People like to complain about the nudity on HBO's Girls. You never can win. You have someone like Melissa McCarthy on the cover of Elle magazine covered up in a coat and people get pissy about that, too. Too much? Not enough? One person's too much is another's not enough. I've decided that some of us just like to complain. A lot. And that's sad for them because negativity breeds negativity and is probably responsible for global warming, contagious cases of the throw-ups, and the death of kittens. The latest kitten-killing debate on the nudity on Girls occurred on Thursday at a panel discussion for the 2014 Winter Television Critics Association tour.
Girls' executive producers Jenni Konner and Judd Apatow were there along with star, writer, and producer Lena Dunham. A TV critic went on to ask one of the most rage inducing questions that should make every woman and woman-loving man infuriated. It was mean and yet veiled. Most of all, it was wrong.
A male critic directed his question at Dunham. He said:
I don't get the purpose of all the nudity on the show by you particularly. I feel like I'm walking into a trap where you go, 'Nobody complains about the nudity on Game of Thrones,' but I get why they're doing it. They are doing it to be salacious and, you know, to titillate people. And your character is often naked just at random times for no reason.
Konner admitted she was so angry at this comment that she began spacing out and couldn't hear anymore. I am feeling the same way and I am not as closely tied to the situation as she is. Before I rant, let's review Dunham's response.
It's a realistic expression of what it's like to be alive, I think, and I totally get it. If you're not into me, that's your problem, and you're going to have to kind of work that out with whatever professionals you've hired.
This is why I watch the show. Apatow chimed in and called the question "offensive." He added:
Do you have a girlfriend? Does she like you? Let's see how she likes you when you quote that with your question, just write the whole question as you stated it. Then tell me how it goes tonight.
Konner added, "Maybe she's a misogynist."
So because Dunham isn't Game of Thrones looking, because this guy finds that kind of nudity titillating but doesn't care for the nudity on Girls, he felt it okay to tuck away that insult like he should do with his balls. Because ... yeah. Wrong. Besides, complaining about the nudity on Girls is so 2013.
The purpose of the nudity? Walking into a trap? Naked at random times for no reason? What in the world planet is this man living on?! Oh. Wait. Games of Thrones planet. Got it. Hasn't he heard of porn? Real porn? He can "order up" any flavor of lady he likes there. You know, to get his titillation on.
Listen, I'm with Lena. In real life we are naked at "weird" times. Nudity can be sexy. It can be funny. It can be for no reason. Girls is a show, depicting real life ... according to the writers. In real life I am sitting here right now and typing this in my underwear, basically naked. In real life, I have had sex with (almost) all my clothes on. Sometimes there is purpose to nudity. Sometimes there isn't.
If someone wants to be naked or write a nude scene into a show, then that's purpose enough. Viewers have the option to not watch. Nudity doesn't discriminate (this critic should learn from that) -- we can all get naked no matter what size and shape we are. And if we all looked like the girls on Game of Thrones life would be boring. And so would TV.
Girls returns this Sunday, January 12, and I cannot wait.
What do you think of this critic's comment? Do you think he was in the wrong?
Image via Girls HBO