Should pharmaceutical companies develop a pill to inhibit sexual desire?

 Why is this so controversial? Offensive? Well, look at it: a pill to reduce sexual appetite. This is offensive because of our place in history. Our modern culture. The liberation of sex and the rise of feminism in the seventies adapted and changed our consciences and radically reformed our morals. We in our modern culture are opposed, due to recent changes in history, to anything restricting sexual freedom. This is quite the opposite compared to the counterrevolution of the sixties and seventies, where anything advocating sexual liberty was condemned to be taboo. Anyway, back to the pill. The likelihood of this “abomination” ever making large amounts of money to continue being developed is slim to none.

 Should pharmaceutical companies develop an aptly named “stay-faithful” pill? Why not? We’ve already have drugs to increase sexual appetite, at least now we would know what to take if ingested to many aphrodisiacs. ( medical advise not to be taken seriously ) We are messing with the body so much these days, why not have a drug that keeps you flaccid? In the last 100 years, humanity has become a guinea pig for pharmaceutical companies. We have drugs to make you skinny, drugs to boost your brain activity, drugs to give those hormones a workout so you can look like the man or woman you feel on the inside. We’ve got a cure for what ails you, and as long you can pay, you can finally be happy. Why not have a pill that reduces libido? As long as it makes people happy right? But that’s not the issue is it? Its not whether it makes people happy, its whether pharmaceutical companies have the right, morally, to restrict bodily functions. Which doesn’t seem that controversial until you mention sex, which has always seems to be the epicentre of controversy. Pharmaceutical Companies should have the right to manufacture and sell pills to affect and reduce sexual appetite because they also have the right to increase sexual appetite, make you skinny, and mess with all of your hormones. They should have the right because the only one to judge what is “moral” should be the free market economy.

 If manufactured, this pill will be a failure because no one will buy it. It will have its controversy, as would a drug to make you develop Down syndrome. But both will fail in the world market because nobody wants to have Down syndrome and I doubt enough people want their sexual appetite reduced to keep the drug afloat. Sure there might be your odd nutcase trying to reduce his or her sexual libido for religious reasons, or somebody trying to force their spouse ingest the “stay-faithful” pill while serving in Iraq, but that’s why we have the police and restraining orders, and that is certainly not enough to continue the fabrication of such a drug. Because pharmaceutical companies would have no choice but to terminate the drug to prevent bankruptcy, the pill would ultimately fail in the market, and therefore, ceasing manufacture. In the meantime, we can all enjoy the sexual freedom we fought hard for ( pun intended ), because that, fortunately, is not based on the free market economy.