Did Kate and Anthony Go “All the Way?”

There has been a huge debate since Bridgerton Season 2 released over one aspect of the garden sex scene between Kate and Anthony in episode 7. Did they have penetrative sex, or just the oral we see on screen? It’s a valid and deep question that has a lot to it, and every time someone new makes a comment, it sparks the debate anew. That’s right up my alley, so I wanted to dive in.

In the latest Bridgerton podcast, there are some very interesting comments made by the director about the garden sex scene that has been the latest catalyst for this conversation. The comments and structure of the phrasing are a little confusing, normal perhaps for an off-the-cuff comment, but there are really two ways to interpret the comments. One of the ways to read it is that Kanthony didn't go "all the way" with the sex that night. Another way to read it is that the creators were being especially cognizant of how it would be portrayed and received knowing this was a woman of color and that carries with it other ramifications.

I have lots of thoughts on this, so I'm going to try and parse them here.

First off, a disclaimer that the intent of creators matters far less than what's actually depicted onscreen. Regardless of what any of the people behind the scenes say, including actors, directors, and showrunners, the burden of deciding what happened lies with each of us, looking at the evidence in the text itself and making that determination. It is not nothing to hear the thought process behind it, but things get dicey when you have so many people involved. Who is right; who has the say; whose intent matters most? Chris Van Dusen, the showrunner who is arguably the most influential person on the show, says they did. The director, Cheryl Dunye, also arguably the most influential person in this episode, is possibly saying the opposite? How do we reconcile that?

We reconcile it with our own deductive powers and assessment of the situation. So let's address the perspectives offered first, then dive into the evidence given onscreen. I suggest listening to the podcast yourself (it's a great listen!) and getting the whole context of the conversation. It starts at around 27 minutes on Spotify and runs through about 32 minutes with Simone Ashley's comments. I'm going to continue on as if you've listened, so I'll be pulling specific quotes but referring to the whole section throughout.

As much as I so appreciate the perspective Cheryl Dunye brought in the podcast interview, I have to respectfully disagree with her characterization in this aspect. Now, let's be clear: I am not a woman of color. My lived experience is different in that regard and I very well may be missing something. But I am a woman. And Cheryl Dunye's comments seemed to imply that there is something wrong with "giving it up" before marriage. Now, whether that was her actual perspective and intent I doubt. I think she was speaking to reflect the views of society.

However, when someone — anyone — says a brown girl shouldn't have sex before marriage on a very forward thinking and deliberately ground breaking show because she is brown, I find that a bit off base. That is not a denial that a woman of color in this situation would be judged, and it's also not denying that a woman of color would very likely be judged harsher than a white woman. But still, if we say that a woman like Kate can't do this because it would cast women of color in a bad light, we are saying that having sex before marriage reflects badly on the woman who does it.

And that really is the antithesis of Bridgerton that celebrates sex, sexual discovery and expression, and particularly the female gaze. How I interpret her comments is much more in line with a less shame based perspective. I think she was talking more, which Simone seems to echo immediately after, about what they decided to show and what they didn't. Kate is getting her "cake" as Simone says to establish her power as a woman in this situation. That doesn't mean nothing else happened, but it didn't have to he shown.

Possibly the most difficult line to untangle is as follows. "What kind of sex are we going to say that the brown woman is going to have outside of wedlock that last season the non brown woman had, you know, in wedlock and we saw....I wanted to make sure that was balanced....we don't want to leave that message....you going to have like some brown girl giving it up before she's married when the white girl last season didn't do it."

OK, so, this has a lot in it. I'm not 100% sure if this means they didn't have sex, or if the director just wanted to avoid the message she's saying about white girls and brown girls and relative purity. I think the comments could be read either way. But I think if we don't allow a brown girl to have premarital sex onscreen, that's not only furthering sexist ideas that a woman is worth more if she remains "pure," but it also indicates that Kate's character can't do what the narrative might demand because she is brown.

