5 Beloved TV Backsides Sloppier Than Lena Dunham's
In a completely vile and transparent attention grab this week, New York Post author Linda Stasi wrote some good old fashioned controversial, body-hatin’, gender betrayin’ words about “Girls” creator Lena Dunham. In her “review” of Season 2 (which debuts on HBO this Sunday, January 13th at 9 p.m.), Stasi concentrates her bile mainly on the physical appearance of writer, creator, star, object of your hate-fection, Lena Dunham. She writes: “It’s not every day in the TV world of anorexic actresses with fake boobs that a woman with giant thighs, a sloppy backside and small breasts is compelled to show it all…It’s a boon for the out-of-shape, and perhaps a giant economic loss for high-end gyms, especially in Brooklyn.” (I’m not going to dignify Stasi’s obvious bullsh*ttery by sending traffic to her site but, if you’re in the mood, you can see the magnificent Alyssa Rosenberg hand Stasi her own *ss over on Slate.)
Now listen, there are “Girls” defenders who write for this site. And every time we do, there are “Girls” detractors who feel compelled to slam Dunham in the comments section. And that’s okay. Different people like different things. What is simply not okay is hiding opinions about substance behind shamefully hateful language about body image. Given that we have women starving themselves all over the place to be Carrie Bradshaw or even Robin Sherbatsky thin, is it not refreshing that Dunham feels comfortable enough to reveal a less “perfect” but far more realistic body to the nation? And if you’ve seen the show (as many people who hate on it haven’t), then you’d know that Dunham uses her body not as a sexually provocative object, but simply as an everyday fact. The point is never “look at me, I’m the hottest thing you’ve ever seen on television.” The point is “This girl, she does not have her sh*t together. Look familiar?”
To imply, as some do, that a woman with cellulite is not allowed to show her body on your television, is not only woefully antiquated, it makes me worry you’ve never seen an actual woman’s naked body. Some women are cellulite-free but most, including some of your most fap-worthy models, ain’t. The question you have to ask yourself (and the question I think Dunham is forcing you to ask) is why does this one woman’s body make you so damned uncomfortable? Quite often you’ll hear a jocular “Woah! I don’t need to see that!” But to call Dunham an exhibitionist is to miss the point. Yeah she spends some time on her show in her altogether, but, to my taste, scenes of Hannah in the bath or engaged in sexual situations are less repugnant than Sarah Jessica Parker writing banal columns while wearing designer undies. Because ladies do that all the time, folks. Lounge about in an underwire.
The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of flabby asses to be seen on television. Mostly, of course, male. Are they in your face as much as Lena Dunham’s? I suppose not. But that doesn’t mean we’re not expected to believe these people are desirable.
Ron Swanson-“Parks and Recreation”: Ron loves bacon like Hannah loves cake.
Jay Pritchett-“Modern Family”: This guy right here is not only f*cking Sofia Vergara but put a baby in her. Does that happen? It does. Is it because he’s the most gorgeous thing to ever wear a track suit? I’d wager it has more to do with the lifestyle he can offer.
Bobby “Elvis” Munson-“Sons Of Anarchy”: I have seen a LOT of flabby, wrinkled biker *ss over five seasons of “Sons.”
Enoch “Nucky” Thompson-“Boardwalk Empire”: Much like Pritchett, Thompson trades on his power and financial advantages and has, as a result, landed at least three of the most beautiful women on the series. (Your Paz De La Huerta mileage may vary.)
Louie-“Louie”: CK present the most obvious comparison to Dunham. Is his body less repugnant to viewers because his self-hate is more apparent?
Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance
blog comments powered by Disqus