When is a love potion ethical?

>all my drinks are hate potions

>ethical
Who actually really gives a shit about ethics, though?

People's actions aren't motivated by ethics, ethics are just used as an excuse to act upon their motives.

Self-administration

It's not.

Magical Realm aside, almost every time a love potion is used in fiction, the person using it doesn't fully consider the consequences of their actions, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass and not in a fun way

What if we don't put Magical Realm aside? Suppose you want to condition someone so that every time she sees your cock she's instinctively filled with the ravenous need to suck it and taste your cum?

That way, she gets to keep on being the same intelligent professional career woman she's always been 95% of the time, while also being a model obedient cocksleeve. That seems like a classic win-win scenario.

well, in my own setting, it's decently ethical.

There's two kinds of love potions.

One enhances your passions for things to rather intense levels, and not necessarily for people. So you give one to a Veeky Forums and they WILL make that awesome campaign they've dreamed about and throw themselves deep into a system to learn its ins and outs for a whole day or so. Or you turn a Veeky Forumsizen into Rock Lee from Naruto.

The other kind of love potion is just an aphrodisiac that makes you horny and sensitive to sexual stimulation.

Sounds like a recipe for public indecency charges.

Why would you need a love potion for that?

...

What movie was this?

Never thought about that application of a Love Potion. Good job user.

I hope whichever gender you like gives your special place a good tongue bath.

I'm gonna go with: never.

If they took it willingly in the first place, they'd probably do it willingly again unless something changed. Especially if it was done for convenience, as in a political marriage between two people who knew they couldn't live and work together otherwise.

Is this some kind of Ayn Rand "Dark Enlightenment" bullshit or are you just rolling your own?

When I saw it it was called Frequencies but I think it has an alternate name.

Its closer to Nietzsche. Albeit, severely aped to the point of bastardization. But it's there.

In this situation, since as far as I'm concerned a parent has an ethical compulsion to love their children.

You don't NEED one. You also don't NEED a car to get around.

When you want to get your bone on, or any pre-modern fantasy, basically.

Agreed. My selfish desire is to be selfless, and I have enough arrogance to be humble, polite, and deferential to others no matter what. My motivation is to make the world better for all others and those around me, to improve the quality of life.

Maybe there's a God and a Devil, maybe there's one of the other, maybe they're both just social constructs. But it doesn't matter because MY WISH AND MOTIVATION is helping others following a guideline of mutual respect for my fellow man.

Perhaps in a way, this all matters more without god or the devil, because it truly means we only have ourselves to depend on, so is it not better to do things that build trust and help eachother keep our fragile illusions of society, civility, love, and justice strong?

I once had a character that believed enchanted love was the only "real" love that was completely unconditional and that anything else was varying degrees of selfishness or otherwise had ulterior motives.

Never went anywhere since the campaign died, but it was pretty fun while it lasted.

>Who actually really gives a shit about ethics, though?
Ethics are foundation for some standards of reciprocity. "I won't randomly mug people, and I can expect people won't randomly mug me". That kind of stuff. It's not the only thing that keeps society together but it helps. When enough people believe (in) something it's almost as good as if it were real. At least in terms of social / cultural stuff.

Found the Scot.

Maybe because his cock isn't impressive enough to evoke such urges in women on its own?

The first person to figure out how to do plastic surgery on cocks is going to be ludicrously rich.

If both parties consent.

The example I usually go with was a bitter and jaded princess who desperately wanted to fall in love, but found herself internally sneering at even the most noble and virtuous suitors for being too naive and pathetic, even though she knew such thoughts were awful.

It didn't change her personality, but it made the feelings she wanted to have into a genuine thing, and not just something she faked out of desperation.

You urp you're the one who want-wanted this, MORTY. You wanted me to use my amazing science abilities to make a lo- Ough, a love potion to date rape your little friend from school. I just wanted you to pass my legs a screwdriver, MORTY. You're a, a a a, you're just a creep, just a little creep MORTY you know that?

*sneezes*

No cock is impressive enough to evoke such urges on its own. They're the ugliest part of the male anatomy. Whether or not you want to suck a guy's cock is based on the guy, not the cock.

So if you don't have the knack for hypnosis, a highly specialized love potion would do the trick.