I absolutely recognize the legacy of sex and sexualization of brown women in history. There are entire discourses on this topic by people much more qualified to discuss it than me, and I highly encourage everyone to dig into those further. What I will say is this: I think if we continue to allow sexist and racist ideologies to limit the sexual expression of any woman, and in particular women of color onscreen, we are not dismantling those problematic ideas, but bowing to them. I am all for being careful and conscious of the message being sent in a scene. But is it not more dangerous to tell a brown girl that she cannot have premarital sex or be condemned?

Isn't it better to let the narrative function as it needs to, and condemn those who would tear her down for it?

It is also important to note that we see women of varying races engage in pre- or extramarital sex. Madame Delacroix is a woman of color while Siena is not. In the more upper crust of society, we have Kate and will likely though it hasn't happened yet, have Penelope engaging in at least some risqué behavior before marriage. These women are heralded for this liberated behavior. We are supposed to like Madame Delacroix and empathize with Siena. If Kate is any different, we are buying into the old and far too pervasive narrative that a young virgin is more precious than others are. Again, sexism at work.

Personally, I think the scene worked beautifully with the concerns expressed by Cheryl Dunye. I think it was a moment of power for the brown woman, not one of her having something “taken” from her or “giving it up.” That wasn’t the point of the scene. It doesn’t mean there wasn’t penetrative sex, but that the focus of the scene needed to be elsewhere to avoid sending a bad, problematic, or dangerous message. I’m all for that. And the focus on female pleasure is revolutionary in itself.

This is where we get into the "the text itself" arguments as to what exactly went down. So, from a character, theme, and story standpoint, should Kate and Anthony have had penetrative sex?

There is lots to discuss about possibly pregnancy, pants wearing, thrusting, etc, and that's interesting enough to dig through. All of those can be something we can nitpick, but I think each is easily explainable. First off, let’s do the thrusting. No, we don’t see anything that looks like the actual act, however, even after Kate has finished, we see Anthony come back up, between her legs, they continue to kiss, he thrusts, that’s very suggestive that more is coming (I didn’t mean that to be a pun, but there it is…). Another comment I see a LOT is about the pants. On that note, the clothing is metaphorical. They haven’t said I love you yet, so Kate wears her corset and Anthony wears his pants. They aren’t completely naked emotionally with each other, and the clothing is a visualization of that. And practically, there are lots of ways that the pants aren’t a problem. You can actually have sex with your pants on, and you can also take them off and put them back on; it’s cold outside.

Lastly in the practical matters, there is the lack of worry over pregnancy. Here are my thoughts on this. First, Siena was never pregnant and Anthony likely has some degree of confidence about preventing this. He also might not consider it happening once to be that likely, and of course if it turned out she was, they could always cross that bridge when they came to it. But people have often taken issue with that Anthony doesn’t push Kate harder about marrying him if there is a possibility she’s pregnant. The reason behind that it is showing he respects her word. He respects her no and her yes, and doesn’t pressure her. Anthony knows she knows all the possibilities, and he respects her far to much to try and bully or cajole. That’s the evolution of Anthony who bullies and cajoles everyone, from the Ton ladies to Lumley to his brothers, everyone. But not Kate. Moreover, it’s a direct reference to the original enemies-to-lovers who inspired these two: Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet. When Mr. Collins proposes to Lizzie, she talks about how angry and offended she is when he doesn’t respect her no (gotta love Jane, slipping in consent talk into drawing room society). This is contrasted to Mr. Darcy’s first proposal, which she also refuses, but he immediately believes her and doesn’t think she’s playing games. Anthony does the same for Kate, trusting that she understands the situation fully and knows her own heart and mind. That is far more important than if, and gives very good reason why he does not, try to push her over possible pregnancy.

However, the bottom line, for me, is not practical, but that the theme of this season was duty and expectations. It was about what a man like Anthony and a woman like Kate are “supposed” to do. And when they break those expectations and demands from society, we and they cannot allow society's hangups into the conversation of that scene. It belongs fully out of time and context beyond what they feel for one another.

The society at the time, as well as ours, sadly, puts a higher premium on virginity as defined by the hymen not being broken (a whole other myth that needs to get torn down, but suffice it to say, THE HYMEN DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!) Still, it's important to think of the context of the time -- theirs and ours -- and pervasive ideas about virginity. They weren't caught, so ostensibly, Kate isn't ruined, unless they had penetrative sex. If they did, then if she ever did decide to marry, her husband would "know” by the conventional wisdom of the day.

