Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26159109-20161114201452/@comment-5106672-20161129022217

No, you didn't, which is my point: saying the way a freer sexuality is portrayed on OUAT mirrors the real world isn't accurate at all. As I pointed out way above, it's not limited to sex and attraction used as leverage. Take Cruella: she played Isaac on a purely romantic level, while her "spicier" escapades have nothing to do with manipulation. She just likes having a good time. Like Lacey did. Like Jack and James did, and on we go.

The thing is, the show's view boils down to the villains being generally more sexually active than the heroes, whose sexuality is mostly strictly confined to committed relationships. Out of the few examples of the contrary, such as Mary Margaret's one night stand with Whale in S1, is made a big deal about how the characters end up regretting it. Not everyone is married, true, but they're still committed and emotionally invested – see Emma and Neal. Even David's extramarital affair with Mary Margaret was framed as different than downright adultery, because we all know they're destined to be together anyway and they're the "real" couple with Kathryn being the true "other woman". And take reformed villains, too: evil Regina flirting with anything that's male and moves vs reformed Regina having qualms about sleeping with a married man. Or the Red Queen's attitude before and after her hee-face turn. In short, in OUAT sheer sex is something only villains do, while heroes go after romance and love which incidentally includes sex.

This is to say, I don't think the writers really think that love is for good people and casual sex for bad people. But they do surely use this shortcut a lot to convey a character's morality, which in my opinion is a little bit outdated.