'House' episode offends asexuals

[Noztradamus]

Nitpick: Unmarried people have sex all the time. Bachelor or Bachelorette is the state of not being married.

1. "all the tiime"?

2. Celibacy is the state of not being married. Bachelor is a person, not a state.

3. "Bachelorette" - you are dead to me.

 

[Weird Science]

Is there a better word than "celibate" for people who stimulate themselves, but have no interest whatsoever in having sex with other people?

There seems to be a logical fallacy here, since it seems that in that case only things they can fantasies about as they stimulate themselves is themselves, er, stimulating themselves, which seems to lead to an infinite loop.

 

[Hellbound]

There seems to be a logical fallacy here, since it seems that in that case only things they can fantasies about as they stimulate themselves is themselves, er, stimulating themselves, which seems to lead to an infinite loop.

Autosexual?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I think the producers and creators of the show can be safe knowing that as long as House raises some sort of controversy, it is a symptom that the show is going well.

 

[Morrigan]

I haven't seen it, but here's an exchange from it:

Yuck.

He also called asexuals ugly, gay, lying or sick.
http://www.fox.com/house/houseisms/season-8/episode-9.htm

Dude, you obviously never watched House... he's like that with EVERYONE.

So what? He makes offensive statements in every episode. They are almost always hilarious.

Indeed.

House is a genius who routinely saves people nobody else could. But he is also an arrogant, manipulative, drug-addicted jerk. Not to mention a felon. I can't see how any atheist/skeptic would want him as their posterboy.

I would. He's witty, funny, and super-hot. That's all I need.

I would be severely disappointed if House didn't offend everyone on occasion.

Indeed. If House starts being non-offensive, I'll stop watching. House being House is the only reason to watch the show. Well, okay, Hugh Laurie being the other...

 

[Alan]

I have seen the show. Should I not find anything he says unpleasant?

 

[Babbylonian]

I have seen the show. Should I not find anything he says unpleasant?

Sure. Most of the posts in this thread have acknowledged - if not celebrated - that. What I think most of us have decided is that it's "okay" because a) it's the well-established nature of the character and b) he's prejudiced against virtually all humans (at a minimum, he thinks all of them are liars), making it "equal opportunity."

In other words, as unpleasant as you might find the things he says, they're not worth getting upset about.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Okay, that's it. Thread closed.

Darat!....

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Huh? There are people with no sex drive at all who don't masturbate. I'm not disagreeing in any way with people who want to call that group "asexual". How is that not fitting with the real world? It seems to me that those people don't fit your agenda so you're trying to edit them out of the world so you can appropriate the term for them.

The comparison to bisexuals who favour one sex over the other seems to be irrelevant to me. I'm sure wherever you draw the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality there will be someone on the borderline, but we can always use constructions like "a little bit bisexual" or "mostly asexual" or whatever to refer to borderline cases if you really want to be precise about them.

Because behavior is not orientation.

If behavior were orientation, married men who wanted to sleep with men but never had, would not be homosexual.

You're begging the question by assuming that asexuality is an orientation instead of a lack of any sex drive. By the dictionary definition this is just wrong (and it's semantically equivalent to arguing that atheism is a religion).

We get it that you want to redefine "asexual" to mean something like "not being attracted to anything, but still having a sex drive and masturbating, and I want it to count as a sexual orientation so we can piggyback on the gains made by the equal rights for gay/bi/trans movement". However that's not what the word means, and it's a poor fit, so I'm still wondering why you want to appropriate "asexual" for this purpose when there's already a group of people using it.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

You're begging the question by assuming that asexuality is an orientation instead of a lack of any sex drive. By the dictionary definition this is just wrong (and it's semantically equivalent to arguing that atheism is a religion).

We get it that you want to redefine "asexual" to mean something like "not being attracted to anything, but still having a sex drive and masturbating, and I want it to count as a sexual orientation so we can piggyback on the gains made by the equal rights for gay/bi/trans movement". However that's not what the word means, and it's a poor fit, so I'm still wondering why you want to appropriate "asexual" for this purpose when there's already a group of people using it.

What other group? I'm using the term in the same vein as heterosexual (attracted to members of the opposite sex), homosexual (attracted to members of the same sex), bisexual (attracted to members of both sexes), pansexual (attracted to all sexes, not just the imposed binary) and asexual (attracted to neither/no sexes). Sex drives really aren't part of sexual orientations, unless you want to claim nymphomaniac as its own orientation. There's asexuals who masturbate, asexuals who don't, asexuals who seek relationships, and asexuals who don't, but what we all have in common is that we don't experience sexual attraction to anyone or anything.

 

[MattusMaximus]

"House" offended somebody?! I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What other group?

The group of people who are asexual in the dictionary definition, who don't have a sex drive.

I'm using the term in the same vein as heterosexual (attracted to members of the opposite sex), homosexual (attracted to members of the same sex), bisexual (attracted to members of both sexes), pansexual (attracted to all sexes, not just the imposed binary) and asexual (attracted to neither/no sexes).

Yes. We get it that you want to use this word this way. I'm asking you why you think this makes linguistic sense given what "asexual" means in the normal sense as opposed to your personal sense.

Sex drives really aren't part of sexual orientations, unless you want to claim nymphomaniac as its own orientation.

