This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Your logic is insane and happenstance, like that of a troll."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 21 October 2014




Tweet







March 24 2011

In the Buff: Sexual Conservatism in the Works of Whedon. Interesting essay with brilliant double entrendre in the title.

Good. It's fixed. Hence the lack of linkage earlier.
Thanks for posting this. I've thought about this topic quite a lot before.

The moral slant often put on casual/relationship sex in the Buffyverse has always kind of bothered me, especially because I don't truck with the societal convention of monogamous: good, casual: bad. In fact I would say that all of the Scoobies have a kind of strange relationship with sex, and aren't very open about discussing their sex lives with each other. (Which my friends and I often do, as Sex in the City as it sounds). Then in Season 8 I felt like the sex thing was way more casually depicted: Buffy/Satsu, Willow/Aluwyn, Buffy's Spike fantasy, Dawn/Xander in the last issue faking sex.
So my conclusion is that being on the WB (associated with teenagers) may have tempered a lot of what Whedon was able to depict on the television show concerning sexual relationships. Clearly, I have no real clue what I'm talking about, but I like this theory better than my previous one that nerds are scared of sex :P
Maybe Joss's portrayal of casual sex as having consequences or leaving people feeling confused and hurt is his point. It may not be from a Puritanical view as much as from an empathetic one. Most people can identify with Buffy's hurt after Angel turned on her after they had sex, or with being smacked in the face with the reality that Parker used her as a throw-away sex toy when she was looking to move on from the end of her relationship with Angel. Plenty of guys have experienced Xander's hurt and disappointment when they found having sex with a woman meant more to them than to the woman.

This Kyle guy seems to me to be a real life Parker who is totally oblivious to what kind of hurt his own casual sexual relationships may cause. Plenty of women, and men, might say that it means nothing, but what they say on the surface and what they actually feel may be two different things.

This Kyle guy seems to me to be a real life Parker who is totally oblivious to what kind of hurt his own casual sexual relationships may cause.


We do have a rule of playing the ball and not the man. I'd rather not see comments like this here.

As for the sexual conversatism thing, I'm sure many of the old-hands remember the very nasty comments that got posted back in the day about Buffy sleeping with Parker. And those sort of comments got resurrected with Buffy/Satsu.
So my conclusion is that being on the WB (associated with teenagers) may have tempered a lot of what Whedon was able to depict on the television show concerning sexual relationships.


I'm inclined to agree on that one, cazador. Buffy started almost fifteen years ago, and needless to say that even since five years ago, the standards of what could and could not be shown sexually on television have changed. On the other hand, if Joss and co. were able to push the envelope on so many other things (language, for instance), it makes one wonder if sex was an issue they deliberately chose to stay away from. After all, my previous statement doesn't take Dollhouse into account, so it could be that sex wasn't something that was looked at as progressively as other issues.
Plenty of women, and men, might say that it means nothing, but what they say on the surface and what they actually feel may be two different things.


And then again, they may not be. There actually are people, men and women both, who are not totally freaked out by having casual sex. And if there are people, men or women, who aren't comfortable having casual sex but claim they are, whose fault is it then if they are unhappy afterward? You can't except everyone else to take responsibility for how you feel if you aren't being honest with yourself or your partner.

The problem with Parker wasn't that he was into casual sex. The problem was that he wasn't honest about it. He was playing women, seducing them by making them believe he wanted a relationship. Interestingly though, the consequences of Buffy's sex with him were far less serious than the consequences of her sex with Angel, which occurred in the context of a deep and loving relationship. With Parker, Buffy had her feelings hurt, got over it and moved on. With Angel, Angel turned evil, killed Jenny Calendar, tried to kill Buffy and all her friends, and nearly ended the world.

[ edited by barboo on 2011-03-24 23:06 ]
So casual sex is per se progressive?
So casual sex is per se progressive?

It is if it's done right.

Seriously, I think the point of the essay is not that casual sex is necessarily good, but that it's not necessarily bad.

[ edited by barboo on 2011-03-24 23:11 ]
Hoo boy, this could be a fun thread...

cazador's point that the Scoobies don't talk about sex is well-taken, part of the larger non-communication problem that dogs them all through the show. And in order for casual sex to be healthy, communication has to be there; otherwise you get imbalances between what the two (or more) involved people want.

