Big surprise, I think not: There’s a porn parody of Girls out there. The real question is: What’s the difference between a show that graphically explores all forms of the sex act and a movie that does the same?

Depending on who you’re talking to the distinction requires the presence of one of two things: the demand for critical thought, or the presence of a penis on camera, something that is apparently a “strongly held taboo” in TV land. According to the show’s creator, Lena Dunham,

…a big reason I engage in (simulated) onscreen sex is to counteract a skewed idea of that act created by the proliferation of porn.

This defense is enough for critics and viewers who believe that since Girls isn’t doing sex for sex’s-sake it can be called art. The real question is, in a postmodern environment that produces an academic journal devoted to Porn Studies, can the demand for critical thought truly demarcate the difference between pornography and art? For the consumer, is there really a meaningful difference between HBO and the Playboy Channel? When does art about sex become porn? How should biblical feminists deal with the challenge of pornography that claims it’s art?