Started Finasteride, turned gay.

[25 going on 65]

Finasteride is very effective if you want to keep your hair.
I agree with people who recommend tapering the dose when going on or off. I didn't, but it's probably safer to.

[gutted]

This statement is completely false.

obiously not for the fda pupetts...

for some it is absolutley true.

[Dan26]

The bottom line with propecia which I think a lot of MPB'ers don't want to come to terms with is, you ARE compromising your health in exchange for your hair. 2% sides is a joke, we all know this. But, I do think the % of persistent sides may be a bit overblown.

As for this gay-debate, I may as well chime in. My theory, there is a very small segment of the population that are actually born gay. You could compare this to a genetic defect. However, the majority of the gay population are in fact bisexuals. Sexuality does have an element of social construct / preference involved. Procreation is the driving force of nature, so in essence, it's not so much that there is something 'wrong' with you if you are attracted to the same sex, but something is 'off' if you are not attracted to the opposite.

Come at me bozo's!

[Dan26]

And Chrisis, for someone who has experienced adverse sides, I think you are very reasonable in regards to your views on fin.

[chrisis]

Please note that I cannot take credit for this observation. Another member made it and I just confirmed it through my own observations. That other member did not want me to say who he is.

I'm really confused. I thought I was the one who came up with this? not that it matters I guess.

[chrisis]

And Chrisis, for someone who has experienced adverse sides, I think you are very reasonable in regards to your views on fin.

Thanks. I can't exactly deny it has been useful for some men, but I always strongly urge caution, especially younger guys with mild loss.

[konfusion]

I have advocated this for a long time, and I believe finasteride can alter one's sexuality. Look into a previous thread I made regarding the subject.

Either way, the chances of getting sides from fin are exceptionally low.

It may slow down or even in very rare cases almost kill your sex drive but it won't change your sexual orientation. Unless you are closeted all your life and trying to blame it on the drug.

[Tracy C]

I'm really confused. I thought I was the one who came up with this? not that it matters I guess.

You are, but I thought you didn't want me to say so.

I just followed up on your observations with observations of my own and found them to be true.

[Tracy C]

obiously not for the fda pupetts...

I am not an FDA puppet. I take in all available information, including the experiences of many many males who use this medication and draw my conclusions from all that. This medication works for most men who use it. That is an undeniable fact. Very few men who use this medication experience side effects. That is also an undeniable fact. Very few of those very few men who do experience side effects experience persistent side effects. That too is an undeniable fact. The facts do not back up the fear mongering.

This is not puppetry of any kind as you so belligerently call it. It is simply stating the facts as they are. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. You always have the option to do nothing to treat your hereditary hair loss and simply allow nature to take is course.

[jman91]

surprised gmonasco isn't in here already trying to school people on genetics/sexuality like he's some yale professor

[Tracy C]

surprised gmonasco isn't in here already trying to school people on genetics/sexuality like he's some yale professor

That topic is better for another thread anyways. I do try to understand it because I have a few friends who are gay. I know I probably do not understand as much as I should but I do try to understand their position as much as I can.

[gutted]

The facts do not back up the fear mongering.

If you recall i said SOME men.
AND, yes there are facts to back this up, that are being highlighted by many doctors, news organisation etc...not that the fda puppets would know of and disclose

for others it perfectly changes the hormonal profile of men very well and prevents any further loss for a specific period of time.

Ive never taken this drug (and wont take this drug) and therefore cant recomend it nor can i not recomend it...nor can you.

regardless, men who are considering taking this drug need to speak to thier GP's and not ask for advice on forums, which spread misinformation.

[Tracy C]

regardless, men who are considering taking this drug need to speak to thier GP's and not ask for advice on forums, which spread misinformation.

That is the only thing you said that has any true merit.

You called people like me... In fact you specifically targeted me - and called me an FDA puppet. That is not true and it was out of line. You do not know anything about me or my background. I know a whole lot more than you are willing to believe I do. I understand how to interpret data better than you are willing to accept. I can also tell the difference between good data and garbage data better than you are willing to accept.

You implied that I recommend guys take this drug. That is a lie. I recommend that guys talk to their doctors about this drug. That is the truth.

The true information about the percent of males affected by side effects can never be accurately determined while all this fear mongering and ambulance chasing is going on. Both these activities are corrupting data that is already pretty difficult to gather and sort through. Neither fear mongering or ambulance chasing is helping anyone in any meaningful way, accept the lawyers and law firms inviolved.

[ThinningB420]

That topic is better for another thread anyways. I do try to understand it because I have a few friends who are gay. I know I probably do not understand as much as I should but I do try to understand their position as much as I can.

As a person with bias, I'd like to agree with Scorpion. However, as a person who studied this in school under an independent teacher I cannot. However, based on actual evidence, those who are on your side are also misrepresenting the facts. Reality is, the genetic influence on homosexuality is full of gray areas. We hear about the gay gene. Fact is, there has not been any credible evidence of a specific gene causing homosexuality. Not to mention, research shows differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality that isn't fully understood. Each side of this argument likes to make sweeping remarks to support themselves and make the other side look ridiculous. With the research we have, and using the scientific method, it appears at this moment the answer to this debate is somewhere in the middle of both sides.

[Davey Jones]

As for this gay-debate, I may as well chime in. My theory, there is a very small segment of the population that are actually born gay. You could compare this to a genetic defect. However, the majority of the gay population are in fact bisexuals. Sexuality does have an element of social construct / preference involved. Procreation is the driving force of nature, so in essence, it's not so much that there is something 'wrong' with you if you are attracted to the same sex, but something is 'off' if you are not attracted to the opposite.

Actually, the propagation of DNA by any means is the driving force of nature. This is the explanation of seemingly altruistic behavior in nature that leads to one animal being sacrificed (even before procreation) to save another. These individuals are almost always found to share much of their genetic code with the individual they saved at the risk of their own life. The genes don't care how or in what organism they spread. Just that they spread in the most efficient and expansive way possible. (Look up gazelles who exhibit behavior that makes them obvious to predators so that they could alert the herd. These individuals are regularly killed, but the traits remain.)

Homosexuality could easily be evidence for evolution accounting for limited resources. Did you know that each successive offspring is more likely than the last to be a homo- or bi-sexual? This mechanism prevents too many offspring from, essentially, having their respective offspring eat up all the resources. In this case, the DNA involved would not continue in any host, as they all would die of starvation. Instead, there are fewer healthy members of the third generation with more protectors. In the end, the DNA continues at greater levels than it would have without the addition of homosexuals.

This is all theoretical, and obviously there is an environmental component, but it is a fact that procreation alone is not the driving force of nature. Glad to be able to clear that up.