“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. Asexuality is a new topic for me and definitely one I find fascinating. It is a subject I would like to continue to explore here or on future shows I write for. I think it speaks to where humans are now and where we are going. I will do my best in the future to do it justice.”
— House writer Kath Lingenfelter on writing the eighth episode of season nine
I saw that on tumblr. Her heart was in the right place?
This is not an adequate response from the writer. There is rather a large difference between not doing justice to the topic of asexuality, and insinuating that asexuals have something medically wrong with them (House is of course fiction, but Dr. House is cast to be a medical expert, and people do take the show seriously). I am reasonably sure that this writer would not have written a about a tumour or other medical problem causing a character's homosexuality, since I am sure that doing so would quite rightly have generated significant outrage. To me, that says that the author does not consider asexuality as a valid sexual orientation in the same way as homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are considered valid orientations.
Wilson's line was annoying too 'according to this article, at least'. It makes it seem that Wilson is also rather less convinced about the validity of asexuality as an orientation. A more convincing argument from Wilson could definitely have improved this episode.
I do appreciate that medical shows have to have medicine in, but if this was truly the best the House writers could come up with, then it would have been better for them to have stayed away from asexuality altogether.