In 2011, my beloved miniature pinscher Bucky died very suddenly. He had been my soul mate and my psychiatric service dog. Because of my grief, I was unable to leave the house.
Another writer, my friend Carle, decided to help me through this process. I was obsessed with the television show starring Hugh Laurie, "House M.D," about a misanthropic, brilliant, crippled doctor. Carle downloaded the first 5 seasons. Within a few episodes, he was as obsessed as I was. This blog is the correspondence we conducted, episode by episode. With a few digressions.
Carle's entries are in black; my contributions are in blue.
Showing posts with label bisexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bisexual. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
What Is Sexuality? Bisexual, Monosexual, Asexual: House/Wilson
Part of an email debate between me and Carle, based on an essay a fan wrote about how House/Wilson are “gay.” (This was written circa 2011)
Carle:
OK. so. you're married to another man. OK. that means you are living a gaymosexual life. (and I did NOT say "life-STYLE". it IS a life. physical, legal, self-evident.) perfectly obvious. bald fact on the face of it. now. you say you are bi-sexual. OK. fine. so you are living/married to just one person. OK. now, are you claiming to be bi-sexual because you watch straight porn? OK. so that means that if I watch a gaymosexual act, I am, perforce, bi-" even if, while I am married to a woman and have a monosexual relationship with her?
Me:
Depends on whether or not it gets you off. Being aroused and climaxing to gay porn is an act, not an intent. Even if you are in a monosexual/heterosexual relationship. The fact that only your own body is involved makes no difference. It's realization. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest people for having pedophiliac porn on their computers. Or the men who like to watch women in high heels squash small animals.
Carle:
It is, in point of fact, masturbation. it is, in point of fact, a MONOSEXUAL ACT, despite the motivation. the only choice is to put your hand on your genitals or not. the gay leap forward is putting your hands on ANOTHER'S genitals. you can't seriously say that fantasizing is the same thing as doing, can you? can't buy that. intent vs. act. this IS philosophy 101. start with Aristotle’s "entelechy" and let me know where you finish.
Didn't look it up, did you?
And catholic religion as well: venal sin vs. mortal sin. everything is 'potentiality' UNTIL it is realized. so then, anyone claiming to be bi-sexual who does not engage in bi-sexual ACTS, vis-a-vis, to cross that line from intent to realization, is merely fantasizing and fetishising (at the extreme) and not REALLY someone who has made an active choice in their practices.
Elisa:
Stepping down from the intellectual platform: There are too many variables in human beings to exclude such an enormous gray area. Many of the men in my father's generation were too highly “programmed", as you would say, to easily make that choice. There was a writer in my memoir class in his late 70s who wrote fascinating pieces about life as a closeted homosexual. He was married, with children, defined himself as straight, but went into the Village, where the roles were as codified as the most rigid (pardon the pun) of leather queens, down to what ties you wore. THEY SAW THEMSELVES AS HAVING NO OTHER CHOICE.
Carle:
Right. you have a choice today whether you want to drink or not. you CHOOSE not to, right? so, someone who never had a drink can't be an alcoholic because they never drank. can't be an addict because they never touched drugs. can't be bisexual because they only have sex with an opposite-gendered partner every once in a while, after procreation, but spend all their time looking at gay porn. an alcoholic or an addict is either active or inactive OR in recovery. whichever way you want to label it, it comes down to CHOICE. the only exclusive condition is one that NEVER acted nor acts upon their desires.
CHOICE. Just because they SAW no other choice that means there wasn't one? They CHOSE to have a HETERO relationship, enter into a marriage contract, sire offspring--regardless of excuses. THESE ARE CHOICES. I can call myself a "writer" because I write. I cannot call myself a published author because I am not published. (OK. maybe that has more to do with the publishing industry.) now, I said that to say this: given the CHOICE, would I prefer to simply be a writer? no, because the second label means success. (in varying degrees, sure. but some material reward is associated with it so let us not go into the fine print.) To be a "successful" bi-sexual, I would have to go from fantasizing about it to doing it. by the same token, you can call yourself a straight black male, but "go slippin' on the down-low" just for a bit one the side. that makes you bi. but if you do it without having sexual intercourse or bj's from your wife, then you are "becoming" gaymosexual. but, again, that is a choice. so, I will give you this: someone may BECOME EXCLUSIVELY GAY in their choices, but that does not invalidate PAST CHOICES. and, if you choose again, that label in invalidated because of its exclusivity. are we or are we not responsible for the choices we make in life? yes or no?
