Playing catchup & replying to a couple of different posts...
In the episode I saw a young woman is brought in to the hospital under false pretenses - she's faking an illness in order to end her relationship with her long-term girlfriend (if you just scratched your head, you're not alone).
I finished watching the second season on DVDs yesterday and I think you're mistaken. The young woman in question was not faking the illness that brought her to the hospital, but she had previously lied to her partner about being allergic to dogs. She didn't want them to get one because she was planning to end the relationship.
House is one of those shows that give me really mixed feelings in its treatment of lesbian relationships. On the one hand, I really like the show in general, I think the characterization, performances and writing are excellent. That includes the actresses who have played the two lesbian couples-for the most part they played it very "straight"-you should pardon the expression-and belivable.
And I like the fact that everyone in the show, all the other characters, has taken the relationships seriously and accepted them for what they are-good or bad, these women are in a
relationship.
I actually liked it the episode until what TM rightly described as the cynical resolution. Up until then, I thought it was an interesting moral dilemma-which has precedence, your sense of preservation or your sensitivity to another's feelings?-with a nice twist.
The resolution, however, changed the picture of a lesbian couple from one prey to the same frailties and screwups as most of us into one in which one partner is trapped, the other manipulative to an arguably evil degree.
Besides that episode, in the first season the lesbian couple featured were one of two sets of new parents whose babies had both come down with some unknown ailment.
In diagnosing the children, House had to give one medication to one child and a different one to the other, and see if one got better. One did. One didn't. Guess which one.
Again, it was played very simply and movingly, and with great respect for the reality of the terrible loss these women had suffered. But you have to ask-I did anyway-would it have hurt the story if the gay couple had been the ones who got to take their baby home at the end of the day?
I don't think it would've. But once again we have a show in which lesbian always equals doomed to unhappiness. Which brings us back to the question of whether the context of the show is more important than the larger context of the world outside it.
I remember, when all the protests about the doT were going on, a lot of what I heard was "But every relationship on
Buffy ends in misery and death!"
But that wasn't true on
Buffy, and it's not true on
House. The writers do give some of the characters happy endings and a chance at new life.
It's just that the two times they've dealt with lesbian characters so far, they've chosen not to do that.
On the other hand, I'll forgive almost anything for a line like this:
The funny part, to me at least, was that he said he was going to go home and watch The L Word - on mute...
Only way to watch it, as far as I'm concerned...