House M.D. - Asexual couple

[Guest]

Everything that I thought and needs to be said has already been said, but I just got to say. The first 15 minutes or so, I was crying tears of joy that the word "asexual" was said on my television in any context.

Too bad everybody takes sci/med shows as absolute truth on all subjects, so House probably deeply damaged Asexuality's public presence when it was previously unknown to begin with.

Sigh. Why did House have to win that one? He could have won the weird Alzheimer's case and called it a day...A brain tumor. Pssh. How insulting.

[Lady Heartilly]

There have been so many posts that I'm not going to go back and find all the ones I want to address, but I do have some new comments today.

-I still have not seen the episode yet thanks to Fox's 8 day delay and YouTube's ad-invested trick link virus. I really feel like my comments would be more legitimate had I been able to find some way to watch it, but I did read some pretty detailed summaries on other websites. It does sound as if Kayla could still have been asexual. She claimed she was lying because she had sex in the past and enjoyed it. However, perhaps she was simply unaware that asexuals could still enjoy sex and chose to use the label as a false one. If she was able to withstand a happy ten-year marriage without any sexual activity, it seems as if she had very little sexual desire in the first place or may damn well just be asexual. Maybe she thought she had researched it thoroughly, but was not aware that it could still apply to her. After all, many asexuals are sexually active, and some do enjoy the act. Being married for ten years with no sex, no complaints, and no cheating certainly at least says something about her character and how people can be happy in sexless marriages, if it doesn't prove her outrightly asexual.

-Yes, people do take their television very seriously, and it is an issue worth discussing. There are countless times in which a group of people is having a discussion about something, and all of a sudden one of them says "Oh, I heard about that on this episode of *insert popular TV show here*!" Suddenly, other people who have seen the episode will speak up and the discussion will turn to the portrayal of the topic in the television show. It happens. It happens often. Why? Think about it for a minute. Everyone sees different things and has different experiences in their day-to-day lives, but television is one of the only things that millions of people can see simultaneously and have in common when they meet up, no matter how diverse their lives are. Therefore, movies and TV shows become prime sources to discuss all sorts of topics because everyone in the group can feel confident that the others will know what they're talking about, having seen the same movie or TV show.

What House has just done is that it's given millions of people to have a common ground to reference in a discussion about asexuality. Fiction or not, more people are going to have watched and remember this episode than one of those specials on 20/20 or Montel a few years ago. Most people are going to have virtually no experience hearing about or dealing with asexuality outside of this episode, so unless they choose to research it further, it will be the only thing they have to go off and possibly the only thing they ever will have. That is why it's going to be a problem for us. If we bring it up with one of our peers, this may be the only thing they know about it and therefore the only way they know how to deal with it. We don't want it dealt with this way, so we need more positive visibility that an equal amount of people will see, and considering how popular a show this is, that may be nearly impossible.

-On the plus side, I've been browsing the Asexual Q&A and Welcome Lounge forums and noticed that we have received a pretty nice amount of new members who have learned about asexuality for the first time and that it applies to them thanks to this episode. From what I've seen, none of them are taking the part about it being a medical problem very seriously, which is good because we want them to feel welcome and to know that they are not tainted. Therefore, I'm glad that at least some good came out of this travesty.

-I feel really and truly awful for everyone whose family and friends have watched this episode and now think they are sick and need to get checked up. I haven't spoken to my parents yet, but I told them to watch it before we knew what the outcome was going to be, and now I sincerely regret that. They had already been pressuring me to see a doctor before, so I can only imagine what their reaction will be now. This is exactly the sort of thing I don't need right now.

[Nico-Nico Friendo]

We should write a script for another episode in which the man who had the tumor comes back and says he's still asexual.

I already started writing part of it. Maybe you guys can help me with the rest.

Here's what I have written so far:

(The "Asexual Husband" who had the tumor in the episode "Better Half" comes in...)

House: What are you doing back here? Shouldn't you be at home doing the horizontal tango with your wife?

Asexual Husband (A.H.): I'm still asexual.

House: I can write you up a prescription for Viagra.

A.H.: That's not the problem. I'm just not sexually attracted to women or men.

