You can put a pretty bow on your controversial choices with a stock-house explanation, but that doesn’t make it any less questionable. ‘Girls’ Executive Producer and Writer, Lena Dunham covered Vogue, and she explained her decision to bare all for the HBO series, saying, “It’s a complicated thing. I want people ultimately, even if they’re disturbed by certain moments, to feel bolstered and normalized by the sex that’s on the show.” She also added that, “Seeing somebody who looks like you having sex on television is a less comfortable experience than seeing somebody who looks like nobody you’ve ever met.” While I understand the argument, I must still lay into it’s lunacy.
I’ve followed ‘Girls’ since it’s debut, and the excessive nudity has almost pushed me to flee the show. I never questioned Samantha Jones’ nudity, because it made sense for the character. Kim Cattrall’s promiscuous Sex and the City character broke down barriers for women. It put our gender on par with men, who are socially allowed to sexually misbehave, while women are not. Her nudity was also appropriately played into each scene, and the artistic blend kept me immersed in the story. Unlike ‘Sex and the City,’ it’s as if Lena Dunham is proving a point at the expense of the scene. Sure it’s possible that she adequately represents “real life,” but if I wanted my television to be that real, I’d watch a documentary. There’s a delicate dance between art and reality, but the former is just fine with me.