Me:
How much do we know about other people's private sex lives? (Before the interwebs, I mean.) I've had several friends in celibate marriages, something I never "got." I mean, what's the point? These women generally weren't happy with the state of things, but only one had the courage to dump her husband so at the very least she could get a little sumpin-sumpin.
Carle:
My favorite quote on this was from one of the last appearances of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on Johnny Carson. when asked what he thought about gay liberation or somesuch (however the topic came up) he said, "I want to start an Asexual liberation movement. Can't you just see us? Thousands of happy smiling people walking down the center of fifth avenue with a big banner: 'HAVEN'T DONE IT IN YEARS AND FEEL GREAT!'"
Me:
Or heterosexually defined women who discover--yes, discover--that they are actually gay? (Their definition, not mine, so I'm not getting into semiotics.) There are vast numbers of people who are hamstrung by shame, fetishes, whatever to ACT on their impulses. Also, where do the people who call themselves "asexual" (and they'll smack you if you call them otherwise) fit in? Not even they know! They argue about: can you be asexual if you kiss somebody/what level of contact is acceptable to be considered "asexual," etc.
Carle
SEE ABOVE
Me:
Writing all of this makes me feel so comfortably defined, I must admit. (wink)
Carle:
Now, I will grant that it is entirely possible for someone to, under extreme duress and reprogramming (sex slaves, repeated rape, prison environment, conditioned response, etc.) to be turned into one or the other. but that is due to behavioral circumstances beyond their control. IT IS NOT AN ACTIVE CHOICE. but let us extend the argument to "the closet". since...forever, I guess, that has been the refuge of those too gripped by fear to openly declare their lesbingham/gaymosexual identity. fine. granted. no argument. THEY ARE ______. however, BI? see? doesn't work. if you have sex with one gender, and eschew the other, for whatever reason/fear, you are still _______________. so you say: oh, no, I'm really gaymosexual but I only slept with "her" because my family made me/needed respectability/wanted children, etc. ok. YOU MADE A CHOICE. so? does that mean you can say you were REALLY A CLOSETED GAYMOSEXUAL BUT!--"played straight"? and, of course, could never be BI? no, that was just a sham!--I didn't mean it!--I didn't love her!---I loved the house carpenter!!!
Me:
Responded to above. A lot of sexuality presentation has to do with era, and to understand the choices, you need to understand the era. Truman Capote was the exception, not the rule (speaking of EARLY in his career).
Carle:
Right. and he never nailed you? sorry. you did the deed?--you're BI, Whether you like it or not.
Me:
There are men who only had sex with their wives to have children. And women who only had sex with their husbands to have children. That's not a sexual choice, per se, it's a practical choice, no matter what it does to the lives involved. I don't know if you did this as a kid, but when my friends and I discussed our parents' sex lives (to the tune of EW EW EW) we would decide they would have had to have sex the same number of kids they had, but no more. Of course for probably 75%--85%, let's be generous,that isn't true. But for the other 15% simply because you had sex does not make you bi, especially if you only did it as a means to an end (jeez,can't stop with the double entendres) and hated every minute of it. Yes, it is a choice, but it is not made out of sexuality.
Carle:
AND AFTER YOU READ ABOUT ENTELECHY, SEE ABRAHAM MASLOW ON THE SELF-ACTUALIZED INDIVIDUAL. We can go 'round and 'round on this point. so where the hell DO you draw the line?
But, and more important--who cares?
Me:
You do, for one.
Carle:
Still, in the House/Wilson debate, this is crucial so, until they settle into a married gaymosexual relationship, they cannot be considered gaymosexual. am I drawing straws here? Or setting up a "strawman" hypothesis? I think not. I'm just giving it a legal edge because the socio-gender-policy one is too vague and ambiguous.
Me:
And sexual orientation isn't limited to three options but is a continuum.