House: How about animals? Children?

A.H.: That's pretty sick, man. That's not what I mean.

House: Well, then there must be something else wrong.

A.H.: Maybe you just don't want to admit that asexuality is a valid sexual orientation.

House: Asexuality is for amoebas. I'd like to know what your wife thinks of this.

A.H.: Well, I can have sex but I'm just not that interested in it like she is.

House: Then maybe you are depressed.

A.H.: No, not really.

(Wilson enters the scene...)

Wilson: House, you've got a new case.

House: Hold on, I'm busy invalidating this man's sexual orientation.

Wilson: Wait a minute . . . WHAT? . . . Just- come with me.

House (to A.H.): You stay here. I'll be back.

(Wilson and House are walking down the hallway . . .)

Wilson: See? I told you it's a legitimate sexual orientation.

House: You haven't won yet.

Wilson: You just don't want to admit that I was right.

House: I'm always right. I just haven't found out what's wrong with this guy yet, but I will.

Wilson: I still think you owe me my money back.

House: Nope.

Wilson: But you just lost the bet!

House (raises cane in the air triumphantly): Nevaaaar!

If anyone is interested in completing this, maybe I can start a new thread in JFF or something.

[Lady Heartilly]

Score! I just found this on YouTube! It's only a minute and 20 seconds, but it covers a lot of the story.

"You mean, the treatment will make me want to have sex?"

I was aware from the posts that it would give him a libido, but I didn't know they told him it would name him want to have sex! How does that work, exactly? Even people with low libidos still want to have sex as long as they experience sexual attraction. Am I to believe that removing a tumor would completely change his personality?

Edit: Ooh! And here's a Vlog from the writer about the episode!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCcCuwEhHTM

[Siggy]

Kath said (emphasis mine):

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. 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. Thank you for feedback and please share any and all thoughts.

Can someone please tell her how bad an idea this is? Asexuality is not about the progression of the human species, and it does not rely on a misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is just an orientation. It greatly disturbs me that this is what Kath believes would be a positive portrayal of asexuality. If that's what she thinks, we're much better off if she doesn't try again. If this nonsense had appeared on House like she wanted it too, I'm afraid that asexuality would be associated with pseudoscientific BS.

Seriously, someone tell her. I'd tell her myself, but it would be better for it to come from someone who saw the episode. I can't watch it until it comes out on Hulu.

[RandomDent]

As someone else pointed out, they also failed in their portrayal of an intersex person. I'm sure the intersex community has complained but as they are a small fraction (even smaller than us I think) I doubt they were heard.

I dislike how intersex is red-underlined on my browser >:/

[TG-G]

As someone else pointed out, they also failed in their portrayal of an intersex person. I'm sure the intersex community has complained but as they are a small fraction (even smaller than us I think) I doubt they were heard.

I dislike how intersex is red-underlined on my browser >:/

I saw that particular episode when it first aired, & it was offensive on many levels, especially with regard to the insensitivity shown towards the intersexed character. I should have stopped watching the show right then & there. In fact, many offensive things have been said on House, & I have continued to let it slide because I enjoy watching the actors on the show.

As for the asexuality side storyline, frankly it was personally embarrassing. :/

[Saolin]

I haven't even watched this, but the descriptions from this thread are making me raaaaaaage.

[sachign]

:redface:

Edited January 26, 2012 by sachign
Bad link

[thylacine]

I haven't even watched this, but the descriptions from this thread are making me raaaaaaage.

It was bad. It's better you did not see it. I was so upset, I could not sleep after watching it.

[Vlad Drăculea]

There is now a Change.org petition you can sign to let your displeasure be known to the show's producers.

[oneofthesun]

I was aware from the posts that it would give him a libido, but I didn't know they told him it would name him want to have sex! How does that work, exactly? Even people with low libidos still want to have sex as long as they experience sexual attraction. Am I to believe that removing a tumor would completely change his personality?

A brain tumor could absolutely change someone's personality. I doubt that all aces have brain tumors though.

Not buying the writer's excuse that "it's a medical mystery show." They could have gone the other way and shown that what was wrong with him had nothing to do with being asexual.

