HBO Threatens 'Girls' Over Sex Scenes, Which Is Just Ridiculous
SEX. Okay, now you're reading. There, it's proof: people like sex. Obviously. So why does HBO want to censor Girls' sex scenes? The premium cable channel mentioned that they would strip (pun intended) Lena Dunham's show of its license if the characters engaged in certain explicit sexual acts (as, you know, opposed to the kind of sexual acts that are not explicit, like boning in a potato sack).
Judd Apatow told students at Loyola Marymount that HBO restricted the popular show from filming certain sex scenes, which may have involved an erection (oh no! I am so scared).
There have been things on Girls where HBO has said to us, 'If we put this on TV, we literally could lose our license to broadcast' ... Let's just say it's something you see in adult film. Elements of sexual intercourse. The high points of sexual intercourse.
Could he be talking about a facial? We've already seen Adam spill his cum on Natalia's chest last season without her consent, so would coming on a woman's face (and let's say, with her consent) be porny because she wants it? But if there's no consent, it's not? It can make you scratch your head.
What's more confounding is that HBO broadcasts Real Sex, which has — guess what — real sex, but you knew that anyway. In fact, HBO broadcasts more sex scenes than most networks. So what would make a scene in Girls so gratuitous that it would make even the most sexually explicit network balk?
The question we're left asking, then, is: What makes a sex scene gratuitous (and thereby, on the same footing as pornography) and what makes it justifiable? If a sex scene and nudity pushes a story forward, then no, it's not gratuitous. If someone receiving oral sex or having anal sex for the first time or experimenting in role play or fetishism is part of that character's development and creates a story and character arc, then there's no reason to censor it.
Besides, HBO, your tagline is: we know drama.