House this week has an asexual couple on it

A place for discussing real-life community building and media engagements.
User avatar
Noskcaj.Llahsram
Regular Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:40 pm

House this week has an asexual couple on it

Postby Noskcaj.Llahsram » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:12 pm

Parents were watching House in the other room and I caught the beginning of the new episode, and apparently the B story is Wilson's patient and her husband are asexual, and House made a bet with him to disprove her assertion.
let's see where this is going

will update
What is love? Well, you know that feeling you get when you've been locked in a tiny dark space alone for a year? It's kind of the opposite of that.

User avatar
Noskcaj.Llahsram
Regular Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: House this week has an asexual couple on it

Postby Noskcaj.Llahsram » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:51 pm

he had a brain tumour, she was pretending so he would be with her.

Way to be classy television
What is love? Well, you know that feeling you get when you've been locked in a tiny dark space alone for a year? It's kind of the opposite of that.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: House this week has an asexual couple on it

Postby KAGU143 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:37 pm

Sad.
Typical, and, in the sense that "there's no such thing a bad publicity", good, but still ...
sad.

Update: I saw the episode last night. (Now I remember why I don't watch network TV very much any more!)

Weeellll ..... I guess it is about the best that we could have hoped for, under the circumstances. It is "House", after all, so you already know what the plot will be.
As usual, House successfully diagnoses the illnesses that nobody else can see, while managing to be a complete, pompous ass to everybody around him.

Despite House playing the skeptic's role, the episode still managed to mention that asexuals are 1% of the population and that it is not the same as celibacy. One of the other doctors (I don't know all of the characters by name) noted that the couple seemed perfectly happy, and wondered why it was so necessary to interfere with their lives since the tumour was a relatively benign, very slow-growing type. House, who will hear no ideas other than his own, ran rough-shod over those objections, but still ... the questions were asked.

I would give it a 5 out of 10.
For prime-time network TV, I don't think we can hope for much more than that.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
FalconEagle
Established Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:18 am

Re: House this week has an asexual couple on it

Postby FalconEagle » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:39 pm

Well...........I think it's safe to say that it was a controversial episode in this community...

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: House this week has an asexual couple on it

Postby KAGU143 » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:04 am

I would agree with that, but I think the nature of the protest was very ill-advised. It may come to nothing, or it may come back and bite us in the ass in a very big way. Time will tell.
One possible result is that prime-time television producers will decide that the topic produces more controversy that it does ratings, and that it isn't worth bothering with.

It's as if the asexual community (some of it) is in a huge state of denial, trying to insist that asexuality is almost always nothing more than a random quirk of human behavior, and that any medical or psychological causes that might be associated with it are very rare exceptions.
I really don't believe that this is the case, although I would agree that physical causes are very uncommon.

If all asexuals who have Aspberger's syndrome, or GID, or social anxiety, or schizoid personality disorder, or (fill in the blank) are removed from the total count, how many of us will be left?
I am NOT saying that any of these things are absolute causes of asexuality - they aren't - just that there are some strong statistical associations which are plainly visible to any researchers who bother to look for them. I think it is better to acknowledge this fact right up front, and then be prepared to move on and deal with asexuality itself, regardles of what may or may not cause it.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.