(In fact I sometimes think that the infamous bathroom scene is much more about Spike's failure to understand Buffy's refusals and her situation at that moment, although I grant that anything without consent is still rape, no matter the motivation.)

On a practical level, of course, showing more casual sex on the show would have required a way around Standards and Practices. Which, as Marsters has informed us, they had, but only in S6.

[ edited by ManEnoughToAdmitIt on 2011-03-24 23:17 ]
I don't think he actually says that, barboo.

And the writer seems to think that casual sex ending badly is a sign of overall disapproval. Well, could be, but the committed relationships pretty much all end badly, too, one way or the other. Though the the latter are more interesting, and engender more sympathy, because they reveal more about the people engaged in them.
This essay would seem more substantial if Whedon shows were primarily about adults in our society who had fairly normal lives. But none of them are. In Buffy, the characters go from high school to college age, a time in many people's lives before they become comfortable with casual sex. In Angel, the characters had virtually no social lives outside of their social group. Mostly though, I would say that Whedon likes to focus on smallish groups of people who don't have much outside contact. And in the real world, it's generally not the best idea to have causal sex in such a close group, where the potential ramifications are greatly enlarged.

Or, it might just be more interesting to write about feelings, since sex without feelings is most interesting to those doing it.
I wanted to say: in Dollhouse, Echo does seem to have casual sex with Paul; at least based on this dialogue-fragment in Epitaph Two:
Paul: 'You still don't let me in'
Echo: 'I let you in a few times...'.

But then I realised: the sex is hinted at, suggested; not literally mentioned.
And Paul responds, to Echo's last remark:
'When you were sure we were gonna die. What happens when you're sure we're gonna live?'

So even Paul himself recognizes that real casual sex is a no-go, at least under normal circumstances.

Hm. Fascinating. Never realised this, about the Whedonverse.
The article brings up an interesting point, but is too short to really explore it. There are a few inaccuracies as well: the problem with Parker was *not* that Buffy had a one-night stand, but that Parker led her to believe it was a relationship, when in fact all he wanted was a one-night stand. Cordelia's first demon pregnancy falls into the same category ... as far as she knew, she *wasn't* having casual sex, she was sleeping with a guy she'd been dating for a while, and she clearly thought it might be a lasting relationship. So neither of these examples really supports the thesis.

And I disagree with the interpretation of Kaylee. I always saw her openness about sex as something that was portrayed positively, or at least neutrally. Yes, it underscored a class difference between her and Simon, but I don't think the show was suggesting his class values were superior to hers. Almost the opposite, in fact: Simon is the one who changes over the course of Firefly and Serenity--not Kaylee.

Also, there's at least one counter-example in Buffy that the writer fails to mention: Giles' sex with Olivia in season 4 could be characterized as "casual"--they're obviously friends, but there's nothing in the text to suggest that Olivia isn't seeing other people, or that she and Giles are ever considering a "serious" relationship.
Yes, just what I wanted to say, more or less, about Kaylee- I totally disagree with the author that her approach to sex is "surrounded by comments on Kaylee’s poor upbringing, implying that even in the future, casual sex is not accepted by polite society." While it's true that she wasn't portrayed as actually HAVING much casual sex, she was clearly in favor of it, and the other characters accepted this and continued to respect her- I think she was intended as and succeeded in being a model for a person who put her life (her work as a mechanic/relationships with the crew of her ship) ahead of sexual based relationships. Much as she may want Simon, I don't think she ever suggests that she'd follow him if he left Serenity (but I don't know Firefly text as well as Buffy, I could be wrong). Anyway, OT. I think she's a fine example of a whedonverse character who enjoys casual sex and doesn't suffer negative repercussions.

Furthermore, Giles and Olivia are a fabulous example.
I agree that Kaylee's sexual openness was portrayed positively; the cattiness of those women were specifically intended to show them as in the wrong.

What's cool about Kaylee (in this arena, I mean, because many, many things about Kaylee are cool) is that it's, like, the one time in fiction where innocence is not conflated by sexual inexperience. Mostly, even when sexual experience is being portrayed as a positive trait, it's not "innocent." The character who might be promiscuous, even if s/he's promiscuous in an empowering way, is the "worldly" character, not the innocent.

Even positive sexual experience is treated as coming with a loss of innocence, except in Firefly, where this is subverted. I'd argue that that's a major positive portrayal of casual sex.

