Man claims Glaxo drug made him 'gay sex addict'

That would be quite the thing to prove.

 

It's not outside the realms of possibility. Brain tumours have made an otherwise normal man addicted to child pornography, i remember reading about it on newscientist. Mind you, that's a tumour, not a drug, but at least that shows that a little bit of tweaking can go a long way.

 

No I'm sorry, I refuse to believe something could change a person to start having gay sex. He's clearly using the drug as a way of hiding that he's what I like to call a schizophrenic. But we'll see how the trial works.

 

what basis have you for that?

[edit] here's that article i mentioned. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html

excerpt:

drugs affect people in myriad ways. It's simply not predictable, due both to our limited understanding of drugs themselves and our extremely limited understanding of the complexities of the brain. If the above documented case occurred, why not this? You can't be too quick to jump on judgey the very tall horse.

 

Uh-huh sorry. Pedophilia is an illness, homosexuality isn't. A tumour causing pedophilia, fine, because it is an illness. Now if you want to argue that the drug caused sex addiction in a closeted gay or bisexual man, then I'll believe it, but I refuse to believe that a drug could cause GAY sex addiction in a heterosexual man. Sex addiction is a disease, being gay isn't.

 

By defining pedophilia as an illness, opposed to homosexuality which is not, you're making an arbitrary distinction that the brain does not. One cannot control what one is born attracted to. For some poor unfortunate souls, that's children. For other less unfortunate souls, it's members of the same sex. For some people, it's a combination of all sorts of things, and others.... like gargoyles, hehehe =P For yet other debatably less unfortunate souls (straight people), it's members of the opposite sex. Regardless, this label of 'illness' referring to various philias (philiae? i dunno) has no real meaning in this case. It's a convenient and comfortable label.

Perhaps the man in question does have latent bisexual tendencies. Some people would have you believe that ALL of us do, but nobody knows that for sure. Let's say he does, but lives for all intents and purposes as a straight man. What basis do you have to disbelieve him? Who is to say that his brain isn't reacting to this drug in an unpredictable way? Sex addiction is a dysfunction, yes, and clearly some of the symptoms described would point to such. He increased his risk taking behaviour a hell of a lot, for example. So where's the pre-emptive beef?

 

There is so much we do not understand about the brain, despite years of advances in psychology and computerized imaging. You mustn't be aware of half the freaky shit that's happened to people who suffered brain injuries...it's the equivalent of throwing a wrench into a computer.

There was a chick about twenty-five years ago who had a electrode implanted into her brain to control symptoms of a depressive disorder who couldn't stop "stimulating" herself...every time she had pressed the button, she had experienced an instantaneous orgasm.

 

Yeah........[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5oO6fiyB7o&feature=related[/youtube]

 

No one?..

[YOUTUBE]QNLfQkHQlE8[/YOUTUBE]​

 

You're missing the point. Tell me if i am wrong about this...

You see this as a man attempting to assign causal blame of his risky homosexual behaviour (as part of his illness) on a drug, therefore perhaps implying that homosexuality is bad. You don't accept that he's telling the truth, since it would imply some uncomfortable and inconvenient things, so you choose to disbelieve him all together, which i feel is flying completely in the face of reason. There is no need to assume that he is covering his behaviour with a scape-goat story about a drug which actually did nothing. He might be telling the truth.

You don't have to view it in that way. What is so implausible about a drug altering brain chemistry to the point that perhaps latent but dormant urges become raging uncontrollable ones? I don't think the man or anyone reporting him at any point is saying or implying that homosexuality is inherently a bad thing. He doesn't even deny that he has bisexual urges anywhere. Immediately assuming that he is heterosexual and is lying and just trying to hide some kind of 'schizophrenia' as you put it is unreasonable, paranoid and offensive. He has lost his life savings through an apparently associated gambling addiction, and the guy is bummed. I think you're taking too much offence off the bat from something which is potentially all together an innocuous and innocent tragedy.

 

I recall an article about a gay man who had a stroke and afterwards became straight, I believe he wound up identifying as "bisexual" out of respect for his past attractions.

I think it would be rather odd and unpleasant to have something happen that drastically changed the gender you were attracted to in a sudden manner no matter which way the change happened.

Not sure about this guy's story, though, we'll have to see what comes up in court I guess.

 

I'm flying completely in the face of reason? Oh good, I'm glad to know I am being reasonable in your eyes

But on actual topic, I am not saying he is a bad person. If it's a case of dormant urges becoming raging ones then fine. But while he doesn't deny it, he doesn't bring it up. Though to be frank, the thing that is pissing me off isn't that he isn't saying gay is a bad thing, because like you said, he never even said that, nor did his lawyers. I'm just saying, I don't believe that a drug could turn a married (to a woman) father into a gay sex addict. Heterosexual or bisexual, it just doesn't make sense to me and I don't see how they'll be able to prove it. I apologize for earlier comments trying to say this man was completely in the wrong, and although I don't like that you actually said "One cannot control what one is born attracted to. For some poor unfortunate souls, that's children." To me it's plain poppycock to say that one can actually be born wanting to have sex with children. But I will say that my words implying this man was making being gay look bad, was quite off-kilter. So I apologize for that.