[M_A_K]

I didn't know this was coming up on House but I would have to agree with the sentiment here that this episode did probably more harm than good.

The main reason being that the setup was fine, but having the "it's a legitimate sexual orientation" as the only positive thing in the entire episode makes this entire thing completely pointless.

I understand that the writer doesn't just get to write what s/he wants, but clearly, if she was planning on presenting asexuality in a positive light she should have just given up on it the moment they threw it back in her face. The end result is overall negative.

I know I am sort of in the grey area and as a guy avoiding sex is much easier than as a girl (as far as being chased goes), but really the takeaway for most people of this is: Asexuality can be treated with some fancy medical stuff.

Bad bad bad Fox.

EDIT:

I should add something here. In a way I am a "medical case" too, though in my case it isn't a tumour but a genetic defect. I have been on replacement shots for Testosterone now for over a decade and although that did change in a way how my brain works, it did not turn me into someone who is motivated by sex or sees it all the time.

My pet theory to this is that I simply build a different way on how to connect to people, in an asexual way if you want. It takes quite a bit for me to want to have sex with someone. Sexual urges? Yes, but that's different from sexual desires.

[SpirallingSnowy]

Its a pity they didn't leave the wife as Asexual, that still would of been better that what they did.... But its not like they have really legitimately covered any conditions/orientation/issues etc of any of the character with really depth and understand in a long time. There are people who do reviews of House on the internet about how legit the storyline is, the medical condition is, the patient of the week etc..... I watch house cos its fun, not because i even remotely expect medical facts from i - but I'm a minority cos I'm an asexual/demi/medical science student/interested in researching medical conditions/ etc and therefore i take most of the factual stuff in House with a grain of salt.

Yes we can get angry and up in arms about this, but this is one tv show of many, and its not like Fox can really rectify this. What do people expect to get as a result of complaining?? I'm genuinely concerned. I actually think that the way asexuality was handled, although it did not portray asexual as positively as i would of liked, showed what the kind of crap that people who are ace actually go through - doctors dismissing it as medically based for example.... And i know there are asexuals who have had hormones checked and they were still ace after the medical side was corrected.

It was good that they made the guy the asexual and woman the sexual because a lot of the time people assume that guys HAVE to be interested in sex. I wish they had left the woman as asexual - in a way that it validated the orientation.

( i am trying to find positives here :P)

That said if they want to introduce another asexual character, they should talk to AVEN first :P

[LostPenguin]

Here's her response to me:

...

(This does remind me a a frustration for a writer for the CW who vented that they could never cast African American characters as criminals because the network was too afraid of offending them. Not a direct corollary, but perhaps speaks to the day when ppl respect asexuality as an orientation enough that we can do a story with the medical condition and it won't discredit it all). Thank you for letting me explain myself/ramble.

What annoys me/pisses me off about this comparison is that she's basically saying that CW didn't want to cast African-Americans as criminals, even though in real life they (like everyone else, regardless of race) can potentially be criminals, but is also saying that maybe someday in the future it'll be okay for asexuals to be depicted on TV as having a medical condition that's causing their asexuality? No. That's undermining the meaning of asexuality- that's explicitly discrediting the orientation. It'd be one thing if there was a follow-thru with the main male character where he has the tumor operated on/shrunk and is thereby capable of erections but still uninterested in sex, but making the comparison she did makes no sense. It's not the same thing. It goes beyond insulting our community- it's misinformation. I cringe to think of the asexuals out there who don't know about the wide community of us and are now worrying that there's something wrong with their brains.

That aside, did anyone else feel like the representation of the asexual female was terrible? While some have pointed out that you don't have to be disgusted by sex to be an asexual, I'm gathering she's not an asexual- just abstaining from having sex with her partner and having sex with other partners to satisfy her needs. I feel that does an unjust portrayal of asexual/sexual matches. Sexual partners of Asexuals don't claim to be asexual. Whether their needs are met or not, you don't simply pretend you identify as something else when you don't. I don't think her partner would've cared if she'd told him she was sexual but abstaining to be with him.

