Establishing a maximum does not necessarily make the maximum “quite common”.
Are you claiming that a majority or even very many acting jobs are for principals of series? No one but a principal would get such an option.
I already mentioned my escape clause, which you did not copy in the above.
BTW, are you still proposing, even as a hypothetical, that contracts with nude scene clauses be treated differently from others?
I guess the logical next step is whether an actress can be forced to appear nude 40 years on when she is 80 or something.
The interesting point here is really if some contracts are more equal than others. And whether the moral dislike of what some actors do should change contract law.
They are common for all series regulars. I agree that, in the overall world of acting contracts, that makes them uncommon. But they are certainly common in series TV for series regulars.
I guess the interesting aspect is that almost all multi-year series didn’t involve nudity until recently.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most of us have some problem with extending contract law into the realm of hard core pornography without qualification. And that most of us have quite a bit less of a problem with soft-R nudity. And that simulated sex falls somewhere in between, so that Devil’s Advocacy becomes interesting.
My personal takeaway is that the status quo is fine in unionized settings. I worry a little (not a lot) about softcore/simulated sex in non-union contexts: that’s where LHoD’s approach might make some sense. The scope for bait and switch bullshit out in Podunk with an actor without an agent is some cause for concern.
ETA: Factoid: Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider were reportedly both traumatized by their participation in Bernardo Bertolucci’s X-Rated Last Tango In Paris (1972).
Well the actresses who did Blue Is The Warmest Color said they were unhappy with the way the lesbian sex scene was handled. Apparently there were many takes and it was very explicit. One actress said “I felt like a prostitute.” Of course, that was a European production, I have no idea what the deal is in Europe.
Remember when you say this that contract law works both ways. A good contract protects both the talent and the production company - even in porn.
I’ve always limited my comments to union jobs, because the union helps to balance the power between actor and production company. I’ve heard lots of complaints about slow payments for non-union jobs. I know for a fact SAG is really good about getting actors residuals.
As for Last Tango, here we have a famous director and a famous and experienced actor, both with massive legal talent. I do understand it was intense. I’ve never seen it, but I think it qualifies as art.
Yeah, the actress in Podunk without an agent needs protection, but so does the franchise owner in Podunk or the guy who buys vending machines guaranteed to make money. I’d bet that the “take off your clothes and become famous” movie in Podunk doesn’t come with an iron-clad contract. Or the level of honesty that legitimate productions have.
Nope -
the standard that I learnt under was a double test - in that it must be specified in advance, and that it must be a genuine job requirement.
Eg: When looking for a new employee to work as a “bra fitting” employee, its pretty reasonable to ask for a woman. When looking for someone to wash the floor - its hard to make a case for why you need a particular gender.
The same would apply to but grabbing.
The “need” for nudity is a pretty reasonable requirement for a movie - IF it is stated up front.
Sure.
But…why is it reasonable for a bra fitter to be exclusively female?
Answer: because we know that the job is a necessary one, and that the vast majority of our prospective clientele would be more comfortable with a woman assisting them in finding the right bra fit, and this is a prejudice that society is prepared to recognize as a reasonable one.
Right?
My notional argument here is that society should also recognize that it’s reasonable for a woman to withdraw consent from sexual activity at any time, even if the sexual activity is simulating sex in the context of an acting job.
And because society should recognize that women should be able to withdraw consent at any time, society should also recognize that a contract whose terms imposed substantial financial penalties for that choice has the effect of limiting the ability to meaningfully make the choice to withdraw consent in such circumstances, we should similarity find that public policy prevents enforcement of those penalties.
Here is your entire post:
Is your “escape clause” the sentences beginning with, “In any case…?”
Yes.
I see what you are saying and tend to agree, but I’m not sure why. 
Why can’t we, for example, say that it is an inherent part of a secretary’s job duties to listen to dirty jokes and be the grab-ass recipient? As long as we tell her up front that these are the job duties, like you said, she can simply say no and go work for a company that doesn’t expect that.
Ok, well, rightly see that it is inherently humiliating and degrading and it simply doesn’t have to be a part of a secretarial job.
We could say the same thing about movies and/or tv shows. They don’t have to contain nudity, or murder, or vegetarian characters. We could go back to the old Hayes Code where no actor/actress had to do things which conflicted with their morality.
I mean, you wouldn’t say that a stripper should be free from men leering at her, right? That’s part of her job duty. What about a secretary for a strip club? You would say no, right?
What if I am a small strip club with a tight budget and I hire a stripper/secretary to do both roles? I know I’m getting silly here, but it seems like we are just throwing darts at a board and saying that this profession=no sexuality, but that profession=sexuality is okay.
