09-12-2014, 08:34 AM
Quote:"But this sleazy rep is now based on a couple of innocent interactions."
Yes. There are plenty of moments, especially in the very earliest episodes, which show that H. is almost as naive and innocent as the rest of them. He says things like "Is it a boy-girl party?" He is all talk. That's the whole point. IMO he is only *saying* what Leonard and Raj are *thinking.* I don't find him creepy. Rather, I think he has no filter and little sense of what is TMI and what isn't.
Canons think Howard was some borderline rapist who went around grabbing women's crotches in public and exposing himself to puppies and kittens in the park...
I don't think any of those incidents mentioned in that god-awful Stag Convergence episode were so shocking. Who cares what he did, as long as everyone involved was consenting? It would be different if he'd hidden something like: he already had a kid somewhere, or he'd been married before, or had an STD, or got a girl pregnant and then abandoned her, or had been cheating. Those are serious things. But, he didn't do those things. He had some rather kinky sexual encounters. Those incidents weren't even *recent*, at the time. Who cares? Did B. think he was a choirboy??
I really, really, really hate that episode. It disturbs me. Not long ago, I was chatting with an online friend who is also a Howard fan, and she said that episode left her fuming for weeks.
That prostitute in Vegas was clearly a confident person and in control of the situation. If anyone was being made a fool in that scenario, it was the guys. She did not seem scared or hesitant. It's not like he victimized her. I know there are serious issues and abuses associated with prostitution, but there are also countries where it's legal and regulated to prevent abuses. It's also legal in some parts of Nevada, though not within Vegas itself.
The contrast between his appearance and his attitude is what's funny. It's cute and funny to see this nerdy little guy swaggering around like he's Mr.Big Shot.
Hey, remember when Creepy Howard tricked someone into giving him a bath? OOPS, no, that was Dear Amy...
Remember that fabulous scene where the guys meet Missy Cooper? H. is clearly coming on to her, and coming on strong, but it's not like he says "Hey, bitch, let's f*ck." This is a guy who tries to win someone over with magic tricks, for crying out loud. That's pretty innocent, even if his intentions aren't. Canons think H. went around putting roofies in women's drinks.
People who think Howard is disgusting are probably the same people who think Edward Cullen is dreamy; and he engaged in legit creepy behaviors like taking Bella Swan's car apart so that she couldn't escape, and sneaking into her bedroom to watch her while she slept. The "hero" of your average romance novel is creepier than Howard. Up until about the 1990s, romance novels contained a lot of outright rape, a lot of "dubcon" and coercion and the hero not taking no for an answer.
Pop culture is full of aggressive "heroes" who are subtly or not-so-subtly creepy towards women, but they get a pass if they're tall and WASPy. If Howard was less nerdy and more conventionally handsome, fangirls would eat up that flirty behavior with a spoon. In fact, they'd love it if Sheldon started acting overtly sexual towards Amy.
There are a lot of double standards in this fandom. If Sheldon used a camera device to look at someone's cleavage or look up her skirt, fangirls would prob. think it's cute and sexy or at least not egregiously bad, because they have a crush on JP and find Sheldon good-looking, but they generally don't feel that way about Howard/Simon.
If you recall, Howard had already eased-up on the overtly sexual stuff, a bit, by the end of Season 2, and that's long before Bernadette was introduced. He knew not to hit on Penny while Penny was with Leonard. (Hmm...Leonard did not do the same, in a similar situation.) They could've maintained him at that level.
I just don't see how anyone can call the destruction of Howard's character "growth" or "development." This goes back to what I was saying in the chat box, a while ago: Canons can't tell the difference between a good *character* and a good *person.* They think a good character is someone who would be pleasant to hang out with, IRL, whereas the most fascinating fictional characters are often bizarre and grotesque. A character who does questionable things and is rather amoral (not immoral, amoral), can still be a lovable and relatable character. I look at how things went, and all I see is H. being overly remorseful for having done some mildly inappropriate things, and other characters judging him too harshly for those same things. Sad, sad, sad. I don't need sitcom characters to be morally and ethically upright, I need them to be *funny.*