Four women in New York, all trying to figure out their lives and find out who they really are while juggling careers, the rent, and their love lives. Openly discussing taboo subjects, nudity, weird sex scenes, and strong language. This is the basic story of both shows, so is it really surprising that many critics have drawn a comparison between the two?

Yes, both shows have the same basic structure, but, while Sex and The City is about a group of 30-something women with fantastic jobs, fabulous clothes, and who are having the kind of sex that even porn stars dream of, Girls is quite the opposite.
The 4 main characters of Girls have just gone past that ‘not a girl, not yet a woman’ phase, but seem to struggle with responsibility, their finances, jobs, and just life in general. Oh, and the sex? As realistic as the rest of the series – which means that it all looks a bit weird.

So, what does creator/writer/actor/producer Lena Dunham think of the comparison? "This show couldn't exist without Sex and the City, both for what it opened up for women on television and because these characters were raised on Sex and the City," she says to Reuters.

Do you think Girls is the new SATC?