It was a controversial scene, which left some to to ask whether it was the first time we'd seen a "money shot" on TV not quite and others to wonder if it wasn't a bit too graphic and gratuitous. HBO was among them. They thought it was really gratuitous," Jenni Konner told The Hollywood Reporter at their comedy show runner round table. We said, 'OK, fine. It really felt like we all grew together. To be clear, this means there was another more graphic and gratuitous "money shot" that we were not treated to on "Girls. US Edition U.
The HBO series , playing on Soho in New Zealand, has excelled in depicting sexual scenes the way they sometimes play out in real life. Which is to say, badly. It's more Animal Planet. Watching Girls makes me think that the philosopher Thomas Hobbes could well have been talking about 20 somethings and sex with his famous description of the life of man, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. It also involved something not often seen on TV, semen. We all know this stuff exists; indeed we all came from it. The scene in question was a brilliantly dark one and the sperm in question is actually the least important aspect of it.
But there was one "Girls" scene that the network wouldn't allow to reach the small screen. Apatow recalled, "HBO said, 'If this is in the show, we could lose our license. HBO's then-entertainment president Sue Naegle defended the network's stance, referring to the climax shot as a "fire hose.
I removed my shirt and handed her my undershirt then returned my shirt to my body. Daisy took it and giggled. I wish youd keep the shirt off along with everything else youre wearing.