Consent on camera: What gets lost in conversations about TV sex scenes?

Let's talk about sex, baby!

In the past few weeks, the internet has exploded in fits of discourse over "Gossip Girl" alum and current stalker on Netflix's "You," Penn Badgley, announcing his resistance to sex scenes in the roles he'll play in the future.

With regard to the reasoning behind his announcement, Badgley cited respect for his relationship as well as personal discomfort over the idea of sex scenes — and the fact that his romantic interests on screen are now often younger than he is on "You."

People were not pleased.

Most of the outcry seemed to come from 1 of 2 places: One was a sense of entitlement to see these scenes, with detractors of Badgley saying he doesn't want to fulfill the requirements of his role. They claim it's his job as an actor to perform in sexually explicit content — after all, it's not actually sex, it's just acting. So what's the big deal? 

While this facet of the backlash came across as dismissive of actors' personal boundaries, many people also brought up what it might say about on-screen kisses and sex scenes that other actors perform if sexual or romantic scenes are publicly defined as something akin to cheating.

The other source of detraction seemed less to do with Badgley or even acting and more to do with sex in general. People were aghast at the lack of sexually explicit content that would be on "You."

It's often repeated that American TV is sanitized compared to its European counterparts regarding sex and nudity. So while shows on networks like Showtime or HBO get pretty raunchy, network TV remains chaste, and nudity is much more taboo on screen than violence — an idea that becomes controversial pretty quickly.

The divided response to Badgley's newfound boundaries only exacerbated this discourse, and soon, the conversation spiraled out of control.

Those who decided to rain on Badgley's parade of personal choice weren't the only people stirred by this conversation. In opposition to those who wanted more sex, out of the woodwork came viewers who felt scandalized by the current state of TV and movies.

One Twitter user stated that she hates nudity in television, and in a reply that has since been deleted, someone responded that they skipped all the sex scenes in the notoriously raunchy "Bridgerton" and then realized that the skipping had caused them to miss a significant plot point.

But this discourse is not all sex-positivity conversations gone awry or scandalized sex scene skepticism. When bastardized or taken out of context, legitimate conversations surrounding consent also have set the stage for this kind of inappropriate debate over someone else's boundaries to take place. 

In a sea of kitschy, "consent is sexy" tee-shirts and redundant "no means no!" Instagram story infographics, the intentional nature of your own specific boundaries of consent has been lost. In efforts to commodify and raise awareness of conversations around consent, definitions and concepts have become muddled or glossed over entirely.

Consent is not sexy, it's necessary, and a lot of other things than a verbalized "no" can indicate a lack of interest, like a firmly placed boundary.

Badgley is not making a grand statement on fidelity or actors who do sex scenes or, god forbid, as Twitter lamented, making commentary on sex work, but instead setting a personal boundary for himself and his marriage.

And, let's be honest: "You" is not a "Bridgerton" or "Outlander"-esque sweeping period piece where the copious amounts of sex the main couples have are part of the draw. What's really lost, narratively, by implying sex instead of showing it? 

Though, it is important to note: Even on shows with overtly sexual content that's significant to characters and plots, respecting the boundaries of actors and ensuring a safe, equitable and consensual environment exists on set is imperative. The existence of intimacy coordinators is on the rise, and they are excellent on-set resources.

But the bigger question is: What's gained by a conversation surrounding whether Badgley is allowed to have this boundary instead of simply respecting it? Why does a decision made in his relationship about his body and his sexual agency, fictitious or real, have to mean something for your body or mine or those of any critics?

There are some things hiding as relationship boundaries that can be red flags. For example, if someone's boundary is no friends of the opposite sex, that's an unhealthy lack of trust. But a personal boundary of not wanting to simulate sex seems pretty reasonable.

In the act of trying to moralize a boundary and shame someone into not being progressive enough to say yes, you assign moral value to consenting or not consenting. That's more than dangerous.

There's a lesson to be learned from both the response to Badgley's boundary and the conversations it exacerbated. It's always, always important to be conscious of the words we use when we discuss consent, boundaries and relationships.

Pressuring other people, moralizing consensual sexual behaviors and trying to inhibit progress or limit conversations about consent are sentiments that would have damaging effects.

When it comes to doing anything in life, it’s important to prioritize comfort, enthusiastic consent and safety for all parties involved — whether that's really taking someone home for the night or just going through the motions on TV.