Carle:
OK. when you factor in shoes, the possibilities are endless. I sense this is not going anywhere. embryonically, we are ALL bisexual, the determinant chromosome not showing up until much later in the game.
The whole point, as far as I can see, is who gets to have the best label.
Carle:
OK. so. you're married to another man. OK. that means you are living a gaymosexual life. (and I did NOT say "life-STYLE". it IS a life. physical, legal, self-evident.) perfectly obvious. bald fact on the face of it. now. you say you are bi-sexual. OK. fine. so you are living/married to just one person. OK. now, are you claiming to be bi-sexual because you watch straight porn? OK. so that means that if I watch a gaymosexual act, I am, perforce, bi-" even if, while I am married to a woman and have a monosexual relationship with her?
Me:
Depends on whether or not it gets you off. Being aroused and climaxing to gay porn is an act, not an intent. Even if you are in a monosexual/heterosexual relationship. The fact that only your own body is involved makes no difference. It's realization. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest people for having pedophiliac porn on their computers. Or the men who like to watch women in high heels squash small animals.
Carle:
It is, in point of fact, masturbation. it is, in point of fact, a MONOSEXUAL ACT, despite the motivation. the only choice is to put your hand on your genitals or not. the gay leap forward is putting your hands on ANOTHER'S genitals. you can't seriously say that fantasizing is the same thing as doing, can you? can't buy that. intent vs. act. this IS philosophy 101. start with Aristotle’s "entelechy" and let me know where you finish.
Didn't look it up, did you?
And catholic religion as well: venal sin vs. mortal sin. everything is 'potentiality' UNTIL it is realized. so then, anyone claiming to be bi-sexual who does not engage in bi-sexual ACTS, vis-a-vis, to cross that line from intent to realization, is merely fantasizing and fetishising (at the extreme) and not REALLY someone who has made an active choice in their practices.
Elisa:
Stepping down from the intellectual platform: There are too many variables in human beings to exclude such an enormous gray area. Many of the men in my father's generation were too highly “programmed", as you would say, to easily make that choice. There was a writer in my memoir class in his late 70s who wrote fascinating pieces about life as a closeted homosexual. He was married, with children, defined himself as straight, but went into the Village, where the roles were as codified as the most rigid (pardon the pun) of leather queens, down to what ties you wore. THEY SAW THEMSELVES AS HAVING NO OTHER CHOICE.
Carle:
Right. you have a choice today whether you want to drink or not. you CHOOSE not to, right? so, someone who never had a drink can't be an alcoholic because they never drank. can't be an addict because they never touched drugs. can't be bisexual because they only have sex with an opposite-gendered partner every once in a while, after procreation, but spend all their time looking at gay porn. an alcoholic or an addict is either active or inactive OR in recovery. whichever way you want to label it, it comes down to CHOICE. the only exclusive condition is one that NEVER acted nor acts upon their desires.
CHOICE. Just because they SAW no other choice that means there wasn't one? They CHOSE to have a HETERO relationship, enter into a marriage contract, sire offspring--regardless of excuses. THESE ARE CHOICES. I can call myself a "writer" because I write. I cannot call myself a published author because I am not published. (OK. maybe that has more to do with the publishing industry.) now, I said that to say this: given the CHOICE, would I prefer to simply be a writer? no, because the second label means success. (in varying degrees, sure. but some material reward is associated with it so let us not go into the fine print.) To be a "successful" bi-sexual, I would have to go from fantasizing about it to doing it. by the same token, you can call yourself a straight black male, but "go slippin' on the down-low" just for a bit one the side. that makes you bi. but if you do it without having sexual intercourse or bj's from your wife, then you are "becoming" gaymosexual. but, again, that is a choice. so, I will give you this: someone may BECOME EXCLUSIVELY GAY in their choices, but that does not invalidate PAST CHOICES. and, if you choose again, that label in invalidated because of its exclusivity. are we or are we not responsible for the choices we make in life? yes or no?
