'House' episode offends asexuals

[crimresearch]

Unrelated to the OP, but still on-topic somewhat...

House's 8th season to be the last. Awww. Well, it had a good run.

See.. the backlash was too much... ;-}

 

[crimresearch]

'Fritz'.

Now I want to watch some Nero Wolfe.

Ahh, if only it were possible to see *more*.

 

[Checkmite]

Considering the bland characters that populate prime time TV, that isn't saying much.

On the topic at hand, no I don't think getting upset about the rantings of a fictional character (especially one that has been established as being a first class a******) is something rational adults ought to be doing. House is the modern medical version of Sherlock Holmes (House == Holmes, get it?). You are supposed to marvel at his intellect and laugh at his misanthropy. What you aren't supposed to do is take him as a role model.

Well, that's not a correct characterization of what's actually going on. Although it speaks of "outrage", AVEN is quoted in the OP's article thusly:

David Jay, founder of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), tells me the show’s treatment was “disturbing but not unexpected.” Not only does the episode assert “that asexuality is problematic and pathological,” he says, but it also tells people who actually accept asexuality as a valid sexual orientation — an acceptance Jay has long fought for — that “they’re wrong.”

It's not about what any given character said during the course of the show; it's the "moral of the story", the message of the episode as communicated to the audience. David Jay's description of the situation as "disturbing but not unexpected" is rather level and shouldn't be evoking images of Yosemite Sam fuming and mugging, though I understand it's easier to invalidate or dismiss the concerns raised when one characterizes them in such a way.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It's not about what any given character said during the course of the show; it's the "moral of the story", the message of the episode as communicated to the audience. David Jay's description of the situation as "disturbing but not unexpected" is rather level and shouldn't be evoking images of Yosemite Sam fuming and mugging, though I understand it's easier to invalidate or dismiss the concerns raised when one characterizes them in such a way.

Except, of course, that his interpretation of the "moral of the story" is wrong. The message communicated is the same one as just about every episode of House: "Everyone lies".

 

[Checkmite]

...in this case, specifically "anyone who claims to be asexual". All of the asexual characters depicted ended up either sick or lying.

Again, it's not a situation where people are picketing Fox and calling for blood. It's more like a case of "you know that whole 'asexual' thing they were talking about the show? Let's take a moment to discuss that."

House's comments that asexual people are either physically ill, lying, secretly gay, or making up excuses for why they can't get laid aren't particularly new or shocking. They're the common public perception. It's difficult for someone who's asexual to avoid society's verdict that there's something wrong with them and the subsequent ridicule that comes with that, and that can take an emotional toll on asexuals.

This show brought up the asexuality issue. Yeah, it portrayed it in a typically negative and ridiculous light. But there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of the spotlight; a little "hey, while we're on the subject of asexuals, here's some things we want you to know".

 

[KingMerv00]

...in this case, specifically "anyone who claims to be asexual". All of the asexual characters depicted ended up either sick or lying.

That's not the core of the problem. Lack of libido can and does arise from medical conditions. Partners will become celibate to compensate. The core issue that no one points out House's obvious fallacy: two people does not a valid study make. Even if these two people aren't asexual, other people are.

Dr. House is literally a sociopath. When he says, "Asexuals don't exist." that's fine. I expect that from a man who recently told an Asian-American doctor to "unsquint her eyes". What annoyed me was that the other more reasonable characters didn't call him on his obvious ******** from the beginning. The bet should have ended with Wilson giving House the money and telling him he is still wrong.

Dr. House was written consistently. The other characters were not.

 

[Chris L]

The core issue that no one points out House's obvious fallacy: two people does not a valid study make.

This is a valid point. There was no reason (outside of the needs of the story) to believe House would be right on this one, and basing his conclusion on 2 data points is not critical thinking at its best. The writers could have pointed that out and still (as you said) stayed true to the spirit of the show. House can be quite the jerk at times, and this time is no exception.

 

[Morrigan]

Didn't Wilson cite an article saying X% of people identify as asexuals? That seems to indicate he doesn't think two people are a representative sample either, even if he loses that particular bet.

 

[KingMerv00]

Didn't Wilson cite an article saying X% of people identify as asexuals? That seems to indicate he doesn't think two people are a representative sample either, even if he loses that particular bet.

The 1% statistic is what precipitated the bet. House claimed they were ALL lying and wanted to effectively prove his hypothesis using this one case.