We're getting there.
nydailynews.com/news/world/man-penis-ripped-child-bionic-replacement-article-1.2334100

You either grossly underestimate majesty of some cocks or simplicity of some women. Possibly both.

There's a term for this... i can't remember what it is but basically you're just being a bitter fuck head.

You need to take a break from hentai, you're confusing it with reality.

I've seen a vast array of penises. I've received hundreds by text, email, Kik, and Skype, often after explicitly asking someone not to do so. None of them are majestic.

>Ctrl+f "depends on the setting"
>nothing

W-what?

...

Sample bias. The people sending cock pictures are the lonely, desperate men who obviously don't have cocks worth looking at, hence why they're trying to get laid instead of currently being laid.

Head to the sexy men board to see pages and pages of people requesting images of, and admiring, cocks of varying size, shape, and quality.

Whether or not a rape potion is ethical kind of transcends the "depends on the setting" qualifier. Just because one culture sees something as okay doesn't mean everyone else has to accept it as moral or ethical.

That depends. Women typically find cocks to be ugly or weird looking, but gay & bi men love cocks and are more likely to find them majestic & to become cum-thirsty. I'm speaking from experience here.

when done without coercion and with full knowledge of the consequences

Ethics are meant to guide or suppress motives into something helpful, or at least less harmful.

Those are gay men. Our brains our wired differently.

I know there are women who like the way dongs look more than I--like, in an abstract sense, I know they exist. But they're not that common. There's actually scientific literature on this (albeit as part of a terribly-designed study)--it's something like 10%.

>transcends the "depends on the setting" qualifier.
Nope. Assorted mindfuckery is only not ethical when we assume everyone and anyone has the right of free will. There's many settings where that isn't the case. Hell it wasn't the case at many points in the history of mankind.

why the fuck didn't I think of that, imagine the wide range of applications with a bit of out-of-the-box thinking

>medieval marriage counseling
>man and woman have fallen out of love but, still want to keep their marriage together for the kids or money or whatever
>Dr. Wizzy prescribes a small dose of love potion to reignite the spark
>bada bing bada boom marriage happy again

or maybe

>fighter visits Dr. Wizzy
>wants a way to make his enemies kneel before him
>the good doctor sells him concentrated love poison to dip his blade in
>effects administered directly to the bloodstream on a hit
>everything he hits has a good chance to instantly fall madly in love with him, and would rather die than strike him down

I'm not going to trust scientific literature if it's terribly designed, that's like willfully injecting poison into your head. Questionable data is useless data.

I was of a similar opinion until I stepped out of the shower and showed off my erection to my girl and received an impromptu bj that was 100% inspired by the enticing visual of my cock.

I'm not saying anyone has a cock so nice that just anyone would immediately glomp into it, like the other poster initially described.
But saying "Whether or not you want to suck a guy's cock is based on the guy, not the cock." is just false.
Some cocks are more appealing than others, and some are just too unappealing no matter how much you like the guy.

Och aye.

It was never not the case, people back then were just ass goblins.

Dude, I'm straight and I say the cock is much more aesthetically pleasing than the vagina. It's got smooth, clean lines and evokes authority.

A vagina is just a fucking mess. It feels good, and I like the general aesthetics of the thing it's attached to, but it looks like a week old roast beef sandwich and only evokes a strong desire to shower.

There's no such thing as a setting--real or imagined--where absolutely no one even has the ability to think "this is wrong".

The study was poorly designed for proving what it was trying to prove. The survey results are still valid.

I'm trying to find it now.

Other good points are for failing marriages that need to be held for convenience's sake or for Eg the children, so both parents fall in love with one another willingly in order to have some enjoyment out of their marriage once more.

Using it on animals is questionable and may risk your asshole but probably morally ok.

Using it as an attempt to reform the BBEG is ill advised but you can always give it a shot - ethically you would want to make it an informed decision (you can either be executed or drink this love potion, choose now) but there are probably better options if you want to rehabilitate a BBEG.

>absolutely no one even has the ability to think "this is wrong".
That's not what I was getting at. My point was more along the lines that if there is creature that doesn't have free will, you can feed it love potion without worrying about doing something unethical.

It does depend on setting because "love potions" may work differently. You also have to consider who is using the potion on who and in what context. Does a love potion enhance an emotional connection? Is it a married couple looking to rekindle their relationship? Is it more like viagra? Does even work if you don't want it to?

