I wouldn't research and develop all these details if I weren't aiming for realism. Keep in mind that the psychological therapy is more like the type that drug users experience after getting detoxed than modern brainwashing to suppress a biological instinct.
I would absolutely compare it to conversion therapy. Auger defines it as an injection and psychological reconditioning - so it's a retrovirus instead of a lobotomy, cool. There's an obvious parallel here, dude. Modern-day conversion therapy claims to work and be 'scientific', too. Mostly, my issue is that if it is happening to the participants whether they want it or not, then no matter how effective or even humane the procedure is, a person has been forcibly changed against their will, and if there's no apparent psychological damage from that then it's because they've straight-up been brainwashed. Even in cases where they willingly opt in, if they're living in a homophobic society, they've potentially been subtly (or not subtly) pressured into it; changing yourself to fit in isn't changing because you want to change. I'm not at all sure that likening it to addiction rehabilitation is any better.
Ultimately, my answer is "do your religious right have enough scientists to do this?" Because no-one else would make this. Ace pil, yeah, I can see the occupational applications for very serious jobs like maybe soldiers. But straight pill as mentioned screams homophobia. And the scientific community especially in the future isn't going to be fond of that. So I'm not sure it's plausible. If all of them were available it would be okay. Like a novelty thing. "See what's it's like to be X for a week" or something. Permanent I'm not so sure. That feels a little irrelevant and controlling. Like, you could argue it's in our ebenefit to be part of the majority market. But if people are fine, they're fine. And I can't see that being worth the ick factor of changing yourself like that. (Besides, pan would actually be the most efficient)
Dangit, I was hoping to get responses from every viewpoint - including that of a straight white male. Ace is short for asexual.
Oh no. I'm not saying it's good. I already no, no, hell no. Just that one is random hoodoo and abuse. The other is an actual change. So while there's a comparison, yes. My point is that it's both worse and better.
Addiction rehab is the closest thing to it. The physical dependence is removed, followed by psychological adaption to a new life. I'm choosing to focus on the philosophical aspect more than the physical effects a procedure could inflict on a person. The character I'm using to explore this topic is part of a religion that forbids both homosexuality and genetic engineering. Hopefully, I should be able to deliver a message while keeping it subtle and as close to neutral as possible.
The other is an actual change, and also abuse, as well. But yeah, they're not identical, I'm just saying that they're effectively the same - spiritually or metaphorically or even metatextually the same, if you like. I think speculative fiction writers (I'm including myself in this) get bogged down in all the ways that their fictional worlds are different from the real world and sometimes lose sight of what they're indirectly saying about it.
Well, not often none. But relatively scarce. Many asexuals experience relationships eventually, they're just less sexual people. But some it's none.
Yeah, I agree. Straight white males shouldn't feel unable to comment on gay issues. After all I'm a gay white male, so I'm only one step away. And I'm upper-middle class and have suffered minimal homophobic bullying. Privilege is never, ever shameful. It's what you do that matters, not how others place you socially.
I will comment on the comparison to addiction. This is a very different situation. If you want to compare today's methods of addiction recovery and today's methods of "fixing" homosexuality, there may be some similarities. But if you have a world where a simple medical "whatever" physically changes someone's brain and turns them into a heterosexual person then there's nothing left to "recover" from psychologically. There may be lasting issues of the person dealing with a new way of life, but since you're saying that this would be voluntary, then they are magically getting what they wanted.
It could be used voluntarily and involuntarily. It's also retroviral, so it's possible that someone could develop a contagious form of the straight pill.
Ace people do have relationships, yes. Sexual attraction isn't required for a relationship. Ace (asexual) and aro (aromantic) people are often conflated, but being asexual doesn't mean you don't want/enjoy non-sexual forms of intimacy. Some ace people are fine with having sex and even like it, just don't actively seek it out; some ace people are actively sex-repulsed. And everything in between. But sexual attraction has no bearing on whether you want relationships. But this thread isn't about asexuality or aromanticism, so how about let's not get into it (Also because I'm very tired and would pass out halfway through, and that's just rude.)
Oh, so you experienced unlocking an asexual's sexuality through romance? That's cool. I've always thought (since I knew about this) that an asexual experiencing sexual attraction because of romantic connection would be very interesting. I wonder how it feels to experience something that most of us take for granted since puberty or before? To only experience it with very select people? I really wouldn't know since I'm quite sexual myself.
I think your definition is a little muddled - hopefully this will help clear it up - Grey-asexuality is when you rarely experience sexual attraction or only experience it in specific situations. - Asexuality is when you don't experience sexual attraction. - Aromanticism is when you don't experience romantic attraction. They are all different things but I could see why they would seem similar.
I'm not saying that they are the same as aro. That's precisely not what I'm saying. Aro people are sexual but don't form connections. Ace can form the connection but don't' normally feel the pre-requisites. And yes, I absolutely believe if it's a couple and not a platonic romance that is sexual. If you like sex with them and feel a sexual connection, it's sexual. Doesn't mean your not ace, but it does mean your not completely divorced from sexuality.
Yup Sexual orientation is not the same as romantic orientation, and the two don't always match up: I personally am asexual-aromantic, most people are heterosexual-heteroromantic, but some people can be bisexual-homoromantic, heterosexual-aromantic, asexual-biromantic... There is also demi-sexual: only feeling sexual attraction to the one specific person at a time that you are romantically close to (and possibly thinking you are asexual until you meet that one person)
But if you're in a sexual relationship you have sexuality. So I was talking about grey then. And it wasn't a definition. I was just saying a lot of them aren't actually fully asexual. It takes a lot to remove humans from sex. So it's very, very uncommon. Like 0.4% or something. Doesn't mean they're not asexual.
Well, yes sometimes people are bi but are only serious with the guys or whatever. But I find it difficult to believe anyone can prove that it's not a coincidence they've never been serious with both. Science people. Provide evidence for stuff.
4%, not point 4 Also, I'm told that a lot of asexuals in romantic relationships are able to enjoy sex with the person they love. Just not for it's own sake: they're more focused on the person they're doing it with than they are focused on what they're doing with the other person.
