'House' episode offends asexuals

Sexual orientation still isn't about having sex though, or even wanting it. It's about who you're attracted to---and in the case of asexuals, no one and nothing.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Sexual orientation refers solely to sexual attraction, sex drive or libido is completely separate. Asexuals can still have a sex drive, it's just not aimed at anything or anyone.
Click to expand...

Can you give us a straight answer to the question "why should we call these people asexual when they engage in sexual behaviour?", instead of just repeating the claim that asexuals still count as asexual even if they have sexual drives?

Rocks are not asexual, they're not sexual (because they're not living).
Click to expand...

Rocks are asexual by the dictionary definition.

In terms of discrimination or prejudice, Sledge's comment at the start of the thread is one example--the thought that sex solves problems. Other pressures are familial (where's my grandchildren?) or as in the pedophiles thread (every male over thirty who's never had a girlfriend or boyfriend MUST be a pedophile!!!). Given the current political situation in the US, slapping the pedophile label on anyone is a serious risk to their life.
Click to expand...

Whether or not "asexuals" (using their chosen term) are discriminated against isn't relevant to the question of whether we should refer to them as asexual or not. It's sad, but being a victim of discrimination doesn't give you the right to redefine words to suit oneself.

I'm guessing there's some good reason "asexuals" want to appropriate the word - does anyone know what it is? Is it just because there's no good word for people who have no interest in a sexual relationship and would rather masturbate?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Then they're not asexual in the common-sense meaning of the term. Maybe they're not turned on by any particular thing, and maybe they don't desire a romantic relationship, but neither of those things are what asexual means.



Why do you think such people should be called asexual? Shouldn't that term serve to point to people who have no sexual desires at all, and don't masturbate? Rocks are asexual. A biologically male or female human who masturbates isn't asexual.

This is purely a semantic argument. I'm making no claim whatsoever about whether "asexual-but masturbating" people are valid, or normal, or whatever. I'm just saying they aren't asexual and if they're co-opting that term for themselves it's a very poor choice of terms which is actively inviting misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

So you are determined to use some idealized definition of asexual that does not fit the real world. It seems rather like rejecting people as bisexual because they favor one sex over the other to some degree.
 
sadhatter said:
HAve you guys, you know, watched house before?

...

Might as well say house is racist because of the way he treated Cuddy, something that one may get the vibe from if they viewed a random episode, but something that is simply untrue when one looks at the series in any other way than looking to be offended.
Click to expand...

House makes both sexist comments and sexually harassing comments. He makes racist comments to Foreman. He makes Jewish comments to Taub.

Nobody ever bites. Why? They know he's pushing their buttons deliberately, to get them to rise to the level of Fail by treating that as more important than actually saving a human life.


House just spent six months or a year in jail. A number of people died because of it, by him not being there to solve their problem. Would one of his assistants think their feeling offended is so great it is worth ending lives by bringing legal action against him?

Lesser brains might, but not the ones House hires. They know it. He knows it. And they know each other knows it. It's a game they play.
 
sadhatter said:
My only commentary on the asexual thing is the word itself. Not wanting sex does not make one asexual, it makes one have a preference for celibacy. You have genitalia, biologically you are a sexual creature, you simply prefer to not have sex.
Click to expand...

This would probably get you a protest, too.

Here's the larger context nobody is realizing.

1. I recall from a psych class years ago where they studied sexuality. These were the studies where they came up with the hetero-bi-homo-sexual categorization, along with percentages of males and females in each category.

Except...for females, they had what they were forced to describe as a forth category -- asexual. This category basically didn't exist for males. IIRC, it was something like 11%, larger than the lesbian category, but don't quote me on that.


2. Fast forward to a couple of years ago, when there were these little groups that made the news, of "asexual" couples. It wasn't that they weren't interested in sex at an intellectual level -- they just (they claimed) felt no passion for it.

One such couple was practicing fooling around and "almost getting there," which was the female's description.


So...that is the scientific context in which they whipped together this episode.
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
Can you give us a straight answer to the question "why should we call these people asexual when they engage in sexual behaviour?", instead of just repeating the claim that asexuals still count as asexual even if they have sexual drives?
Click to expand...

Because behavior is not orientation.

If behavior were orientation, married men who wanted to sleep with men but never had, would not be homosexual.
 
Last edited:
Brian-M said:
I went to the AVAN website and clicked on the "To find out more about asexuality, click here" link. On that page, I found this...



So, in the House episode the lack of sexual arousal was a symptom of a serious medical problem, and the AVAN website itself warns that lack of sexual arousal can be a symptom of a serious medical problem.

I'm not sure what they're complaining about.

Unless they expect House to be politically correct. But House is never politically correct.
Click to expand...

They are just seeking attention. Nothing more.
 
Babbylonian said:
House has found medical reasons for religiosity and generosity, too. If there wasn't a medical reason for the couple in this episode to be asexual, it wouldn't have been good for the two main themes of the show: Silly medicine and House is always right even when he initially has no good reason to be so.

Obviously, people can choose to be asexual. Just as obviously, asexuality can be thrust upon them (so to speak). The former might be interesting in, say, a legal drama (perhaps a divorce case?); the latter is what works for a medical show.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the pilot episode about House being convinced that there was a medical reason for a woman to actually enjoy being a special ed teacher? Maybe it wasn't the pilot but I remember that episode; where was the outrage?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Why do you think such people should be called asexual? Shouldn't that term serve to point to people who have no sexual desires at all, and don't masturbate? Rocks are asexual. A biologically male or female human who masturbates isn't asexual.

