'House' episode offends asexuals

Why would House be racist because of the way he treats Cuddy?

Sexist I could see; but racist?
 
Notice to all special interest groups: Most TV shows and movies are NOT ALLEGORIES!
 
Puppycow said:
If the character had been gay instead, and House found that it was actually a tumor that was causing him to be gay, and his husband/boyfriend was just pretending to be gay, would that be not be offensive?
Click to expand...

Oh man, I smell an awesome sitcom!


"Adam and Stephen have been happily gaymarried for over ten years!

Or so they think!!

'Cause they're about to find out... that they've each been pretending to be gay to keep the other happy... all along!!!

Stay tuned for this week's episode of... Empty Closets!"

Cue themesong - "Macho Man" by The Village People.


Throw in an implausible plot scenario wherein they have to keep pretending to be gay to avoid being disinherented by a rich gay uncle (or whatever), and voila, we've got a hit. Three's Company with two dudes!
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
I suspect he meant either sexist or Foreman. Me, I menatally translated to Foreman and went on from there :)
Click to expand...

Heck, you could probably toss Chase in there if it were "racist" to make fun of someone's nationality I guess. I see your point though. :)
 
Babbylonian said:
I admit to total ignorance of any asexuality movement, if one exists as such, but I have to ask: Does anyone need to have awareness of asexuality? Are they victims of prejudice and I just haven't heard about it?

I mean, I can only speak for myself, but if someone identified themselves to me as being asexual, while I might have a few questions about it (including inquiring about their medical status, if I felt comfortable doing so - there are both primary and secondary hormone deficiencies that can be indicative of serious medical problems), at the end of the day I probably wouldn't give it a lot more thought. I don't consider the idea of someone not having sex, or an interest thereof, to be a problem or anything that requires advocacy.

It's weirder to me that an asexual would get upset about this TV show than being asexual in the first place.
Click to expand...

It's not the same kind of active repression that LGBT folks get, that is true. Mostly, it's simply just a case of people refusing to believe there's such a thing as asexuality and using one's description of him or herself as asexual as an excuse to engage in the kind of joking and teasing that would be unquestionably looked down upon as blatant sexual harrassment were it directed at a gay person for instance (and the jokes modified to apply to that context). Or they simply declare you must be gay (nonsensical; wouldn't gay people at least be interested in sex?) and proceed to vent their anti-gay bigotry at you.

Again, it's not so much House being House; it's the episode being the first time the existence of asexuality has ever been given mass media exposure in the US, and it basically turned into a complete invalidation.

See, all the denigration and put-downs may be House's schtick; but you also have to consider that he always turns out to be right about everything he said by the end of the show, no matter how cruel or questionable or even "wrong" he might seem to be initially as the plot unfolds.
 
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.

If i choose not to eat meat, that does not make me an herbivore, it makes me a vegetarian, two completely different things. To get out of shape because one does not recognize you as asexual, is silly, you arn't, you have a preference for celibacy, the same way some folks have a preference for men or women.
 
People can decide to be celibate in any case. Those who identify as asexual wouldn't simply rather not have sex; it's a matter of not having any sex drive, nor of finding anyone of any gender sexually attractive. A hetero- or homosexual who has chosen to be celibate can look at a photo of a provocatively posed naked person and find them attractive or sexually arousing; they just consciously choose not to act on it. An asexual will look at a photo of a provocatively posed naked person and say "Hey - I ordered a cheeseburger."
 
Checkmite said:
See, all the denigration and put-downs may be House's schtick; but you also have to consider that he always turns out to be right about everything he said by the end of the show, no matter how cruel or questionable or even "wrong" he might seem to be initially as the plot unfolds.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So why get upset about schtick? Again, he's an objectionable human being in many ways, and one of them is that even when he turns out to be right it's often (in fact, almost always) for the wrong reason. In this case, he happened to be right and, as was pointed out earlier, the organization itself acknowledges that potential medical causes should be considered when someone is "asexual."

Again, this organization wanted publicity and they got some. In fact, call me a cynic but I'd be willing to bet they're not upset about the episode at all (except perhaps in the sense that the show has seen better days) and are instead happy to have an excuse to get attention. Good for them.
 
