Skip to comments.Ignore Lena Dunham's 'Girls' at Your Own Peril, Conservatives
Posted on 01/30/2013 6:35:57 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Theres plenty about Girls to annoy conservatives, yet this often creepy, usually skeevy, critically-acclaimed HBO series is also a test for conservatives.
Will we finally heed Andrew Breitbart's warnings about the importance of taking pop culture seriously or just keep fiddling as the culture burns?
If conservatives are going to be in the popular culture and act to change it they cant simply ignore shows like Girls that capture the zeitgeist, even if the zeitgeist makes their skin crawl. Season two is well under way, and conservatives need to participate in the discussion.
Girls is about four young, aimless college grads living in New York. Think of Sex and the City, except Sarah Jessica Parker has doubled her weight, dresses like a potato sack and fancies herself the voice of some undefined generation. Theres sex and nudity just not hot Homeland sex and nudity. This is the first show in the history of cable television where male viewers actively root for the heroine to keep her clothes on.
Said heroine is played by Lena Dunham, who like most of the starring actresses is the daughter of somebody famous. David Mamets daughter is in it, as is NBCs Brian Williams daughter. But this isnt just some vanity project. They are all talented, and Dunham is very talented. She created the show and writes most of the episodes (and well the dialogue is sharp and funny), but her fearless portrayal of an awful, awful young woman truly makes the show something special.
There are plenty of red flags for conservatives, off-screen and on. Off-screen is the fact that Dunham is an Ivy_League, wealthy, 26-year-old New Yorker who has all the pretentions and prejudices in real life that one would expect from an Ivy League, wealthy, 26-year-old New Yorker...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I think this type of junk is best responded to with mockery. Just wait until South Park skewers this show, it should be epic.
“This is the first show in the history of cable television where male viewers actively root for the heroine to keep her clothes on.”
I said the same thing to myself!
But, it is apparently true, that less than camera-ready women take their clothes off and then have sex, before and even after they are married. Frankly, I’d bet that 1 in 50 people in this country over the age of 23 would look very good on HDTV, naked or not. I was never one of them.
I watch this show as though I was watching a horrific car accident. If this show was made 30-35 years ago, it would be “amazingly”* boring, because I don’t think that we were that much different than our parents. But this - it’s like watching scenes of some degenerating alien race on some distant planet with amazing* similarities to Earth! And I have no reason to believe that it doesn’t reflect the truth. It’s easily the most frightening show on television.**
* Want to have some fun? Try the “drinking game” with the word “amazing” during this show. You will be drunk by the end of the show, and it’s only a half-hour.
The vast majority of young people are NOT even slightly amazing.
**Double negative used here for effect.
Isnt crushing the immoral culture the alternative to ignoring, though?
What is displayed on this show is the direct result of ignoring it for 45 years.
Perhaps longer. Remember that Hollywood was pushing acceptance of extramarital childbirth back in the 50s or so?
Sorry, my coding didn’t line the pictures up right. Top is left. Bottom is right. But I’m sure you can still figure out who is who based on the descriptions.
Why? Better not to watch and not to subscribe to that filth in the first place. Better to try and get kids out of public schools and teach them some moral standards.
Trying to discuss a particularly crappy TV show is dumb when they are all similar. Just throw out the TV, your family will be better off.
Fat and gender confused now is some giant demographic we have to placate? Whatever. More evidence the end is near.
anti-Sex and the City??
Its got sex and nudity and bad morals on parade, its more like a clone than an anti
IMO, the jury is out on Dunham. Don’t forget she writes and produces most of the show. I really don’t think that her intent is to become a “famous actress”. What if she is holding up a mirror to what she sees (an amazingly distortion-free mirror, BTW) and she doesn’t like it either? I will say, that she must believe in the show, because piles of platinum ingots,pigeon’s blood rubies, and flawless, colorless 10-carat diamonds would not entice me to take my clothes off on TV.
Ugh I saw a few minutes of Shameless.... ugh
children drinking, smoking and rutting should never be allowed on TV...
But as Andrew Dice Clay said, they were real easy to pick up, "I've got fudge!!!!!......Hershey's Chocolate Kisses, we're talkin' Haagen Dazs here baby, what do you say?"
She would pay to do it, she is an immoral pervert
It’s time for America to stand up for what is right and help those who are defenseless. There is too much complacency even among the churches. It is time to get serious about humantrafficking. Such an abomination needs to be eradicated.
I just donated. . . .
Actually last November Romney won white 18-29 voters 51%
in 2008 Obama won them by 55%
exit polls in 2008 and 2012 over sampled minorities by 20-30%...on purpose in my view
the funny thing is under 45 folks on this forum think the boomers were always the most liberal
if so then why did 55% of under 30 folks vote for Nixon in 1972?
Everything is about context. They have sex, but the sex is neither emotionally nor physically fulfilling.
>the funny thing is under 45 folks on this forum think the boomers were always the most liberal
if so then why did 55% of under 30 folks vote for Nixon in 1972?<
One of Nixon’s major planks was ending the war in Viet Nam. It stands to reason he got a huge percentage of the under 30 vote.
in 1972 there were only 24,000 troops in Vietnam and draft had dwindled down since Vietnamization in 1969
Draft ended in 1973 period.
If Vietnam had been “the” issue(it wasn’t by then) then they woulda all voted for George since like Obama he woulda pulled out immediately and welcomed the Commies
Boomers have never been the libs youngsters love to bash them for. Most of the crap that has led to what we live with now was instituted in the 50s and 60s by boomer parents and grandparents..who were not mostly libs either by today’s standards though they did vote FDR in plenty
Most of the college radicals...Hoffman, Rubin, Horowitz, Rudd etc were not boomers but rather my folks age...I’m 55
Since some here love to bash anyone over 45 then I suggest they bash them for divorce rates...something that with the Elvis generation(b1930-47) and then Boomers (b1947-1965) surely merit the scorn
Some of those here who veritably hate folks their parents age were likely a product of that.
I am sorry. I raise all my kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.