Me:
How much do we know about other people's private sex lives? (Before the interwebs, I mean.) I've had several friends in celibate marriages, something I never "got." I mean, what's the point? These women generally weren't happy with the state of things, but only one had the courage to dump her husband so at the very least she could get a little sumpin-sumpin.
 |
| Wilson and House. Art by euclase |
Carle:
My favorite quote on this was from one of the last appearances of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on Johnny Carson. when asked what he thought about gay liberation or somesuch (however the topic came up) he said, "I want to start an Asexual liberation movement. Can't you just see us? Thousands of happy smiling people walking down the center of fifth avenue with a big banner: 'HAVEN'T DONE IT IN YEARS AND FEEL GREAT!'"
Me:
Or heterosexually defined women who discover--yes, discover--that they are actually gay? (Their definition, not mine, so I'm not getting into semiotics.) There are vast numbers of people who are hamstrung by shame, fetishes, whatever to ACT on their impulses. Also, where do the people who call themselves "asexual" (and they'll smack you if you call them otherwise) fit in? Not even they know! They argue about: can you be asexual if you kiss somebody/what level of contact is acceptable to be considered "asexual," etc.
Carle
SEE ABOVE
Me:
Writing all of this makes me feel so comfortably defined, I must admit. (wink)
Carle:
Now, I will grant that it is entirely possible for someone to, under extreme duress and reprogramming (sex slaves, repeated rape, prison environment, conditioned response, etc.) to be turned into one or the other. but that is due to behavioral circumstances beyond their control. IT IS NOT AN ACTIVE CHOICE. but let us extend the argument to "the closet". since...forever, I guess, that has been the refuge of those too gripped by fear to openly declare their lesbingham/gaymosexual identity. fine. granted. no argument. THEY ARE ______. however, BI? see? doesn't work. if you have sex with one gender, and eschew the other, for whatever reason/fear, you are still _______________. so you say: oh, no, I'm really gaymosexual but I only slept with "her" because my family made me/needed respectability/wanted children, etc. ok. YOU MADE A CHOICE. so? does that mean you can say you were REALLY A CLOSETED GAYMOSEXUAL BUT!--"played straight"? and, of course, could never be BI? no, that was just a sham!--I didn't mean it!--I didn't love her!---I loved the house carpenter!!!
Me:
Responded to above. A lot of sexuality presentation has to do with era, and to understand the choices, you need to understand the era. Truman Capote was the exception, not the rule (speaking of EARLY in his career).
Carle:
Right. and he never nailed you? sorry. you did the deed?--you're BI, Whether you like it or not.
Me:
There are men who only had sex with their wives to have children. And women who only had sex with their husbands to have children. That's not a sexual choice, per se, it's a practical choice, no matter what it does to the lives involved. I don't know if you did this as a kid, but when my friends and I discussed our parents' sex lives (to the tune of EW EW EW) we would decide they would have had to have sex the same number of kids they had, but no more. Of course for probably 75%--85%, let's be generous,that isn't true. But for the other 15% simply because you had sex does not make you bi, especially if you only did it as a means to an end (jeez,can't stop with the double entendres) and hated every minute of it. Yes, it is a choice, but it is not made out of sexuality.
Carle:
AND AFTER YOU READ ABOUT ENTELECHY, SEE ABRAHAM MASLOW ON THE SELF-ACTUALIZED INDIVIDUAL. We can go 'round and 'round on this point. so where the hell DO you draw the line?
But, and more important--who cares?
Me:
You do, for one.
Carle:
Still, in the House/Wilson debate, this is crucial so, until they settle into a married gaymosexual relationship, they cannot be considered gaymosexual. am I drawing straws here? Or setting up a "strawman" hypothesis? I think not. I'm just giving it a legal edge because the socio-gender-policy one is too vague and ambiguous.
Me:
And sexual orientation isn't limited to three options but is a continuum.
Carle:
OK. when you factor in shoes, the possibilities are endless. I sense this is not going anywhere. embryonically, we are ALL bisexual, the determinant chromosome not showing up until much later in the game.