Babbylonian said:
Exactly. So why get upset about schtick? Again, he's an objectionable human being in many ways, and one of them is that even when he turns out to be right it's often (in fact, almost always) for the wrong reason. In this case, he happened to be right and, as was pointed out earlier, the organization itself acknowledges that potential medical causes should be considered when someone is "asexual."

Again, this organization wanted publicity and they got some. In fact, call me a cynic but I'd be willing to bet they're not upset about the episode at all (except perhaps in the sense that the show has seen better days) and are instead happy to have an excuse to get attention. Good for them.
Click to expand...

You've posted that before I could - I agree that this is way more publicity than they could have dreamed for. Good on them for using our outraged primed media to their advantage.
 
Checkmite said:
People can decide to be celibate in any case. Those who identify as asexual wouldn't simply rather not have sex; it's a matter of not having any sex drive, nor of finding anyone of any gender sexually attractive. A hetero- or homosexual who has chosen to be celibate can look at a photo of a provocatively posed naked person and find them attractive or sexually arousing; they just consciously choose not to act on it. An asexual will look at a photo of a provocatively posed naked person and say "Hey - I ordered a cheeseburger."
Click to expand...
For my own curiosity, would I be correctly described as asexual? Let me explain:

I generally self-identify as gay because I'm physically attracted to women, it doesn't take much explanation for other people to "get" it. Strictly speaking, however, I have no want or need to have a romantic relationship with anyone. Its weird to say that because I've actually dated before, did not like it, I'm not sure if I've just never met the right person, but in any case I'm pretty much indifferent to being single for the rest of my life. I have a libido and sexual fantasies involving other people, but unnerved by the idea of actually having sex with someone, totally indifferent to never having sex with anyone for the rest of my life.

Can you be gay, with a libido, and asexual at the same time? Would I be better described as aromantic?
 
Last edited:
I seem to recall some similar criticism among cutters when the movie Secretary came out, over the implication that cutting could be mitigated by (gasp) D&S.
 
Dessi said:
For my own curiosity, would I be correctly described as asexual? Let me explain:

I generally self-identify as gay because I'm physically attracted to women, it doesn't take much explanation for other people to "get" it. Strictly speaking, however, I have no want or need to have a romantic relationship with anyone. Its weird to say that because I've actually dated before, did not like it, I'm not sure if I've just never met the right person, but in any case I'm pretty much indifferent to being single for the rest of my life. I have a libido and sexual fantasies involving other people, but unnerved by the idea of actually having sex with someone, totally indifferent to never having sex with anyone for the rest of my life.

Can you be gay, with a libido, and asexual at the same time? Would I be better described as aromantic?
Click to expand...

I've highlighted the part that shows you're not 'asexual'. No, what you describe is celibate.
 
Neither the show nor the protest bothers me. Seems to me like everyone's just doing their jobs. As has been pointed out repeatedly, this plotline was pretty much in line with how House has handled many other issues. As for AVEN, well, this is what advocacy groups do. The show started a conversation, and AVEN wants to keep it alive and present another point of view that they feel was underrepresented on the show (basically, Wilson's few lines).

It's sort of like how frustrating it can be for atheists when the only time a fictional character's atheism is mentioned is (a) to identify him or her as a bad guy; or (b) to provide "character development" by revealing that the character is really just angry at God about something ("my spouse [or child, or younger sibling] died!"), and then having that anger be "cured." See TV Tropes for other stereotypical portrayals. (That seems to be changing a bit now.)

And in each case, the show's writers and fans could defend the characterization because, hey, some self-described atheists are bad guys, or angry at God, or convert to a religion, and we never said they all do, so your complaints are just political correctness, etc.

So sure, it's naive to think that a televised work of fiction should always present every nuance of every issue fairly and evenly. But it's also naive to think that only people who hold that naive belief would complain.
 
tyr_13 said:
I've highlighted the part that shows you're not 'asexual'. No, what you describe is celibate.
Click to expand...

I don't know. It is not odd for asexuals to masturbate. I suspect that this is a case like sexuality in general that you can get too caught in extremes.

But I have heard of asexual romantics vs asexual aromantics. I just think that you can only expect such terms to describe someone to a first approximation. At that level lesbian asexual aromantic works given how she described herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom