The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Hoaxes Throughout History
Middle AgesEarly Modern1700s1800-1840s1850-1890s
1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s21st Century2014
HETRACIL Anti-Effeminate Medication
Status: Hoax
image According to the HETRACIL website, "HETRACIL is the most widely prescribed anti-effeminate medication in the United States, helping 16 million Americans who suffer from Behavioral Effeminism and Male Homosexuality Disorder." In other words, it's supposedly a drug to treat homosexuality. The look and feel of the site is pretty convincing, perfectly imitating the bland soothing nature of other pharmaceutical sites. And it's plausible that some drug company could try to devise such a product, given that up until the late 1960s the American Psychiatric Association actually did list homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders as a psychiatric disorder. However, as far as I know, no drug company is currently developing a treatment for homosexuality. In other words, HETRACIL is a hoax. This is revealed on homomojo.com in an interview with Benjamin, the creator of the HETRACIL site. The interview explains that "What he intended with these creations was to spur conversation on a “what if” scenario in which a cure for homosexuality (or at least feminine tendencies) becomes a reality. What would be the ramifications to society if sexual orientation could be manipulated?"
Health/MedicinePsychologyWebsites
Posted by The Curator on Tue Nov 01, 2005


So, is "Benjamin" a bigot, or just a bigot?
Posted by Elizabeth  in  Austin, TX  on  Tue Nov 01, 2005  at  09:33 PM
Who cares how effeminate men (or women) are (or aren't)?

Why isn't anybody working on an anti-stupidity medication?
Posted by Big Gary, rifling the medicine cabinet  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Tue Nov 01, 2005  at  11:24 PM
The way I interpreted what Benjamin was doing was that he was trying to parody (and raise questions about) the pharmaceutical industry which has a history of trying to medicalize things that aren't medical conditions (like homosexuality), in an attempt to get us all to take pills so that we can be "normal": not shy, not overweight, not homosexual, etc. So I don't think he was advocating a drug like this. Just the opposite.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  01:45 AM
As a terribly shy, morbidly obese homosexual, I take offense to everything written by Alex. You're a silly billy.
Posted by booch (not my real name)  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  06:38 PM
Maybe it's also a parody of those therapy programs that claim they can "cure" homosexuality. These "treatments" are currently all the rage in Christian-Right circles.

It's one of those ironies of human nature that so much attention is lavished on attempts to "cure" something that's relatively uncommon and relatively harmless, when so little effort is going into a syndrome that is extremely common and a cause of many more demonstrable social ills: heterosexuality.

Until now, that is. Next week here in Texas, we're having a referendum on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban marriage. Proposition 2 was originally designed to ban same-sex marriage, but the duffers who wrote the legislation worded it in such a way that it actually says no marriage, and nothing like marriage, can ever be legally recognized in the State of Texas. Check it out:

"... This state, or a political subdivision of this state, may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

"But Gary," you say, "Simply outlawing heterosexual marriage will not get rid of heterosexuality."

I know, I know, but it's a start.
Posted by Big Gary, polymorphous  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  07:00 PM
I'd rather see all marriage outlawed than just same-sex marriage, personally. Not that I want Prop. 2 to pass - I'm still campaigning my ass off against it.
Posted by Elizabeth  in  Austin, TX  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  11:01 PM
Elizabeth, you should move to Sweden. The Ultra-left Liberal party there is planning that very action saying that it is not enough to merely ban prostitution and rape, but to also outlaw the legalised form of those acts as well....

Frankly, it all rather depresses me that those who seem to be in favour of increasing people's freedoms are in fact deciding what freedoms people will be able to choose. Like Camille Paglia once commented, now that women's groups actively discourage women from choosing freely to become wives and/or mothers, thay have become the oppressors of women themselves.