This whole thing's a mess. <_<

[mar8ie]

watch house cos its fun, not because i even remotely expect medical facts from i - but I'm a minority cos I'm an asexual/demi/medical science student/interested in researching medical conditions/ etc and therefore i take most of the factual stuff in House with a grain of salt.

Just curious if you watched the episode Recession Proof season 7, ep 14 according to my notes. Featured my personal piece of genetic screw-up called CAPS(Cryopyrin-Associated Periodic Syndrome). I have the medium level Muckle-Wells Symptom and the uproar on the number of mistakes made over at the Raredisease forums is simular to whats here now. As its an interest of yours, if you ever need to ask questions go right ahead.

[faraway]

I hadn't seen House in a while but I had to see this one.

I'll play Devil's Advocate here and state that screenwriters don't have any responsibility (moral or otherwise) to contribute to AVEN's agenda. House isn't an educational show, it's a drama show (as proven by the fact that it often has to rely on bad medicine in order to tell a good story). There's no point in arguing how House should have portrayed the "asexual" couple because there is no should.

Screenwriters are artists, in a way, and artists should have freedom to create. In the real world they obviously don't - they have to report to producers, story editors, etc - but the last thing they need is having to defend the interests of a group as varied and diverse as the asexual community. The story comes first, and just because some of its characters happen to belong to a minority doesn't mean they have to be poster children of that minority.

To their defense, the term "asexuality" was used correctly, and Wilson did us a favor by citing the 1% statistic. Just because that particular couple ended up not being asexual doesn't mean they're saying "asexuality is caused by brain tumors"! Whoever walks out of the episode with that conclusion in mind is just being extremely narrow-minded and not getting the point. Most people I know would be rational enough to see the bigger picture, or at least, to avoid making assumptions about asexuals based on fictional characters on a TV show.

Yes, certain people are making those assumptions, but they're at fault for doing it. I do feel sorry for those asexuals who are "out" and have to deal with some people's misguided reactions to the episode, but the show is not to blame.

[endplusone]

To some extent I agree with the above said. As I've mentioned elsewhere (since the comment was moved), because the show is concerned with 'hard sciences' I dont' think it was ever their intent to get involved in identity politics, especially not within the time frame. I would have liked to see more of the debate between the asexuality and its medicalization carry out, and I guess I was expecting that it was going to take that direction, but the format of the show doesn't allow for the illustration of the complexities of the matter. Everything needs to be resolved. I don't remember a case where anything was left open-ended. I see it as an issue with the medical/scientific model in general - asexuality as an object of study is never going to be the authority.

What disturbs me, however, is that the writers of the show believed they were doing well for the asexual community. You can see that they tried, but they definitely didn't investigate into research that upset this assumption of the equation between sexual desire, sexual response, sexual behaviour and sexual orientation/identity.

[thylacine]

The writers thought they were doing well... ? Oh brother.

[endplusone]

From what I've read in some of the responses from the people involved in the show, quoted in this thread. Presenting facts about it and giving it some publicity... Katherine Lingenfelter specifically said it was not her intent to do asexuality injustice... How she has respect for the asexual community...

I'm confused about what's confusing you.

[RandomDent]

The fact is if this episode had been about House curing homosexuality - shit would have flown in all directions.

That's what we're upset about. We're being treated the way homosexuals/bisexuals/pansexuals/etc used to be treated nationwide (and many people still wish to treat them this way), but it's okay because we're new to the game. Once we've had a reign of oppression on par with theirs, THEN we can be treated seriously.

As a gay man, I'm glad to say that there will probably never be an episode like that for that part of my identity.

As an asexual man, I'm fucking disgusted that one side of me has been erased.

[endplusone]

I'm aware of the hypocrisy and don't endorse it either... But I don't know why my comment is problematic. I'm disturbed by the disparity between what the writers believe they are doing and its actual ramifications on the asexual community. They're not able to see that it's the entire way that they're framing their understanding of asexuality (and sexuality in general) that creates this experience of oppression. And to me it speaks to problems with the founding epistemologies that underlie and persist through the scientific model, hence why asexuality is being treated the same way that homosexuality did years ago (and to some extent, still does).