For what it's worth, it seems the writer's heart was in the right place:

I am trying to communicate with several of the people of the asexual community who were displeased, so forgive me if I repeat myself. I did a lot of research on asexuality for the episode. My original intent was to introduce it and legitimize it, because I was struck by the response most of you experience, which is similar to the prejudice the homosexual community has received. People hear you’re asexual and they immediately think, “What’s wrong with you, how do I fix you?” I wanted to write against that. Unfortunately, we are a medical mystery show. Time & again, my notes came back that House needed to solve a mystery and not be wrong. So in THIS CASE, with THESE patients, it was a tumor near the pituitary. But I hoped I could (now it seems unsuccessfully) introduce asexuality to the general public and get them asking questions. All they need to do is one google search and they can see for themselves it’s a real community of great people. Originally, part of my dialog included thoughts about whether as a species we’ve grown past sex. Any time we tackle a subject, we risk the possibility of not doing it justice. I apologize that you feel I did you a disservice. It was not my intent.

 

[Chris L]

The 1% statistic is what precipitated the bet. House claimed they were ALL lying and wanted to effectively prove his hypothesis using this one case.

For what it's worth, it seems the writer's heart was in the right place:

I still think your suggestion was the better solution. Wilson pays the money but also tells House what an arrogant a** he is for jumping to conclusions with little (in the end, we are only talking about these 2 people) or no (in the beginning, House had no way to know he was right) evidence.

 

[ZirconBlue]

They could film a scene where Wilson says, "You were right this time, but you can't extrapolate from one specific case to the general case." Then they could add this same scene to the end of every single episode, since this same sort of thing plays out every week.

Alternatively, they could trust viewers to figure it out on their own without all the hand-holding.

 

[KingMerv00]

They could film a scene where Wilson says, "You were right this time, but you can't extrapolate from one specific case to the general case." Then they could add this same scene to the end of every single episode, since this same sort of thing plays out every week.

Alternatively, they could trust viewers to figure it out on their own without all the hand-holding.

You have me all wrong. One thing I like about the show is that they aren't always compelled to have a happy or moralistic ending. It takes a lot of bravery to avoid cliche pitfalls every week.*

What bothered me was the uncharacteristically bad writing. I'm not surprised House believes asexuals don't exist, he is ALWAYS monumental douchebag. The other characters, Wilson especially, are not. None of the doctors call him out and some even agreed with him. Wilson's silence is so jarring it almost seemed liked the writers were sending a message to the audience. Apparently, they were not.

*OK, the medical mysteries are pretty formulaic, but the interpersonal drama is unpredictable and well written.

 

[Babbylonian]

What bothered me was the uncharacteristically bad writing. I'm not surprised House believes asexuals don't exist, he is ALWAYS monumental douchebag. The other characters, Wilson especially, are not. None of the doctors call him out and some even agreed with him. Wilson's silence is so jarring it almost seemed liked the writers were sending a message to the audience. Apparently, they were not.

I think it's a general writing downturn. Wilson's only purpose this season seems to be to indulge House. While he's been indulging him often from the start, it's usually been to some purpose, typically an attempt to teach House a lesson (which usually either backfires or House "learns" the opposite of what Wilson is trying to teach). They've gotten sloppy and it's just as well that the show will be ending this year.

 

[Cain]

People love House because they love a-holes. Well, they often love the idea of aholes, especially the ultra-competent kind. In the real-world House would not exist, but if he did he'd get way more poon than nice guy Wilson. I'm guessing. I've only seen a half-dozen episodes but they all seemed to follow the same exact formula.

Anyway, I've been suspended for the past few days (seems even some of the moderators need to get laid), but I'm with the contingent above that believes asexual is probably a nonsense word as applied.

Re: An "asexual" masturbating to the fantasy of a sunset...

Why does he need to be fantasising about anything?

Again you're trying to weasel out of stripping things down to fundamentals. I'm trying to make this easy. If someone does fantasize about such things, can such a person be considered asexual?

re: masturbating to the idea of a woman...

If he finds women sexually attractive, he is not asexual.

Thank you. Still, I would not be surprised if many self-described "asexuals" find women (sexually) attractive yet do not want to have sex with them.

 

[Checkmite]

I would be.

 

[zooterkin]

Again you're trying to weasel out of stripping things down to fundamentals. I'm trying to make this easy.

No, quite the opposite, you're the one bringing in unnecessary elements, although perhaps we're coming at the same thing from different angles.