 

this is what i take issue with most.

What possible basis do you have for this absolute refusal to believe that which for all you know could well be perfectly plausible? We've already seen a documented case from a well reputed source detailing a man made pedophilic by a brain tumour, and here's a link detailing a gay man who apparently became straight following a stroke http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/353. Why is it so absolutely impossible for you to accept that a drug could make a (probably?) straight man want to have sex with men all of a sudden? And not only that, it included a massive increase in risk taking behaviour, both sexually and socially, as with his gambling problem. It all sounds terribly indicative of some kind of malfunction somewhere, and according to him it co-incided exactly with the taking of a drug known to have unwanted psychological side effects in some unfortunate takers. Your stance just doesn't compute to me.

---------- Post added 2nd Feb 2011 at 01:56 AM ----------

And again... How would you know?

this is a massive side tangent though and doesn't bear exploration in this thread.

 

Parkinson's disease drugs are known to cause problem gambling and hypersexuality, they are very well side-effects.

It is likely that this guy was maybe a little bisexual or even gay and he could no longer 'control' it.

 

This is bizarre and unlikely, but it seems like it could happen.

 

I'm not sure I believe this either. Even if the drug made this guy want to have sex with other men, it didn't force him to do it. Likewise, even if the drug increased his attraction to gambling, it still didn't force him to gamble.

^ Gotta say I agree with Rev on both of these, particularly the latter. Unlike homosexuality, I think pedophilia is almost always the result of childhood trauma or abuse, rather than an innate orientation.

As far as these Parkinson's drugs causing impulsive hypersexuality and sensitivity to gambling in some people, I can see that as being entirely plausible - however, I have a hard time believing that taking a drug will force you to repeatedly sign into an online poker game or go webcamming on the sly.

I don't know a single addict who can't recognize their own addicted behavior, at least in the beginning. Addicts have a responsibility to seek treatment for the reasons behind their addictions, not lay blame on others.

Every drug says, "If this drug causes adverse effects, discontinue immediately and consult your doctor." It was this guy's responsibility to do so, and he didn't - he took the drugs for two years. He didn't follow the directions that came with the drugs, and as much as I hate Glaxo, his irresponsibility is not their fault.

 

Oh good...someone who understands what I've been trying to say and put it into more understandable wording.

As for everyone questioning, what's my reasoning? I don't have any, except that I have as much right as you guys do to question the likelihood of this man's claim.

---------- Post added 1st Feb 2011 at 05:26 PM ----------

^ This :eusa_clap

 

but you flat out called him a liar and clearly hiding some kind of 'schizophrenia' as you put it, right off the bat. That's not the same at all as saying what lostandfound said. It is similar to what i said though, with "What is so implausible about a drug altering brain chemistry to the point that perhaps latent but dormant urges become raging uncontrollable ones?", but you didn't have any issue disagreeing with that.

No-one's denying you that, but if you don't have any reasoning besides the right to say whatever you want, that's hardly a defence of what you're saying... just a defence of the act of saying it.

---------- Post added 2nd Feb 2011 at 02:43 PM ----------

Then i would recommend a little light reading of case studies.

Unfortunately, little is known for sure about what makes the abuser's mind tick, and very often people who commit child sexual assault have themselves been victims in their past. This might imply that a majority of perpetrators are also victims, but it DOESN'T directly imply that all people with sexual attraction to children have it because they are also victims, since you cannot be absolutely certain just how many people there are out there with pedophilic urges that simply never act upon them. What you need to do to find out for sure is talk to people who were never victims or perpetrators of assault but still can be classified as pedophilic... this is an extremely difficult and perhaps impossible task.

What i can tell you for absolute certain is that there have been many psychological interviews done with perpetrators of child sexual assault who described their urges as being innate and present in them from about puberty onward. That's just the way the world is. Some people are just born the way they are. It would be nice to live in a nicer world where, given the right upbringing, absolutely everyone grows up not wanting to murder, rape, or torture, but it's just not the case. Some unfortunate souls just have dark urges and it's naïve and unreasonable to deny that these can come into existence all on their very own, as opposed to being solely evoked by the abuse of others.

---------- Post added 2nd Feb 2011 at 02:52 PM ----------

and that is cold, cold, cold.

Give a parkinson's sufferer a choice of an uncomfortable life free of dignity, or he can listen to his doctor and take his prescribed drug... then blame him when his treatment goes awry and he's no longer able to control his urges. If he loses CONTROL over himself, how can you possibly justify blaming him for not recognising and acting upon what must have been terrifying urges?

And how do you know he didn't go to his doctor anyway? For all we know he may have been advised to simply keep on taking the drug and wait until side effects went away.

There are too many question marks about this particular case for any of us to be readily judging with as much vehemence as some of us have. Take a step back and look at what you actually know here. Not a lot. It's one abridged article with nary a quote to be seen. Quickness to judge is seldom the prudent course of action.

---------- Post added 2nd Feb 2011 at 02:54 PM ----------

Also...

How do you figure? I don't suppose you have anything to back that up?

a reminder that this incident occured between 2003 and 2005.