Then again, I'm not allowed to have a relationship of this kind so what the heck do I care?
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  01:41 AM
I'm joking - I believe quite strongly in marriage which is why it's so disgusting to me that anyone would try to take that right away from gay and lesbian Americans. I am a feminist personally, but I hope to get married someday (to a man, if you were wondering.)

However, in regards to Prop. 2, the language that accidentally outlaws all marriage *is* a good thing, because it means the amendment is likely to get repealed much more quickly. If it passes. *fingers crossed that it won't!*

Not sure if the thing about Sweden is true. It sounds like the so-called "Ultra-Left" party proposed a ridiculous law banning marriage in order to draw attention to the plight of people who aren't allowed to marry. It's the same tactic we're using here in Texas against Prop. 2 - pointing out that it's not only same-sex families who are in trouble.
Posted by Elizabeth  in  Austin, TX  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  11:26 AM
Elizabeth, doe sit matter if such a "right" is taken away from people of any type?

It was taken from me yeasr agao. Nobody seems to mind at all, and I am constantly told I shouldn't either.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckalnd New Zealand  on  Sat Nov 05, 2005  at  12:38 AM
I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're trying to say. You can't marry? Are you gay, or is there some other reason? I know it's none of my business, but your comments really confuse me.
Posted by Elizabeth  in  Austin, TX  on  Sat Nov 05, 2005  at  11:57 AM
Sorry Elizabeth if I confuse you. Communicating with others over the Internet has lead me to mystify people in many countries ( Which could make me an International Man Of Mystery, perhaps ).

I am often mistaken for being homosexual in this country, as I am well-dressed, always sober and intellectually above the average with papers to prove it. But sadly I am not.

There is no official explanation for my unmarriagable and even un-relationshipable state; I have many female friends who agree that I would make a great and wonderful life partner, but they also agree not to them. Rather like the old tale of "Belling The Cat" if you are old enough to recall that rather un-PC story. But like many things in life, it is inexplicable but true....I cannot be married. One young woman who tried to, actually died because of it.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Sun Nov 06, 2005  at  02:03 AM
It was very convincing though, don't you folks agree? For anyone not digging in too deep, who just saw the website, especially with all the right wing 'therapy' for homosexuals going on in the county right now. I bought it so well I was getting ready to write a shitty letter to the company, and to Benjamin. At the last moment I thought, "something seems fishy here." So I searched it and found many more resources about it's falsehood than about it and was relieved. I have to say that Benjamin did a good job on this one. Made me think about it.
Posted by Scott  in  Boise, ID  on  Sun Nov 06, 2005  at  01:45 PM
DFStuckey, what the hell are you talking about?
Posted by Big Gary, mystified again  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Sun Nov 06, 2005  at  08:17 PM
Big Guy, my apologies. I was conversing with Elizabeth in Standard English which does not translate well to American smile

I'm sure Babel Fish will assist you.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckalnd New Zealand  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  12:54 AM
Scott, it also reminded me of two items from the vast literature of Science Fiction.

Firstly in the later stages of Joe Haldeman's book " The Forever War" the human race is encouraged to become homosexual as a population control measure, then as breeding is taken over by the UN to ensure racial harmony and equality, it continues to the point where heterosexuality is outlawed. I'm over simplifying the reasons behind it in the book, but at the end, returning soldiers ( Affected by relativity and distorted in time ) are given the opportunity by the homogenous cloned race now called Man to have themselves adjusted to whatever orientation they choose.

Another famous story is one short by Sir Arthur C Clarke, whom you may have heard of; It is a broadcast from a starship orbiting Earth, announcing a variant on the 1960s theme that humans are from elsewhere. The speaker explains that the vast human empire lost touch with Earth and now wishes to contact us again, but notes that we suffer from a disfigurement that used to be common among the empire's peoples; While it renders the victim ugly to look at, it is relatively harmless and is no longer a source of ridicule or scorn or predjudice, comment sthe speaker, and never again would it be a source of predjudice since treatments had been invented.