If someone does fantasize about such things, can such a person be considered asexual?

Is masturbating, without thinking about another person, a sexual act? One of the definitions proposed for 'asexual' is a lack of sexual attraction to other people of either sex. If one was masturbating while thinking about a woman, that would clearly, to me, demonstrate an attraction to women, and I'd say that person was not asexual, at least by that definition. However, masturbation does not require thinking about someone else, and can be done for its own sake. In that instance, if one masturbates, but purely for the physical pleasure, can one still be called asexual?

 

[Weird Science]

David Jay, founder of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), tells me the show’s treatment was “disturbing but not unexpected.” Not only does the episode assert “that asexuality is problematic and pathological,” he says, but it also tells people who actually accept asexuality as a valid sexual orientation — an acceptance Jay has long fought for — that “they’re wrong.”

Well, that might have something to do with aseuxality being obviously a sexual pathology if anything is.

What bothers me isn't asexuality, but the bad reasoning. If the argument were that Dr. House gratuitously *insulted* asexuals, and that they should not be insulted or demeaned, that is one thing. The conclusion, however, that asexuality is not a pathology at all, and that those who say so are "wrong". But there is absolutely no evidence given for this conclusion apart from the fact that it might be rude or insulting to SAY asexuality is a pathology. That might be so, but how is that even relevant?

Replace "asexual" here with ANYTHING else -- from paedophilia to having a club foot -- and the same argument, that if one feels insulted by being told X is a pathology then X isn't, would "prove" it isn't "really" a pathology. The end result is that nothing is a pathology unless those who have X all declare they suffer from it and want it changed. In fact, not even then, since it's not hard to imagine that if that were the case, we would hear without end about how this very suffering is all "society's fault" and the public must "understand" why X isn't a pathology after all, so as to make Xers more accepted into society.

Heads I win, tails you lose. This sort of "reasoning" really annoys me. We see it all the time; but I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it...

 

[Cain]

No, quite the opposite, you're the one bringing in unnecessary elements, although perhaps we're coming at the same thing from different angles.

I'm trying to rule things out.

Is masturbating, without thinking about another person, a sexual act?

As I wrote earlier: "the move to say that the stimulation of sexual organs has nothing to do with sex is ******* ridiculous." Yes, it's sexual.

One of the definitions proposed for 'asexual' is a lack of sexual attraction to other people of either sex.

And I'd say that definition is too narrow as it suggests someone who wants to have **** animals is "asexual."

If one was masturbating while thinking about a woman, that would clearly, to me, demonstrate an attraction to women, and I'd say that person was not asexual, at least by that definition.

I would withdraw the word "clearly" here. Women have rape fantasies, but that does not mean they want to be raped. If The Kids are All Right is any indication, (co-written and directed by a lesbian), some lesbians get "in the mood" by watching gay male porno. Female sexuality is particularly complex, but distinctions between sexual and asexual are a bit easier to handle.

However, masturbation does not require thinking about someone else, and can be done for its own sake. In that instance, if one masturbates, but purely for the physical pleasure, can one still be called asexual?

I'm inclined to say no. Such a person still seeks sexual gratification.

Is it possible for a man to seek out sex with other men, even at times resorting to violence to get it, and not be homosexual? Sure. Maybe he's in prison.

 

[Checkmite]

Well, that might have something to do with aseuxality being obviously a sexual pathology if anything is.

What makes it a pathology? Is homosexuality a pathology?

 

[ZirconBlue]

You have me all wrong. One thing I like about the show is that they aren't always compelled to have a happy or moralistic ending. It takes a lot of bravery to avoid cliche pitfalls every week.*

What bothered me was the uncharacteristically bad writing. I'm not surprised House believes asexuals don't exist, he is ALWAYS monumental douchebag. The other characters, Wilson especially, are not. None of the doctors call him out and some even agreed with him. Wilson's silence is so jarring it almost seemed liked the writers were sending a message to the audience. Apparently, they were not.

*OK, the medical mysteries are pretty formulaic, but the interpersonal drama is unpredictable and well written.

I see your point, but am not sure I agree. I just think that after so long, they now expect their audience to read those dynamics in when they're not explicitly shown. Wilson protested (admittedly weakly) at the beginning, and we know from experience that, even though he lost the bet, that doesn't make him "wrong". The other doctors aren't really involved because this was the "B" plot, not the patient that the team is diagnosing.

People love House because they love a-holes.

More specifically, I think people love the Magnificent Bastard.