[Caspian]

I just watched this House episode (I just watched it today due to the 8-day online delay), and immediately knew that there was bound to be a lively discussion about it here :). And this thread was an interesting read. I don't have anything to add that hasn't been said already, but I feel like I have to say something after reading nine pages :P.

Upon watching this episode, my immediate reaction was the one that Kath intended-- this is a story about a specific couple, and was not intended to dive into discussing the asexual community as a whole. In this particular case, the couple mislabeled themselves as asexual (which is something I can sortof identify with). But people like this do exist, just like asexuals who mislabel themselves as sexuals. The fact that the episode didn't get a chance to address more aspects of the asexual community shouldn't be surprising.

EDIT: My post count is now a palindrome! Oh, and hello again everyone :). I've missed you all! But I'm not here to stay. I don't really plan to post outside of this thread.

[Lady Heartilly]

I just watched this House episode (I just watched it today due to the 8-day online delay), and immediately knew that there was bound to be a lively discussion about it here :).

Where did you watch it? It's only been four days, and it's still not up for me.

If the woman had been lying to her husband that she was asexual for ten years of marriage, wasn't he pissed? I mean, I probably would have divorced someone who had been lying to me for ten years . . .

[Caspian]

Where did you watch it? It's only been five days, and it's still not up for me.

Whoops, not only can I not count, but it appears that I went to a Hulu rip-off site which is probably illegal :redface: .

If the woman had been lying to her husband that she was asexual for ten years of marriage, wasn't he pissed? I mean, I probably would have divorced someone who had been lying to me for ten years . . .

I think she mislabeled herself. People tend to subconsciously drift toward acting like the people they choose to be around. That happened to me when I hung around this site a lot, and I think it could definitely happen to a girl in love with someone who identifies as asexual. But being that this couple was only a minor side-plot, they didn't have time to dive into this... and I may just be overanalyzing the episode.

EDIT: I'm not saying that someone can become asexual by hanging out with asexuals. I'm just saying that doing so can, in some cases, mess with someone's brain.

[Nico-Nico Friendo]

If the writer "had good intentions" and thought she would "do good" for the asexual community, then it would have been better if she had left this one alone, because she otherwise did not understand asexuality properly or she understood it but compromised her "do good" values for money. As one person said on that petition link: "I'd rather be invisible and be able to educate people myself about asexuality than have to refute the stereotypes you've now reinforced. On national television. Good job."

[Lady Heartilly]

Impatience got the best of me. I realized I still have a fairly high Amazon gift card balance from the holidays, so I was able to watch the episode without spending any money from my own pocket.

It really wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. I had already seen a lot of it from the clips, and the rest of it didn't really seem all that offensive to me. House was just being himself, and Wilson supported asexuality the entire time. Even at the end of the episode when House won the bet, Wilson still said he thought the couple seemed happy when they weren't having sex. The wife still seems like she could have been asexual and confused libido with sexuality. After all, she said "a girl has needs," but didn't say anything to imply that she experienced sexual attraction. The husband seemed like a valid asexual before the operation, and they didn't show him after so . . . *shrug* I don't know. Wilson seemed pretty adamant that asexuality exists the entire time even at the end of the episode, which is still good for visibility.

[Torraed]

The wife still seems like she could have been asexual and confused libido with sexuality. After all, she said "a girl has needs," but didn't say anything to imply that she experienced sexual attraction.

Unfortunately, I think this only worsens the situation. People who see the show and don't know any better will probably end up having the same misconception that the woman seems to have: that one cannot be asexual if one has a libido. So whether she was lying and did actually experience sexual attraction (and just never explicitly stated so) or was simply confusing the two concepts, it's bad visibility for asexuals either way.

[Human]

EDIT: I'm not saying that someone can become asexual by hanging out with asexuals. I'm just saying that doing so can, in some cases, mess with someone's brain.

Asexuality — We mess with people's brain

:D

[Germanicus]

EDIT: I'm not saying that someone can become asexual by hanging out with asexuals. I'm just saying that doing so can, in some cases, mess with someone's brain.

Asexuality — We mess with people's brain

:D

Now that's a bumper sticker. I can see it now.

Whether it's a useful one, on the other hand...