I also disagree with the portrayal of Angel. Angel's relationship with Nina was portrayed as somewhat casual but pretty healthy, and both Gwen and Gunn walked away from their casual, one-time encounter happily.

I sort of agree with him about Buffy the Vampire Slayer having a heavy dose of sexual conservatism, though, at least in the TV series. The problem isn't with each individual example of "sex-is-bad", because every one is competently excused by the characters, but the fact that all of Buffy's sexual relationships are ruined by sex. Even Buffy and Riley's relationship - by far Buffy's healthiest sexual relationship - almost kills the entire cast in "Where the Wild Things Are", is almost broken by sex when Faith-in-Buffy's-body date-rapes Riley and Buffy goes into victim-blaming mode (how dare you let her rape you!) and finally is broken for good in the midst of lots of imagery coded around sex work, sexual dissatisfaction and sexual inadequacy.
Casual sex usually has lead to negative consequences for Whedon characters. Of course committed monogamous sexual relationships usually have lead to heartbreak as well. And marriage. And avoiding sex/relationships.
He was playing women, seducing them by making them believe he wanted a relationship.

Exactly. This is why I’ve always found the accusations that Buffy acted like Parker in S8 to be so off the mark. She never led Satsu on or gave her the impression that this would turn into something more. Right from the beginning she told Satsu how she wasn’t gay and Satsu understood that. Nor did Buffy make up some lame excuse (my mum’s coming for a visit?) to get Satsu out of the bedroom quick as possible. Rather, she invited Satsu to stay the night but explained to her that a relationship wasn’t going to eventuate from this. She did not promise to call Satsu when she had no intention of doing so and she was very upfront about her feelings.

The problem with Parker isn’t that he wanted to practice casual sex. It was that he mislead women into thinking he wanted something more and then discarded them when they were done.

Fandom’s relationship to the sex in BtVS has always been a mixed one, IMO. To this day you still see people judging Buffy for her sexual relationship with Spike and I’ve seen a lot of comments made about their use of bondage, for example, as if it were a dark or unhealthy thing. There were also quite a few unpleasant comments made about Buffy throughout the S8 comics, accusing her of being a “nymphomaniac” because she was shown to have sexual fantasies over Angel, Xander and Spike. I’m not sure what people find so unpleasant about it but I definitely get the impression that the more sexual Buffy came, the more the audience felt she was being degraded. I never got that at all but I think it most certainly started to happen around the time Buffy did start practicing casual sex (if you want to call Buffy/Spike that in S6, which I’m not even sure I would, though I think SMG implied as much) as opposed to when she was in a committed relationship with Angel and Riley. The worst comments I ever heard about Buffy’s brief sex with Satsu was that the writer had turned their heroine into a “prostitute” which was as bewildering as it was offensive. However, I think a lot of the anger over Buffy/Satsu also came from some latent homophobia that still existed within fandom. I saw many disgusting comments such as, “So Buffy is a faggot now!?” which I never thought I’d see in the BtVS fandom as I thought we would have run all those people out after Willow/Tara in S4.

What I would *LOVE* to see happening in the S9 comics would be for Buffy to have casual sex with a number of random guys throughout the course of the story. I’d love if no big deal was made about it whatsoever and that it was portrayed as perfectly normal. I wouldn’t even want it to be a main focus of the story, just show us (or at least state) that she’s had a few good one night stands as she settles into San Francisco. So many women (and men) her age are doing that and I think it'd be good to show that no harm comes from it.

Even positive sexual experience is treated as coming with a loss of innocence, except in Firefly, where this is subverted.

Ravenwing263, I’d actually disagree with that. That’s how I used to interpret BtVS S2 until I listened to Whedon’s commentary for “Innocence” and he explained the significance behind the final Buffy/Joyce scene. When Joyce says “you look the same to me” it was meant to signify that, no, Buffy didn’t actually lose anything at all.

Even Buffy and Riley's relationship - by far Buffy's healthiest sexual relationship - almost kills the entire cast in "Where the Wild Things Are"

Sorry, I don’t mean to be picking on you but I also have a slightly different interpretation of this episode too! Whilst I agree that Buffy/Riley’s sex was used as the battery to charge the spirits, IMO, it was actually Mrs Holt’s judgemental views about sex that jeopardised everyone. After all, the fraternity only became haunted because she punished and shamed the youth in her house for their desires. I don't take from WTWTA that sex is bad but that actually suppressing sexual desires and being ashamed of it is.

