But what about these magazine covers?

Should Lena Dunham pose for Vogue? Does anyone really care if she does or does not except for maybe Anna Wintour? The NY Post's Sara Stewart writes today, in her article titled "Why Lena Dunham shouldn’t pose for Vogue," that it was "strange to hear that [Dunham's] reportedly in talks with Anna Wintour to appear on the cover of Vogue." But is it really strange? Dunham is a famous writer and actress and a voice of a generation with a "I just don't give a fuck" style and of course she would be eyed for the cover of Vogue.

And why not do it?

Stewart says Wintour would be using Dunham, because an "insider" told RadarOnline that Wintour would be doing this "even though she doesn’t really conform to the body type that Vogue has featured for most of its history." While it is simply shocking to hear that someone in the fame and fashion industry would use someone, this still isn't really a good reason to not do it, as Dunham could flip the script and use the opportunity right back.

If Dunham said no, nothing terrible would happen, but nothing would really change, either. Not even temporarily. So why shouldn't Dunham use the opportunity to change the glossy face of fashion and its celebration of an unrealistic body image? Further, by not doing it Dunham would just keep open the gap between the fashion magazine world's staggeringly damaging idea of what women should look like... and reality.

We will agree with Stewart that if Dunham were to say yes, she make it her own (though we would not say: "show us what a millennial Vogue would look like," because that sounds like a nightmarish Thought Catalog fashion spread). She should maybe deny the magazine extreme photoshopping rights, and wear something that at least looks like her natural style.

Anyway, the 27-year-old seems pretty smart and capable of making her own wise decisions without Rupert Murdoch's rag telling her what to do?