The Good Wife returns on Sunday, March 1 and, based on the teaser video that’s floating Twitter, Alicia’s is finally going to get some.

If you watch the show, then you know she has two potential love interests – Finn Polmar (Matthew Goode) and Johnny Elfman (Steven Pasquale).

Now, I’ve made my #accentfetish well know, and I’ve also publicly swooned over Matthew Goode, even to his face. So, of course, I’m leaning a bit more towards Finn. He was introduced to The Good Wife in a pivotal episode where Will, one of the main characters on the show and Alicia’s love interest, was murdered in a court room shoot out. Finn attempted to save Will’s life but Will ultimately died, throwing every character, the show, and the audience into an emotional tailspin.  Because of Finn’s involvement in that storyline there’s a sentimentality attached to his character.  Of course we want to see Alicia hook up with Finn. Frankly, it baffles me that she hasn’t done so by now. I mean, have you seen how sexy Finn is when he bites his lip and makes stupid jokes?

Finn

I have to say that I predict Finn won’t last much longer on The Good Wife. As I noted here, the writers have done very little to develop his character and back story. As a result, he feels more like a prop or plot point than a fleshed out character. So I could see Alicia hooking up with him because he wouldn’t be sticking around and is therefore safe. She is still reeling from Will’s death and struggling with guilt because she and Will had been at odds at the time he was killed. (Let’s be honest. The only reason she’s running for State’s Attorney is to avenge Will’s murder.) So, sleeping with Finn would make sense. He understands what she has been through and is equally traumatized himself. He would be the perfect guy to choose if you’re looking to make sweet, sweet love.

However…

If Alicia is just looking to bang her pain away, then Johnny is her man.  Johnny is a bit rougher around the edges. You women know what I’m talking about. He uses a little too much product in his hair and he’s arrogant and he always looks like he needs to shave. He’s more bad boy than good, as anybody who works in politics has to be slightly devious  and underhanded. Just like the myth of The Crazy Girl, Bad Boy Sex is on a whole other level. It’s not about intimacy or connection. It’s just about getting off. That’s Johnny.

Johnny

What I’m most enjoying about this secondary storyline, besides that it distracts me from the yawnfest that is that political campaign, is that we’re seeing a woman in her forties portrayed as vibrantly sexual. Usually, that sort of behavior is left to the younger actresses. Between Alicia and Virginia Johnson of Masters of Sex, How To Get Away With Murder’s Annaliese Keaton (Viola Davis) and Stella Gibson (Gillian Anderson) from The Fall,  we’re being treated to older female characters that aren’t just messier, but hornier. These women aren’t having sex because they feel like they have something to prove. They’re having sex because – wait for it – they like sex. They enjoy it so much that they, like their male counter parts before them, unapologetically pursue that desire without having to rely on the tired back story of being damaged to explain their urges. Like Don Draper, their characters are far more layered. And that’s refreshing to see. These women all are broken to some degree, but their brokenness doesn’t define them. That’s the critical adjustment in these characters that women have been asking for.

For a very long time, fictional women who have exhibited any kind of strong sex drive have also been portrayed as hollow, unstable or dangerous in some way. See Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall)  in Sex and the City, Alex Forest (Glenn Close) in Fatal Attraction, and Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) in Basic Instinct.  Please make note of how many of these characters are given names typically assigned to men, or are referred to by the male equivalent of their name. It seems that many writers think it’s cute to give female characters who display commonly believed masculine traits male monikers. She’s not Antoinette, she’s Toni. She’s not Frances, she’s Frankie, etc. Get it? See, she’s not traditionally feminine so they need to drive that point home by giving her a guy’s name. Whatever. Could you be more lazy?

Fictional female characters are becoming more complex as writers color farther outside the lines when creating them. Just when you think you understand their motivations, another skin is shed and more is revealed. Instead of being identified by just one trait these women are multi-faceted. They are ambitious and assertive and smart and vulnerable and a whole lot of other things and not just one.

In the end, I don’t really care who Alicia’s chooses to bed or why. I’m going to enjoy watching a woman make a choice based not on what everybody else thinks or because it’s all she’s perceived to offer, but because it’s what she wants and makes her happy. That’s more realistic than what we’re used to seeing depicted on television, and I’m glad writers are jumping on that trend.

Thoughts?