Sexual preference chemical found

**tinybear** · 24th March 2011, 06:17 AM

A chemical in the brain controls sexual preference in mice, according to scientists in China.

Male mice bred without serotonin lose their preference for females, a report in Nature says.

The researchers say it is the first time that a neurotransmitter has been shown to play a role in sexual preference in mammals.

Experts have warned about the dangers of drawing conclusions about human sexuality.

The research team first bred male mice whose brains were not receptive to serotonin.

A series of experiments demonstrated that these mice had lost the preference for females shown by unmodified males.

When presented with a choice of partners, they showed no overall preference for either males or females.

BBC News - Sexual preference chemical found in mice

So now we know. It's serotonin. You can change your sexual preference if you wish.

**Elithium** · 24th March 2011, 06:37 AM

shhh.... sexuality is a choice don't ya know?

**ruksak** · 24th March 2011, 06:55 AM

Maybe the lack of serotonin caused the mice to lose any reproductive drive? Unless they had some known gay mice to act as a control, this study is fail.

Huge fail. Exactly what I would expect from Chinese scientists.

**tinybear** · 24th March 2011, 09:48 AM

It had to be the Chinese who would undertake this research (for obvious reasons).

**Yarn** · 24th March 2011, 10:05 AM

Among humans, women have more serotonin receptors than men have, and they have slower reuptake of the chemical. So, since most women prefer men, it would seem that the chemical acts differently on humans than on mice in regards to sexual preference.

**Nona** · 24th March 2011, 11:14 AM

This seems like dubious science, but it brings up a basic point if ever there is discovered a chemical link to sexual behavior:
It would then identify the behavior as an abnormal condition, like depression, bipolar, or ADD that requires a "cure" or a restoration of brain chemistry to "normal levels".
If ever this is determined, it would then make the entire "gay culture" itself an aberration.

**Grogybear** · 24th March 2011, 12:29 PM

Quote by: Nona

It would then identify the behavior as an abnormal condition, like depression, bipolar, or ADD that requires a "cure" or a restoration of brain chemistry to "normal levels".
If ever this is determined, it would then make the entire "gay culture" itself an aberration.

Incorrect. It being abnormal doesn't necessarily mean its bad. Even if being gay was a choice it still wouldn't matter a smidgen. It's nobody's business what anyone else does. You can pass judgment if you like but don't expect others to care.

**brendand** · 24th March 2011, 01:50 PM

If there was a "cure", I feel like it should be treated the same way that I believe abortion should be treated; let the person decide.
Pregnancy was not always considered a medical "condition", and the choice to go through with it or abandon it should be up to the person and their loved ones.
I hope they can manage a cure effectively if it comes about. They should not make it culturally compulsory. Some people would really benefit from being straight - particularly those who believe their situation warrants suicide as a direct result of their sexuality. Some people would not benefit from life-altering procedures - this would not be an insignificant treatment and should not be treated lightly.
As much as anyone supports or opposes the cure, they should never infringe on someone's ability to choose.

I'm a huge nerd for saying this, but this actually reminds me of X-Men (The Last Stand, to be exact). :)

**Nona** · 24th March 2011, 05:58 PM

Incorrect. It being abnormal doesn't necessarily mean its bad. Even if being gay was a choice it still wouldn't matter a smidgen. It's nobody's business what anyone else does. You can pass judgment if you like but don't expect others to care.

I'm not "passing judgment"---I'm pointing out what follows the logical extension of pursuing a chemical or biological causation for "gayness". Such "science" will give others justification for "curing" it.

I certainly don't believe in anyone, especially not political authorities, claiming justification for meddling in others' lives. "Science" like this is probably motivated by those who would.

[Gayness] being abnormal doesn't necessarily mean its bad? Maybe not, but is depression "bad"? Bi-polar disorder? Attention deficit? Hyperactivity? We have school teachers and administrators and medical associations already suggesting medical treatments for children... how far are we from authorities mandating them? Many parents vehemently oppose this official interference, but drug company profits suggest that most just fall in line and begin medicating their children according to "established, accepted, conventional, approved" practice.

Seeking out biochemical causes for peoples behavior is an invitation to a lot of potential abuses.

**Apeman81** · 24th March 2011, 06:35 PM

Nona is absolutely correct.

If research demonstrates that "gayness" is related to a abnormal level of X, then logic dictates that the corrective action of increasing X must be considered.

"After all", some will say, "How can we let people "suffer" from this abnormality?"

They will use statements such as "No one chooses to be gay" and "who would choose to live a lifestyle that earns them disrepect" to justify their efforts.

**notthecheatr** · 24th March 2011, 07:18 PM

Quote by: Apeman81

Nona is absolutely correct.

If research demonstrates that "gayness" is related to a abnormal level of X, then logic dictates that the corrective action of increasing X must be considered.

"After all", some will say, "How can we let people "suffer" from this abnormality?"

They will use statements such as "No one chooses to be gay" and "who would choose to live a lifestyle that earns them disrepect" to justify their efforts.

I don't think that would be immoral, providing the subject of the treatment wanted it and was not being forced into it. However, it doesn't make it any less moral to be gay by choice.