[ edited by vampmogs on 2011-03-25 04:12 ]
There were also quite a few unpleasant comments made about Buffy throughout the S8 comics, accusing her of being a “nymphomaniac” because she was shown to have sexual fantasies over Angel, Xander and Spike. I stopped with S8 soon after the Satsu episode, though I keep telling myself as soon as I'm flush with cash, I'll get to read the whole rest of the season.

See, I don't understand that judgement. It's as backward ignorant as the young woman at UCLA who posted the YouTube video insulting Asians. The thought process of putting commentary like that out into the larger public floors me. If you look at the male fantasies on display throughout Buffy and Angel, you really have to look at that commentary as sexist and just ... odd. You can't have sexual fantasies without being a nympho? I'm glad I don't frequent places where I could come upon that. It would drive me nuts.
I'm glad I don't frequent places where I could come upon that. It would drive me nuts.

Heh. That discussion actually took place here! :/

But yes, people felt there must have been something wrong with Buffy because there's just no way a 24yr old girl would have 3 sexual fantasies in a whole year! Oh the horror! There must be something wrong with her!

[ edited by vampmogs on 2011-03-25 04:39 ]
:: thunks self in head ::

Makes sense though. I didn't want to get spoiled so have stayed out of the S8 topics in hopes I'll catch up one day. Tch.
I'm glad someone else made the point about Kaylee, the author's claim about how she was viewed just doesn't jibe with my memory (and Bester may have been the only time we saw her have casual sex but the implication was it was far from her first time).

Aside from Kaylee, i'd say some of the other examples miss the point slightly too. If anything (as people have hinted at with Parker) i'd say the most damaging sexual relationships are when one party doesn't think it's casual (or thinks it's less casual than the other). So Xander/Faith was sad (and dangerous) cos Xander thought it meant something and Faith didn't. Similarly, Buffy/Spike wanted different things from their relationship (which was sexual but far from casual IMO) - i'd say it's Spike feeling it was about more than just sex (or wanting it to be) that led to the attempted rape. Cordelia/Connor (which seems thin for other reasons to me e.g. that Cordelia was possessed at the time) is similar - Connor thinks it's meaningful, "Cordelia" is just using him. Cordelia/bloke from 'Expecting' is another example where Cordelia thinks it's a real emotional connection but the other partner is just using her for an agenda they haven't been honest about. So rather than casual sex itself i'd say it's not being honest that's presented, more or less every time, as the root of much evil.

So i'm not sure Buffy was particularly conservative sexually, it was just always careful to show that sex can have consequences and not always positive ones. Which i'd imagine is partly down to the general US network TV attitude to sex (as compared to violence) and partly because the show featured (and was arguably principally aimed at) adolescents/young adults for whom sex is becoming a part of their lives at a time when they still may not be great at foreseeing consequences.
So i'm not sure Buffy was particularly conservative sexually, it was just always careful to show that sex can have consequences and not always positive ones

But did it ever show sex in a positive light? The only instance I can think of is Willow and Oz in S3 and Giles and Olivia in S4 (IIRC, weren't all onscreen Willow/Tara sex scenes after Willow wiped Tara's memory?).

So while I agree that the writer is slightly off the mark in that the issue in any off the examples is not so much casual sex itself as the emotional power imbalance in the couplings, the show does come across somewhat sex-negative precisely because the casual sex in the show always had a power imbalance even though this is not true in real life.
But did it ever show sex in a positive light? The only instance I can think of is Willow and Oz in S3 and Giles and Olivia in S4 (IIRC, weren't all onscreen Willow/Tara sex scenes after Willow wiped Tara's memory?).

So you mean apart from the times it did, did it ever show sex in a positive light ? ;) There's maybe a point to answer to ruuger, fair enough but IMO there're a couple of issues conflated here. First is the extent to which we see sex at all (rather than it just being implied), second is the extent to which sexual encounters ended badly and if so when they ended badly (i.e. what you might call ultimate bad ends and proximate bad ends).