The speaker concludes " If any of you are still white, we can cure you."
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckalnd New Zealand  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  01:03 AM
If the equal protection clause can be used to grant homosexuals the right to a governmentally recognized marrage contract then there is no justification for excluding other "constenting adults" from the same.

This opens the door to poligamy, polimorphy and some relationships that not even homosexuals can stomach.

What is the difference between 2 men entering into a marrage contract and 3+ men, 3 men w/ 1 woman, 1 man w/ 2+ woman or even 2+ men w/ 2+ women.

There is probally as large a swinger community that enjoys and juggles multiple partners as there is a homosexual community.

Femanists supporting gay marrage is crazy! They will be opening the door for Taliban style treatment of women when men can legally collect a haram.
Posted by Big Jugs  in  KC  on  Sun Jan 01, 2006  at  10:18 PM
Ah, the old "slippery slope" argument. If you really want to halt the slide of marriage, I suggest campaigning to outlaw heterosexual marriage. After all, if same-sex marriage is going to make polygamous people think their domestic arrangement should be legally recognised, then surely it was heterosexual marriage that gave homosexual couples the idea of marriage.

Of course, it is possible to see marriage as a monogamous union of consenting adults, but then that would cut all the melodrama of the slippery slope. Far better to let your imagination run riot with all kinds of marital permutations!
Posted by Maggie  on  Sat Jan 14, 2006  at  10:36 PM
Maggie, that is precisely the argument that Ingrid Sondberg and the Feminist Action party in Sweden are using to ban all forms of marriage. Their argument is that no normal human can possibly be happy in a monogamous union, pointing to nature as examples, and that the whole idea is a form of bondage combined with violence and prostitution.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Tue Jan 17, 2006  at  03:03 AM
i was wondering is there anywhere i can get hold of some anti fag pills my mate is paying an intrest in my arse and im getting a bit scared
Posted by paul the norm rhodes  in  uk  on  Fri Jan 27, 2006  at  12:52 PM
"Brokeback Medicine."
Posted by Anguirus  on  Sun Jun 18, 2006  at  12:23 AM
Oh dear. This Mr Leo guy is a God botherer (check the link to the http://www.anti313.com/ blog).

This immediately puts an enforced morality on this site. I suppose that it was vaguely amusing, at least.
Posted by Chris  in  UK  on  Thu Jul 06, 2006  at  06:19 AM
this makes me sick there is no cure for what you are calling an illness sorry GAY it is peoples choice to be what they want to be so go back to your lab and kill your self
Posted by joe blogs  in  england  on  Sun Mar 11, 2007  at  09:26 AM
I wonder how many people who are homosexuals would actually buy it..It would probably sell big time amongst the marines smile anyway, there are people who would do anything to confuse the public opinion, having an interest not easy to determine for us, the rest of the ones who are affected by it.
Posted by Online Pharmacy Savings  on  Wed May 30, 2007  at  05:39 PM
I think they might fall for it... not sure.
Posted by sergiu birzu  in  at home  on  Wed Nov 28, 2007  at  09:09 AM
Slippery Slope? If homosexual marriage should be approved and allowed then why should'nt other forms other than heterosexual and homosexual marriage be recognized? If they are afforded the right wouldn't it be equitable to afford it to other partnerships. Or is it now out of bounds going beyond the accepted definition by homosexuals. Wouldn't the inclusion of same-sex marriage change the definition of marriage enough for "true" equality of any desired union to be recognized. Slippery slope or no that is nothing more than a canard to chill debate. The problem is the homosexual regime wants the equality and status afforded heterosexual couples enjoy but don't want to live with the recognition that there is potentially more forms waiting to be equal than they realize. And why not? Homosexuals want to be the equal of heterosexuals but do not wish to have unions (even if desireable or benign) trying to equate their lives with theirs....How evolved!
Posted by Tesla  on  Tue Mar 31, 2009  at  01:01 AM
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.