The whole point, as far as I can see, is who gets to have the best label.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Season One, Episode 7: "Fidelity" (The First H/W Convo)
Description:
31-year-old
Elyce Snow (Myndy Crist) sleeps eighteen hours a day, and is impossible
to get along with the other six hours. House (Hugh Laurie) thinks it
might be depression, but it isn't, nor is it rabbit fever (his second
choice). Finally, House diagnoses African Sleeping Sickness--and since
neither Elyce nor her husband Ed (Dominic Purcell) has ever been to
Africa, the only other possibility is that one of them has been
unfaithful. But neither husband nor wife will fess up...not even if
their silence results in her quick demise!finally he gets called a misanthrope! been waiting for a Moliere reference too, but maybe that's coming later? the xmas ep, though, did not have a scrooge ref which i thought might have come up. but then we find House doesn't hate xmas as much as one might think. having him play the piano of "have yourself a merry little xmas" was perfectly in keeping, then, with what you told me. only mel torme could offer us alienated urbans a token to the lonely-but-sweet innocence it is possible to discover when you use memories of childhood as this occasion's spiritual center, to realize that the happy family was, of course, a lie.
fave line: "check for poison apples too. when there's this much sleeping i'd check for a wicked stepmother."
OK. the title tells us that it is going to be about intra-familial relations exclusivity. right. which then opens the door for a bit of discussion about the outside thang going on. but it is confined to the case, primarily, far as i remember. now we begin to see a house/wilson relationship at all with his 1st consult--and not just on the gal with the implants. so you're going to tell me that homosexual males would enjoy the prospect of a gaze at enormous knockers? personally, i can't think of any in my acquaintance who would. and the fact that wilson is married doesn't help.
BUT, MAYBE the subtext of the kidding around wilson gets for wearing a new tie and taking a nurse to lunch? i don't get a jealous vibe here. the idea that comes to me is if these guys were on some kind of down-low, the banter would be much more two-sided rather than house being the pitcher and wilson the catcher. i'm not saying "oh mary" or such, but like the African American bi-cultural thang of the down-low: sex as recreation, not anything emotional.
(at least, that's according to the Village Voice description of the phenomena...)
Um...ever heard of bisexual? Although I don't know if the characters are in fact bisexual, it's a fun fantasy to entertain. My personal opinion is that House is omni sexual and Wilson is a closeted bi. I mean, three failed marriages? But then, is that information not revealed yet? Not that it's a big reveal, by you can see that Wilson prefers hanging with House than hanging with his wife(s). Although I kinda think Wilson would fuck mud in the absence of a suitable orifice.
Quite a few of my therapist friend's male clients (who are mainly minorities) do the down low, but insist they're straight. You should know that last season they did an episode on House and Wilson called "The Down Low."
And the jealousy thing comes much more into play in later seasons. I keep trying not to give away too much, mingled with utter disbelief that you're doing this.
One hideous side-effect of being a House/Wilson fan (or Hilsons as the portmanteau name freaks would have it) is all of these home-made videos on YouTube about their doomed or not doomed love are made with THE EXACT SAME CLIPS SO THEY BURN INTO YOUR MIND FOREVER! I'd point one or two out, but then again, same problem as above.
House/Wilson vids--say what?
Go to Youtube. Type in "House Wilson" or "Hilson" but maybe you don't want to because there are two many reveals from later seasons. Also clips edited to suggest sexual passion when in fact they're not. The shot where Wilson is standing in the doorway is one used over and over and over again.
Video by clovermedia
Hey, it's all looking for tiny clues for us obsessed House/Wilson fans. It was only in Season 2 that they found what "popped" (in the writers' terms) for the relationship. I glanced at the televisionwithoutpity.com recap to try to remember more about the ep, and the recapper wrote, regarding the woman she calls Boobs:
Wilson isn't as impressed with the preschool teacher's set as House was. I guess he's not a Tits 'N Ass man. He always struck me as more of a Beard 'N Limp guy anyway.
seems like this view is pervasive.
Your backstory is waaay ahead of me.
so far, we've learned that the black guy had a sealed juvie record, chase was a seminary student, the cute F asst had a fairytale marriage end in a snap, and wilson had a brother who went schizo/homeless.
OK. bisexual. right. they are both bisexual? that's a stretch, but then again so are anal cavities, in these situations. how do you know house isn't A-sexual? i suppose that's in the "more will be revealed" portion?
Not that it's a big reveal, by you can see that Wilson prefers hanging with House than hanging with his wife(s). Although I kinda think Wilson would fuck mud in the absence of a suitable orifice.
no. i tried it. or rather, sand. unfortunate decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)