This is purely a semantic argument. I'm making no claim whatsoever about whether "asexual-but masturbating" people are valid, or normal, or whatever. I'm just saying they aren't asexual and if they're co-opting that term for themselves it's a very poor choice of terms which is actively inviting misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with that. I'm pretty sure I'm aromantic, was never really sure about the asexual label.

Is there a better word than "celibate" for people who stimulate themselves, but have no interest whatsoever in having sex with other people? I'd always heard the term celibate used for people who resist the urge to have sex, and occasionally the term "involuntary celibate" who have the urge but can't find a partner, it doesn't seem like the right word for people who don't actually have the urge for sex with other people.
 
Celibacy refers to (to the best of my knowledge) the fact that a person doesn't perform the act of sex. It has little to do with your inclination to do so or not; if you don't have sex, you're celibate.

I don't believe masturbation is considered sex under the definition of celibacy, so persons who stimulate themselves could still be considered celibate. I might be wrong about that though.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, celibacy is generally related to religious vows; it's rarely unrelated to religion. However, in contemporary use, celibacy merely refers to sexual abstinence, although this use is somewhat erroneous in that you should more correctly use the term abstinent for a person who does not have sexual relations. Still can't find anything that indicates whether masturbation is considered sexual relations though.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
No, that would be a question.
Click to expand...

A silly question. If you're going to try to argue it was a genuine inquiry I'm going to have a hard time believing you.

Cain said:
I was thinking more or less along those lines. Homosexuals report "knowing" they were gay as young as five or six. Sex was a critical component of who I had a crush on. I liked my best friend Chris, but felt differently toward Crystal.
Click to expand...

Well "sex" was a critical component insofar as which you had crushes on and which you just liked as friends. I meant "sex" as in first-grade crushes don't involve fantasizing about a tumble in the sack with your crush.

Cain said:
Again, I think there should be a distinction between this and being asexual. Just because a person does not find it all that urgent to have sex or does not particularly enjoy engaging in it, does not mean s/he is asexual.
Click to expand...

That is true, again. But it's possible and should be fairly considered. Right now, the commonly accepted practice when it comes to historical figures who never left any evidence about a sexual attraction to the opposite gender is to assume they were gay.
 
Sabrina said:
Celibacy refers to (to the best of my knowledge) the fact that a person doesn't perform the act of sex. It has little to do with your inclination to do so or not; if you don't have sex, you're celibate.

I don't believe masturbation is considered sex under the definition of celibacy, so persons who stimulate themselves could still be considered celibate. I might be wrong about that though.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, celibacy is generally related to religious vows; it's rarely unrelated to religion. However, in contemporary use, celibacy merely refers to sexual abstinence, although this use is somewhat erroneous in that you should more correctly use the term abstinent for a person who does not have sexual relations. Still can't find anything that indicates whether masturbation is considered sexual relations though.
Click to expand...

No. Celibacy is the state of being not married. If someone was unmarried and had no sexual relations they would be chaste. If they also avoided masturbation they would be continent. In all cases they would still have their sexual orientation.

If they had no sexual orientation but still masturbated, they would be a closeted asexual. If they did not masturbate, they would be a practising asexual.
 
Wolfman said:
And he also assumes that every heterosexual is lying...so I guess that heterosexuals should be offended? If he directed this only towards asexuals, I'd perhaps agree...but he treats pretty much everyone with the same derision, distrust, and dislike. I'm sorry, but this behavior is completely in character for this show. House starts with the presupposition that everyone is lying, that everyone is hiding something, that everyone has some dirty secret they don't want everyone to know...it's hardly like he acted this way because they claimed to be asexual.
Click to expand...

Indeed : he asssumes everybody is lying. Period. And pretty much said so in more than one episode. He also pretty much treat everybody like dirt.
 
Checkmite said:
A silly question. If you're going to try to argue it was a genuine inquiry I'm going to have a hard time believing you.
Click to expand...

No, it was a great question. And a genuine question.

Well "sex" was a critical component insofar as which you had crushes on and which you just liked as friends. I meant "sex" as in first-grade crushes don't involve fantasizing about a tumble in the sack with your crush.
Click to expand...

I understood that, but even as an adult I can say that I am less likely than other men to instantly begin imagining what it must be like to have sex with an attractive woman that passes. And anyway, people have sexual fantasies that do not even involve having sex. I recall a radio segment where the hosts asked people for their fetishes. One caller said his involves women walking on his back. They asked how that ever came around, and he said that as a child his sister and her friend did it one day to torture him, but he ended up loving it. Children are still developing, maybe pre-sexual.
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
Nitpick: Unmarried people have sex all the time.
Click to expand...
That's not a nitpick; this is:
Celibacy, strictly speaking, refers to being unmarried, it's nothing to do with having sex. Priests were celibate, which meant they were not allowed to marry. Since it would have been a sin to have sex outside marriage, by extension 'celibacy' is sometimes used as a synonym for 'chastity', but it is not correct to do so.
Bachelor or Bachelorette is the state of not being married.
Click to expand...
Bachelor or spinster are terms applied to people in the state of not being married, they do not apply to the state itself.
[/nitpick]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom