Another day, another ill-informed and irresponsible comment from an actor opposing the role of intimacy coordinators on film sets.
We actually agree with the comments on this one. The article is very talk-downy about the actor instead of going “okay, well, intimacy coordinators aren’t always bad and should be available if needed but not everybody feels like they need them and that shouldn’t be seen as bad always.” People should always have the option of them but it should be an option, not a requirement.
Imagine if stunt coordinators were considered optional.
I have to disagree here.
Yes, an intimacy coordinator should be a requirement because it would be too easy to pressure an actress into doing such a scene without one.
Exactly. This was the status quo for decades and the number of (in large majority) actresses who got exploited and abused on film sets is beyond the pale.
So what is an intimacy coordinator?
Some{one/many} who ensures that intimacy doesn’t overstep boundaries, become abusive or go outside of the realm of what is in the script etc.
We assume they also explain how to make things look real etc but their primary function is to ensure actors are safe in scenes where physical (at least) intimacy is necessary/desired.