This remark only makes any sense if you've begged the question and assumed that asexual is an orientation, as opposed to a lack of sexuality. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of any religion.

There's asexuals who masturbate, asexuals who don't, asexuals who seek relationships, and asexuals who don't, but what we all have in common is that we don't experience sexual attraction to anyone or anything.

Do you at least admit that there is a meaningful difference between asexuals who have a sex drive and masturbate (who I would term not asexual, just a-oriented) and people who are actually asexual in the normal sense, who have no sex drive and don't masturbate?

It seems to me there's an important difference between people with no sex drive, and people who have a sex drive but aren't attracted to anything and so who prefer to masturbate rather than have sex with people/animals/paperclips/whatever.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Huh? There are people with no sex drive at all who don't masturbate. I'm not disagreeing in any way with people who want to call that group "asexual". How is that not fitting with the real world? It seems to me that those people don't fit your agenda so you're trying to edit them out of the world so you can appropriate the term for them.

The comparison to bisexuals who favour one sex over the other seems to be irrelevant to me. I'm sure wherever you draw the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality there will be someone on the borderline, but we can always use constructions like "a little bit bisexual" or "mostly asexual" or whatever to refer to borderline cases if you really want to be precise about them.

So you chose you be pedantic on asexual but not homo/hetero/bisexual, why is that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The group of people who are asexual in the dictionary definition, who don't have a sex drive.

I prefer the dictionary definition of them not having a biological sex.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Oh for heaven's sake, I should have thought this was obvious. Everybody defines "normal" sexuality as things they themselves do and/or are interested in. Anything outside that is "weird". Therefore people who have sex think people who don't are either weird or unlucky, people who only have missionary position sex think doggie-style is strange, and people who aren't into BDSM think flogging is crazy and exotic. Asexuality is no weirder than any other sexual behavior, even if it's the negation. Just like atheism isn't crazier than a religious belief.

 

[Beerina]

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?

There was a little outrage when they had an episode about the "super-female", a young woman who, it turns out, was actually a male with testosterone immunity. Apparently they are more female than females, who have at least some testosterone and their bodies respond to it developmentally.


The upset one was bothered about House's making matter-of-fact 'your daughter is your son' type comments and xy isn't what defines gender blah blah blah.

 

[Beerina]

Oh for heaven's sake, I should have thought this was obvious. Everybody defines "normal" sexuality as things they themselves do and/or are interested in. Anything outside that is "weird". Therefore people who have sex think people who don't are either weird or unlucky, people who only have missionary position sex think doggie-style is strange, and people who aren't into BDSM think flogging is crazy and exotic. Asexuality is no weirder than any other sexual behavior, even if it's the negation. Just like atheism isn't crazier than a religious belief.

The entire "weird" concept is part of an evolutionary memetic control mechanism, banding people together in groups to attempt dominance.

See also shame, outrage, political narratives, religious narratives, et al. ad nauseum.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The group of people who are asexual in the dictionary definition, who don't have a sex drive.

That would be me.

Yes. We get it that you want to use this word this way. I'm asking you why you think this makes linguistic sense given what "asexual" means in the normal sense as opposed to your personal sense.

This remark only makes any sense if you've begged the question and assumed that asexual is an orientation, as opposed to a lack of sexuality. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of any religion.

It makes sense in that the a- prefix means -lack of, so when I say I am not sexually attracted I am saying that I lack a sexual orientation. You can't call in religion and rocks at the same time, to make the same point. Rocks are incapable of behavior, and religion IS behavior. Neither is really relevant to the presence or absence of attraction-----behavior follows attraction, it doesn't define it (or require it).

Do you at least admit that there is a meaningful difference between asexuals who have a sex drive and masturbate (who I would term not asexual, just a-oriented) and people who are actually asexual in the normal sense, who have no sex drive and don't masturbate?

It seems to me there's an important difference between people with no sex drive, and people who have a sex drive but aren't attracted to anything and so who prefer to masturbate rather than have sex with people/animals/paperclips/whatever.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Cain]

Oh for heaven's sake, I should have thought this was obvious. Everybody defines "normal" sexuality as things they themselves do and/or are interested in. Anything outside that is "weird". Therefore people who have sex think people who don't are either weird or unlucky, people who only have missionary position sex think doggie-style is strange, and people who aren't into BDSM think flogging is crazy and exotic. Asexuality is no weirder than any other sexual behavior, even if it's the negation. Just like atheism isn't crazier than a religious belief.

Perhaps a lot of people do this to some extent or another, but you're vastly overstating. A man who says he does not particularly enjoy receiving oral sex knows he's atypical. Asexuals also know realize they are atypical, hence all the more need to raise awareness. Their lifestyle choices are uncommon; a more judgmental way of describing it is "weird," somewhat similar to the difference between "quirky" and "eccentric."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps a lot of people do this to some extent or another, but you're vastly overstating. A man who says he does not particularly enjoy receiving oral sex knows he's atypical. Asexuals also know realize they are atypical, hence all the more need to raise awareness. Their lifestyle choices are uncommon; a more judgmental way of describing it is "weird," somewhat similar to the difference between "quirky" and "eccentric."

I was talking about weirdness, not popularity. Or perceived popularity, for that matter. Male enjoyment of receiving oral sex is much less widespread than the cultural expectation of doing so.