So yep, it's true (IIAlsoRC ;) that all Willow/Tara's onscreen, non-metaphorical sex scenes were after Tara was mind-wiped. But then "all" Willow/Tara's onscreen, non-metaphorical sex scenes amounted to one scene, just before Tara's shot. I think that's much more about US network TV's attitude to sex (particularly gay sex) than the show's.

It's reasonable to assume for instance that Buffy/Riley, Xander/Cordelia, Xander/Anya (and yep, Willow/Tara) all had more sex than we saw and yet those relationships continued (reasonably) happily for quite a while (before ending badly - again, surely more about how nearly everything ended badly on the show, happy endings not being that dramatic). There weren't many times when we saw sex lead directly to a bad end, in and of itself (Angel/Buffy is the obvious example, Xander/Faith arguably, i'm sure there must be others) and as I say, if you consider indirect endings (over a long enough period) then pretty much everything could be said to lead to a bad ending because a lot of things ended badly on the show ("going to school" ended badly for instance ;).
accusing her of being a “nymphomaniac” because she was shown to have sexual fantasies over Angel, Xander and Spike.

Wait - I'm a nymphomaniac?
saje, good points, except that in some cases the proximity of sex and a bad ending were quite close- Willow and Tara being the worse, of course (outside of Buffy/Angel in a different way).

But Kaylee? She was open about her desire, and it was completely healthy and in many ways innocent. In Firefly I am only glad Mal never made it with Inara, since no doubt she'd have died shortly after.
No one's mentioning the Joyce/Giles hookup which, though embarrassing to the participants, arguably didn't end badly. In fact, given that it provided Buffy-in-Faith's body with one of the clues by which she was able to prove to Giles that she was indeed Buffy, could be said to have had a positive outcome.

Which raises a question that's always bothered me about that episode. Just what does Joyce mean when she thinks that Giles had sex like a stevedore?
Wouldn't sex while under a spell be neutral territory, resulting in only loathing and/or mere embarrassment (also see: Buffy/Spike in Something Blue which I saw again last night, and without fail, makes me bray alternatively like a donkey AND laugh like a drain). There's also Angel/Eve. He already wanted to kill her and probably more so with the embarrassment afterward.
Technically, Saje, we know Xander and Cordelia didn't have sex because Xander lost his virginity to Faith. But we can file that under "nitpick." Otherwise I think you're right on the money: a lot of this has much more to do with network censorship and instruction of the young than Joss being "anti-casual-sex."

Heck, if people here in the Black are complaining about Buffy's (relatively tame) fantasies in comparatively low-circulation comic book as a sign of nymphomania, then imagine the outcry if perceived-as-a-role-model Buffy had had a non-relationship sexual encounter on national television.


Has anyone mentioned Mal and Nandi yet? Yes, Nandi died, but in no way as a consequence of their encounter -- in fact, with that villain's righteous hypocrisy, one could easily say it's the repression that killed Nandi, not her open attitude. It had an effect on the Mal/Inara dynamic, but if anything it made Inara realize that she couldn't keep pretending any more.
I've seen no mention of Angel and Darla having sex in Reprise. While it could be argued both ways for being casual or not casual, it was on screen sex (as on screen as could be) that the audience was lead to believe turned Angel into Angelus and it wasn't until the next episode, Epiphany, when the audience is told that it wasn't perfect happiness, but perfect despair, and that having sex with Darla made Angel realise all his mistakes.

Now, Darla clearly thinks that the sex means more, because she was hoping to reawaken Angelus so the two could be together again, but for Angel it was just surrenduring to despair. So the imbalance of power, as ruuger put it, is between Darla's expectations and Angel's expectations.

On the one hand, the implication is that Angel has become so hopeless and despairing that he sinks to having sex with Darla, clearly an evil character who wants Angel to lose his soul, and in that light the sex is portrayed as bad. But when the audience sees that Angel doesn't lose his soul, it could arguably be a good thing, since it leads to his epiphany and Angel saving Kate. Nevertheless, the encounter still ends with Darla distraught that the sex she just had wasn't what she thought it meant--and on top of that, Angel tells her that he will kill her if he sees her again.

And then of course we find out that the sex leads to magical vampire-born baby Connor, but I'd argue that falls under long-term results of a casual sexual encounter instead of immediate results. Yes the conception and gestation of Connor is a direct result of the encounter, but the audience doesn't find out that Darla is pregnant until the beginning of season three and it doesn't get confirmed as Angel's offspring until seven episodes later, during Offspring.