The reaction to their encounter would not have been so drastic from either of them if they had just engaged in oral. Anthony's words after the accident in his proposal really confirm this. He says: "It should not have happened that way" and "you deserved better." He says he took liberties as well, which might mean a lot of things, but the "It" he says really makes it clear to me. Not I shouldn't have done that, or we shouldn't have, but it shouldn't have happened like that. This is a line that says implicitly, “it should have happened and was going to happen, but in a different context.” That is first time talk if I've ever heard it. He is saying I should have taken your virginity as a husband with you as my wife because that is what you deserved. He would not have said it in the same way if it was not penetrative sex they were discussing.

This also isn't just about Kate and her arc. There are two people involved. Absolutely it is so good that Kate's experience, the female gaze, and female pleasure are all highlighted. But the emotional journey is just as much Anthony's as Kate's. And this moment is when he leaves society behind. He leaves every constraint, every idea of a gentleman, behind. It is why it is a particular brand of devastating when the world creeps back in and he's once again consumed by guilt and self loathing. He has finally given all of himself to a woman for the first time ever, his mind and heart and soul and body. And immediately she almost dies. The guilt he carries, the it shouldn't have happened like that line, is 100% more resonant if they had penetrative sex. If he had been there for her alone, I do not think he would have spiraled quite so hard. Obviously in his mind, a gentleman never would have done what he did regardless, but there is a sliver of something for him to hide behind if he didn't do anything selfishly. Not that he can't have gained pleasure from pleasing Kate, but he would see it, in the context of the times especially, that he took something from her if they had penetrative sex.

Moreover, they were doing something for themselves; I don't think there was anything that was left undone between them. The union, the power, the trust, that comes with that, there is almost nothing like it. That is what Kate and Anthony have in that gazebo. And there is something unique about having sex in that style. There is something powerful and intimate about joining in that manner that is different than anything else. It doesn't mean it's the only way to have sex or to express intimacy, but it does mean it carries specific and special connotations, especially for people who are raised with those ideals. Given the context of the time, of our ideas around sex even today, the complete abandon, safety, and connection that is expressed through Kate and Anthony's sex scene is expressed best if they had penetrative sex. Even, and maybe even especially, if we don't see it fully depicted.

We are deliberately, intentionally, over and over again, showed that there is a lot more that happens in Kate and Anthony’s intimate moments that we don't see. We know from her flashbacks of the first kiss that another kiss happened as Anthony goes in and lingers. It’s clear that we are only catching glimpses into everything that happens between them, so it makes sense from an editing and storytelling style perspective as well.

Another reason not to show it happen fully is that we didn't need a repeat of last season with Daphne and her lacking sex ed to be put onscreen. We also don't need that specific aspect of every first time romanticized. Sometimes the first time sucks and it hurts to varying degrees depending on the woman, and often it's hard enough to have a vaginal orgasm anyway, but especially on your first time. So, why mess with all that? Its not the point of the narrative. While I think its thematically relevant that they did, the point of the sex scene was the abandon and the connection.

There is of course a valid perspective that they didn't have penetrative sex. But I think some of that is bowing to sexist and racist ideas when we should be challenging them. I think it makes far better sense for these two as characters and with the seasons theme for them to have had penetrative sex in the garden.

So, why is this so important? Why did I spend what I expect is now a few thousand words discussing it? I think it is a big deal if they had penetrative sex because I think it sends a different message. I think it was the right choice for them not to show it as a culture obsessed with penis-in-vagina sex and male ejaculation as the be all end all of a sexual encounter. But I think it's important that they did go "all the way" for all the reasons of character and theme, but also for the fears that Cheryl Dunye expressed. A woman of color should get to have premarital sex without being labeled and demonized. I applaud the choice to not show it and instead highlight the female pleasure of the situation, but I think the relevance for the characters and the motifs of the series outweigh all other arguments. If they wait for their wedding night, it undercuts the entire point of the season, because they would have been waiting due to societal pressures, not for themselves. And the beauty of them giving up all to instead do something for themselves, and for each other...that's too beautiful to sacrifice.