If it doesn't have free will then why give it a love potion, you dongus? The entire point of a love potion is it takes away that individual's agency and ability to say "I do not want to sleep with you". Why would you give your preprogrammed sex robot a love potion?

when you say poorly designed survey, the first thing I think is poorly designed study. The idea of a person who can get a survey right but a study wrong scares and confuses me.

Why would you want to love something that doesn't have free will? That'd be like owning a pet, only more annoying.

>Informed Consent from both people.

>bestiality is perfectly fine!

God damned Randian furries get out.

>when you say poorly designed survey, the first thing I think is poorly designed study
Other way around, got those flipped somehow.

>If it doesn't have free will then why give it a love potion, you dongus?
It doesn't matter why. Because you can. The question was when it is ethical, not when it is good or sensible.

>bitter fuck head
user, please.
Ethics are a form of a social contract, nothing more.
That said, said social contract's influence is very real, and if this wasn't an anonymous board, I wouldn't express this opinion.

It's funny that people go apeshit when you say something that is true, but people don't like to hear, because they assume you are against it.

I'm not against ethics. I enjoy life and I celebrate humanity, but you need to be exceptionally naive to think that ethics come before motives, and not vice versa.

You're trying to argue a distinction between ethical, good, and sensible.

I mean, personally I argue exercising control over something which never had the agency to tell you no is just as unethical as taking away that agency from something/someone who already had it.

It was designed as a response to the type A/type B personality thing. That only surveyed men, so this study only surveyed women and divided them into three groups: high energy, medium energy, and low energy.

One of the traits found of "high energy" women is that they enjoyed the appearance of male genitalia, and they comprised roughly 10% of the study's participants (I believe there were about 850).

So you see what I mean. The study's conclusions were forced on the survey data.

It's very difficult to Google, though, so some of the information may have become fuzzy over time in my head. All I can find is "high energy food for women" and "cures for low energy for women" and, worst of all, "psychic mediums in your area".

Well, I wasn't trying to originally. But when someone questions sensibility of action that was brought up as justifiable ethically (and only ethically), I might have to.

In a healthy, well-adjusted person, ethics are the result of motives paired with the understanding that other people have a right to their motives as much as you do to yours. They are not merely a social contract, but the simple recognition that other people are human, and that joy and fulfillment can be derived from this most basic type of co-existence.

It is not complicated, and you don't need a degree to understand it.

>Ethics are a form of a social contract
>It's funny that people go apeshit when you say something that is true
>you need to be exceptionally naive to think that ethics come before motives

When served in small doses to gypsies and Turks to counteract their inherent malice.

>type A/type B personality thing
Wasn't that viciously debunked ages ago? They weren't able to define every possible trait and classify them in such a way that all people could neatly fit into two wholly distinct categories.

Now I'm really fucking suspicious of this study. Surely you have other, more reliable sources.

It was a response to that study. It wasn't done by the same people and they seemed at least roughly aware of the original's shortcomings (for example, they got a much bigger sample size). The conclusions are still invalid; I'm not disputing that. But if you ignore all of that, and just look at is at though it's a survey that asks "do you enjoy the appearance of male genitalia", and some 10% or so gave a strong "yes", then that information is still useful in the niche case of asking "what percentage of women enjoy the appearance of male genitalia", yeah?

>other people have a right to their motives as much as you do to yours
Again, this "right" means absolutely nothing if someone wants something badly enough.

It's the same as a right of freedom of speech, or a right of privacy - where either your image is concerned, or something that doesn't matter to you - you will probably respect it, but if you want something badly enough, you will forgo ethics in favor of whatever it is that you want.

Also, it just so happens that the society of today is (intentionally) built a certain way that if you are willing to obey unwritten rules of ethics, you will be able to live a complication-less life.
And again, "doesn't matter if you want something badly enough".

>A mysterious vendor offers to sell the party a vial of the essence of pure love
>He guarantees any who drink it will be filled with pure and undying love for the first person(s) they see after drinking it
>It's platonic love

>if you want something badly enough, you will forgo ethics in favor of whatever it is that you want.

Stop projecting. Not all of us are wannabe social darwinists who will automatically sacrifice morality and ethics--especially if doing so harms other peope--for the sake of something we want. Empathy is not a social construct.