I don’t think producers are damaged in any reasonable way if an actor declines to do nude scenes after giving reasonable notice. If you sign a 7 year contract with nudity required and in year 2 you decide you don’t want to do nudity the producers are left with plenty of ways to avoid any losses. If a shooting schedule is arranged and the actor decides not to do nudity any more that day they haven’t provided reasonable notice and the producer may suffer a financial loss as a result. But the AFTRA contract is clear that producers can substitute body doubles if they want to, so in most cases there won’t be significant damages anyway. As it is producers have to deal with actors who get sick, injured, or just can’t perform well on any particular day, they have to account for this anyway. The case in point here is about the producer suffering losses from an extra day of shooting with a body double, hardly an unforeseen possiblity, and the actress did end up performing in the nude. I’ll note again that if the actress hadn’t sued the producers they would not have counter-sued her for damages, and I don’t think they can win any. I find her case kind of dubious also, she did the work and she was paid. This is more of a ‘you can sue anybody for anything case’ than something that involves legal principles of personal services contracts and nudity.
How about those women hired to be nude maids? The job is housekeeping, but the company’s niche is that they’ll provide a housekeeper who will do the work either nude or in lingerie. Likewise, Vegas has a hair salon where the stylists wear lingerie. And there are bikini car washes. So I’m not sure your ‘grab-ass secretary’ is all that far-fetched.
On the other hand, I believe the airlines fought for and lost the right to demand that their flight attendants maintain a certain figure and wear skimpy uniforms. And I believe restaurants have been sued by employees for demanding certain looks or for firing waitresses who were overweight or considered to be unattractive. And yet ‘Hooters’ seems to be selling both sex and food, and requires their waitresses to wear skimpy clothes. So it all seems very ambiguous and confusing to me.
By way of clarification. Does your notional argument encompass nudity, fully specified in the contract? I’m guessing not. Onscreen poll dancing? Closer to the border, but I’m guessing not. (For one thing the poll dancing would probably have been viewed during an audition.)
Furthermore, if I understand your notional argument correctly, the studio could dock the actress’s pay for withdrawing consent for simulated sex. They just couldn’t sue for damages.
As a factual aside, the critically acclaimed and Academy nominated Last Tango in Paris (1972) reportedly had simulated sex, not the other kind. It still reportedly traumatized 2 actors.
What if the person in question was applying to be secretary to a comic who does dirty jokes as part of his act? If that were made clear up front, and she took the job, and then refused to type up the jokes, who is in the wrong?
I can’t conceive of a secretarial job which would require groping, so that’s out.
Stripper /secretary. I see a movie here. 
If the owner of a club wants to hire someone who will take on both roles, is there a problem? As long as he is upfront about the requirements, and it is a true stripper job, not a private show?
If someone takes the job, and then claims that she never noticed the stripper part in 24 point type, don’t you think it is reasonable for her to get fired?
But I think you have the essential point - if you want to forbid these kinds of shows, come out and say it. Don’t make them impossible to produce by trashing the contract protection that producers have. I don’t think it is that hard to figure out if a job is inherently sexual in some way. And it is okay to cut that requirement from jobs which aren’t, with flight attendant being an excellent example.
No one here is saying she should be forced to go through with this. What I’m saying, anyhow, that there are reasonable consequences for her refusing at the last minute, and that her being asked to do these things on the set was not an instance of sexual harassment as she seemed to claim.
Do you think that she should suffer no consequences? That if she went into a casting director for a similar job, that she should be considered on an equal basis with actresses who were reliable?
The way that I would look at it -
there is no one definition, its based on the totality of the facts and the “reasonable person” standard.
Hooters is probably a great example of this - on the totality of the facts, its not unreasonable to expect a hooters waitress to have a certain figure, but the case for another restaurant is not so strong.
In short - its not an inherent part of duties, BUT, if a company can make a case / “prove” that such behaviour is an essential part of the service / brand whatever - then “maybe” it can be enforced.
Yes. As I suspected, contracts of that length are usually renegotiated if circumstances change. Acting is so subtle that it is impossible to force performance without damaging the production. That is true for simulated (or real) sex scenes also. If the actress is supposed to be in the heat of passion, but is clearly counting the cracks on the ceiling, the director is not going to have a lot to work with. So in no way can a production company force an actress to perform, nor should they, of course. But there can be consequences. There didn’t seem to be any, until the countersuit. Though I do suspect she’s not going to be working a lot.
I’m not even sure about Hooters. Tight clothes are an important part of their business model, but I’m not sure I’d call them an inherent part of being a waitress. Sexy stewardesses used to be part of the airline business model, but no longer.
Next time I’m a poll watcher I hope they bring in poll dancers. 
Like I said I haven’t seen it, but I have read about it, and my impression is that the context of the simulated sex, and how they were asked to do it, was the issue.