal approach to child rearing, which might actually be a good thing. There would probably even be matching services for this sort of thing, although I imagine it would probably be easier for lesbian couples to find a man willing to donate some sperm than it would for a male gay couple to find a woman willing to compromise her quality of life for 9 months.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be painful, but humanity isn't composed entirely of defeatist nihilistic pessimists. I'm sure we'd figure it out.

 

[veloper]

This would be a great invention, but for the opposite reasons.

Why would you want to make gay men straight? They don't compete for the ladies, they go through fire to help eachother and they breed less.

Make a gay pill and poison all the worlds water supplies with it already.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Why are there so many alarmists here?

The article cited by the OP was relating to a drug for Parkinson's Disease. Scientists weren't attempting to flip the on/off switch for homosexuality, they were trying to treat a motherfucking degenerative illness that results in dementia and death.

No one really understands the physiology of Parkinson's and all treatments for it are only effective at delaying the progression of the disease.

If a drug was successful enough to make it to the market, I applaud it.

Side effects are side effects. Treating a disease with a 100% rate of fatality is important.

 

[funguy2121]

snippity snip

Didn't they already find the "gay gene?" Psychologists, biologists and geneticists agree - it's not an imbalance or a mental condition. Hell, the psyche community hasn't thought that since Freud.

*looks at articles*

I think the man with Parkinson's went batty and sued, or just tried to steal a bit of money through the legal system for his kids' college funds before he died. He is going to lose this battle. Without treatment Parkinson's would have probably already killed him, and without dopamine he may have even offed himself. This drug saved his life.

No evidence is cited anywhere in the ABC article that says that this sometimes happens, just that the drug causes behavioral side effects in a relatively small number of patients. Also, OP is misleading - nowhere in the article does it state that the man was straight and "turned gay" ala Peter Griffin after taking the drug. It appears he was bi to begin with.

 

[Jewrean]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

Now now play nice. Although it is true that people should accept who they are, I would be willing to bet money there are plenty of people out there that would want this treatment.

After-all, people are allowed to have sex-change operations by choice. I'm guessing you are opposed to this as well?

By the same logic, tattoos and even body-piercings should also be disliked seeming as it is changing what God has given us.

 

[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 obediant, 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, wheras if you learn to organize your thoughts, you are actually able to receive alot 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.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Fucking disgusting. When will humanity quit playing God?

Amen

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Being sexually attracted to someone is separate than love.
What if a person is heterosexual, but "in love" with somone of the same sex, like they feel they are their soul mate, the only problem is, they are not sexually attracted to them? Do you think they should have the right to a medication that would allow them to enjoy sex better with the person they are in love with or vice versa?

You would still have the option to "opt out" . It would just be allowing others to the choice of determining their sexual attraction.

As for "asthetic" most medications on the market today are not for "asthetic" reasons. This would be no different for those choosing to take it.

Doesn't happen. If you're honestly in love with someone you won't care about their gender. Despite how we romanticize the whole issue, sexual attraction is part of a relationship, and it IS part of our selection of a partner. If you're not sexually attracted to someone, simply taking a pill to be attracted to their gender won't make you attracted to THAT specific person. You know, gay people don't feel attracted to EVERY person of their own gender. I know that might sound obvious, but there's still the odd misconception that being gay means you're instantly horny for anything that shares your type of gonads.

What CAN happen, however, is that you see in someone a lot of qualities you like, but some you don't (for instances, their physique), and think that it's such a shame they don't fill that extra requirement, or they'd be just perfect for you. But even if you liked the same gender, you still wouldn't like them...

Another thing that can happen are people who ARE gay, but can't admit it, so they find themselves attracted to someone of their own gender, but unable to accept it as such, so they revert to "Oh I'd totally do him/her!...if only I was gay!". Those wouldn't take the drugs (nor would the drugs do anything) anyways.

And yes, we use drugs to threat medical conditions. Like asthma, migraines, infections. Things that put your life or health in danger. The only negative effect of being gay are the people that discriminate against you for it. Gays don't need medicine for that, the other people do. Hell, if you tell me about a pill that can make people more tolerant of things that never affect their lives anyways, I'd be the first to support it.

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.

 

[Anchupom]

Every discovery has the potential to be misused, but no scientific advancement is inherently bad or wrong.

Missiles, grenades, automatic rifles. All developed for war, pretty inherently bad in my opinion. Also, sharks with lasers on their heads.
I do agree with the point you're trying to make though - if it was solely to be used as a voluntary process, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it, apart from maybe the fact that you should be happy the way you were born (but I'm against scientifically changing the body in general).
However, as I did put in my original post before reading through other posts, I fear that even if it isn't misused, that when it becomes reduced to a true "choice" it will increase intolerance of homosexuality. That's not a good thing.

 

[Realitycrash]

I dont know if that would be right....and if ALOT of gay people started taking it, then others might follow suit out frustration for not being able to find a partner

One could argue the same thing if they couldn't find a heterosexual partner, and wished to take a pill to do the opposite as well.

that is...definetly a good point, and as somone said you could have alot of casual sex without the risk of pregnancy (I wonder how many woman would willingly go gay)

More women than men are ALREADY Bisexual, or have been with both sexes, so I do not think the pill would impact that all that much.

Eh, I'd like to see some proof here. References, please?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I dont know if that would be right....and if ALOT of gay people started taking it, then others might follow suit out frustration for not being able to find a partner

One could argue the same thing if they couldn't find a heterosexual partner, and wished to take a pill to do the opposite as well.

that is...definetly a good point, and as somone said you could have alot of casual sex without the risk of pregnancy (I wonder how many woman would willingly go gay)

More women than men are ALREADY Bisexual, or have been with both sexes, so I do not think the pill would impact that all that much.

Eh, I'd like to see some proof here. References, please?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual

From a personal perspective, I have always known far more girls that actively participate in same sex relations than male.

 

[Soviet Steve]

If medication was able to alter your sexuality I would applaud it - It leaves people with more options than they previously had.

 

[Jonabob87]

If homosexuality was found to be a chemical imbalance then it would be scientifically proven that it's not supposed to be. It would be classes as a mental health issue alongside depression and biplor disorder.

It would no longer be feasible to say "It's just the way I am", science would have proven otherwise. I think people would take it, but a lot of them wouldn't.

Then again people turn to science because religion expects something of them, then when science says something they don't like they'll cast it aside just as quickly.

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.

There is literally no proof that homosexuals are born homosexual.

Can anyone advise me on a better word for gay people than homosexuals, "homosexual" sounds like I look down on them to me.

 

[Typhon1388]

I'm usually all for promoting the benefits of mouse models in pharmaceutical research but behavior is a vastly different and more complex process in humans.

It would be very easy to adjust the 'chemical balance' in the brain of a mouse due to its small size and relatively low complexity. Once you start to deal with behavioral mechanisms that involve choice and preference inputs from the higher reasoning of humans, the possibilities for confusing and causing distress to the subject are worrying.

I would like to point out here that the 'chemical imbalance' idea is regarded widely as a myth [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8138893.stm]. Medication puts the subject into a drug induced state. You would not be 'treating' sexuality but rather hiding it until the effects of the drug wore off.

As Mordin would say...

Spoiler

 

[Realitycrash]

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.