You just haven't found something you want badly enough.
It's a different treshold for different people, but claiming that said threshold doesn't exist is just lying to yourself.

Not that user: the assumption is the data set is sound. They went out seeking absurd things, and came to entirely wrong conclusions. But the actual get-info-from-people part followed actual rigor, so it's still valid data, just not on the original subject of study. In this case, it tells us that one woman in ten finds penises aesthetically pleasing enough to be enthusiastic about it.

YMMV, haven't seen the data, cross reference with women who are aroused by visual stimuli, warrantee void in Tennessee.

Fair enough. If the sample is valid, then it can be used for other things and not just the one study.

>this "right" means absolutely nothing if someone wants something badly enough
Absolutely false. The only people who cannot recognize the basic rights of all humans are the ones who cannot recognize other people as being human.

A mentally healthy person can't bring themselves to coldly harm another person without going through several complicated mental hoops, the first of which is to convince themselves that the person they want to hurt isn't actually human.

The people you're trying to say would do that sort of thing are psychopaths, who lack ethics due to mental illness and not due to any logical flaw in the ethics. Psychopaths need help and treatment, but unfortunately psychology isn't advanced enough yet to give them what they need.

...

>give it to the depressed Sorcerer
>make sure the first thing he sees is a mirror

>but if you want something badly enough, you will forgo ethics
Believe it or not, some people want the ethics themselves pretty damn bad. To believe in inherent goodness of mankind and act in the accordance with that.
And some (most) people just don't have the balls to go "all out" about anything.
People who will drop everything including the social norms for sake of a single goal are rare minority.

It's kind of just one of the unfortunate truths of mankind. I'm a hopeless idealist but I know that most everyone is willing to sell out. And as soon as you've done it once, it gets easier and easier every time.

There's something wrong with you. Seek help.

Or just, like, socialize with more people. If the only people you know well are the sorts who avoid other people for some reason or another, you aren't getting a clear picture of what people are like.

>Absolutely false. The only people who cannot recognize the basic rights of all humans are the ones who cannot recognize other people as being human.

You seem to put very low thresholds on duress, pain, and desperation. Not to mention rationalization, disassociation, and the inherent imposition of less-human on socially distant persons due to Dunbar's Number.

How and why do you think rights go out the window in a modern context? One madman in a million wakes up with a hankerin' to disfigure children. The rest are taught.

>To believe in inherent goodness of mankind and act in the accordance with that
What is "goodness"?
Is it "good" to sacrifice a person you love, but that is guilty of a crime, for the sake of innocents that you don't care about?
There is just way too many variables that go into these decisions.
Again, to claim that there exist no specific circumstances where a person will abandon their ethics in favor of whatever is lying to yourself.
Humans don't deal in absolutes.

Please, user.
I haven't found said threshold myself.
Hell, I hope I'll never find it - it's just too damn convenient to live in an "ethical" society.

Your girl. Not some random girl. A girl who liked you.

>What is "goodness"?
I wouldn't know, I'm not one of those people. I just acknowledged they exist.

>they exist
Who?
Can you truly claim that said people's actions are motivated by "ethics" and society's rules, and not their personal motives, while ethics are used as an excuse?
I sincerely doubt it.

Now take that and make it so the first country you see is what you fall in love with.

In addition to that, girls tell guys their dicks are great because guys like hearing it. Like, you don't really mean it every time you say "you're the most beautiful girl in the world". You haven't even SEEN every girl in the world.

It's what makes "deal with the devil" stories so consistently fascinating. Because there's a little part in all of us that knows that we'd do something stupid to get what we want.

Fair point. But neither can you truly claim that they are not.

You assume it's inherently advantageous to disregard basic ethics, in any given situation or even any situation at all. You pretend there's a conflict between self-interest and morality. Your assertions aren't based on a scrap of evidence, and have more in common with the ramblings of naive outsiders who don't have the social experience or qualifications to back up their words.

Rights do not go out the window in a modern context. Cruelty is an act rooted in self-delusion. Everything you claim as true stems from a misunderstanding of tribalism, because you don't understand that tribalism goes both ways, and that whatever direction it's currently in depends on the person's perspective, and that this direction can flip just as easily.

I've always thought of the cock is the funniest part of the male body. Does anybody disagree? Cocks are funny, right?