All in all, I think the article is quite remiss for not mentioning the sex between Angel and Darla, since it was a significant point in the story arc of season two and it created Connor, who was a pivotal character in seasons three and four.
Actually Angel and Darla DO have the same expectation in "Reprise".

Angel is committing sex suicide. He has every expectation that he will lose his soul. That's the "perfect despair."

We're led to believe constantly over the course of seasons one and two that "perfect happiness" basically means "orgasm." We're led to believe this because Angel believes this.

When he has sex with Darla, he expects to loose his soul and thus lose himself, forever. That's the "rock bottom" he hits that allows him to have his epiphany in, err, "Epiphany".
I agree Angel expects to "die" when he has sex with Darla but the "perfect happiness" thing was a bit inconsistent in the early seasons (it happens when someone slips him an ecstasy - or fictional ecstasy equivalent - for instance).

Technically, Saje, we know Xander and Cordelia didn't have sex because Xander lost his virginity to Faith.

Ah yep, good point ManEnoughToAdmitIt. Got my timeline slightly muddled.
I never thought it was the orgasm that triggered Angel's badness. To me it's clearly the afterglow. That's the pure-happiness moment for him, lying with Buffy (or Cordelia) in his arms after. Darla and Nina don't get to that level, so no curse-triggering.

(Actually, side note: couldn't Willow have figured out a way to re-ensoul him in "Orpheus" that didn't involve that annoying loophole? Maybe he wouldn't have had it any other way, but seriously, Willow had options, no?)
Hi, everyone,

Just wanted to chime in and say that I've really enjoyed reading all these comments. I pointed some friends in this direction and they were all really impressed by the level of discourse going on here, something of a rarity more often than not on the internet.

I contacted a few people directly, before I had access to post, mostly just to try to clear my at-the-very-least-average name.

Someone mentioned that the essay needed to be longer and I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, life kind of got in the way, and I think the essay is less than fully realized, particularly with regards to "Firefly" and "Dollhouse."

My intent was never to pass judgment on any of the characters or question their motivations, it was to examine a pattern I saw across the shows. Obviously, different people took different things away from that, but I've enjoyed seeing the conversation that it instigated.

Thanks for reading it!
I agree with ManEnoughToAdmitIt, it wasn't the orgasm that triggered Angel losing his soul, it was the person, being with that person, in such a close, intimate way, that can't be obtained through any other means. Certainly both Buffy and Angel as series used the orgasm as a means of humour, pointing out the absurdity of the conditions of the curse, and as emotional torment (Angelus to Buffy), but with the "doximal" that Rebecca slips Angel in Eternity that Saje brought up and neither Darla nor Nina triggering it, it's not just an orgasm.

Nina happens much later in season five, of course, but the "doximal" is still there in season 1 of Angel.

Also, welcome to Whedonesque, Kyle! I completely understand life getting in the way of writing, but hopefully there might be time and opportunity in the future to expand upon the essay?
MANENOUGH - WOW. I never really thought about the curse in relation to Willow re-ensouling Angel. It would make sense that once he lost his soul, the curse would be broken. Please correct me if I am wrong, but in season five, Angel is never actually "tested" in regards to losing his soul (I don't count Nina or Eve). Since he didn't have sex with Buffy, it could stand to reason that maybe the curse no longer applied anyway (I am thinking of the shows timeline, not anything that may or may not have happened in the comics).
Hi, Arison!

At one point there was talk of putting all the essays together into a book, so if that actually happens, I'm hoping for a chance at expanding it.

I have no doubts, though, that it will probably still cause the level of reaction that this version did!
KyleGarret:Maybe my view from the Far Right Wing distorts the details, but I've never seen casual sex as particualrly a liberal theme. ALso, I'm not educated in critical methods.

barboo: I guess stevedores are famous for their endurance, maybe perhaps....

[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2011-03-26 20:39 ]
Hey, DaddyCat, I made a point in the first paragraph to say that I was not using "liberal" as a political term. "Liberal" means "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." In this case, traditional ideas would include only having sex after getting married.
Far Right Wing, on the other hand, is a political term.
Sorry, Kyle, that'll teahc me to skim more carefully (my computer time is so limted I can't read articles ind epth)

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home