Overall, Peitzman argues that Girls is less sexually explicit than Game of Thrones or True Blood, while more willing to offer parity between sexes in its nude scenes. Even though female nudity dominates the show (74%), so do females in general (the show is called Girls, after all). "There is still a significant amount of male nudity, more than you’re likely to see outside on another series with four female leads. (Sex and the City, which Girls is forever compared to, springs to mind.)" Peitzman wrote.
Peitzman concludes that people overestimate the amount of actual nudity on the show because Girls is a fairly sexually explicit show overall. Many of the most lurid sex scenes don't even contain full nudity, just unabashedly risqué implications. He also points out the inevitable polarizing topic: Some people just aren't that comfortable with Dunham's full-figured body, so every bit of it they see feels like too much. "She seems, to some, gratuitously naked, even if she’s only naked for a very small percentage of Girls," he writes. In other words, it's the same sad and myopic media status quo that keeps women worried about the size and shape of their bodies.
Girls' third season premieres tonight, and skin or no skin, we're sure it will fill the shock-value void we've endured since the Breaking Bad finale. (BuzzFeed)