~~ a question of kink.

[reenka]

A part of me is like... wah. You can't make this entry, 'cause it's not interesting to anyone but you. And then, that just sounds stuffy. And, that's for moose...s. Moose? The plural of "moose".

Nevermind, I don't get it either.

So like, I was so certain I like non-con fics. I mean, I kept telling myself, but no, I like it in theory. I do. No. Really. I feel uncool if I don't. I don't know why. Just. I do.

And then it's like-- I'm so naive. I just didn't realize it, but (yes, I didn't realize how naive I was). If definition of non-con = description of sex where either of parties is having no fun whatsoever and is in fact being psychologically scarred.... Er. No. And then it hit me: that is (something like) the definition of. Well. Rape. Duh. (Cue lightbulb!)

If definition of non-con = description of sex where one party starts off having no fun and then is persuaded to by the sheer horny greatness of the other party, then..... Yes. I find it hot. On the other hand, that's not non-con, strangely enough.

Now it occurs to me that the definition of non-con (i.e., rape) has been often debated in court, too, hasn't it. People have said, "well, I did orgasm and enjoy myself and yell YESYESTAKEMENOW but I DIDN'T WANT TO thus it was rape". So maybe that's why semi-con stories get labelled non-con (then again, one very rarely labels stories "includes consent issues" or "questionably rape" because either the writer thinks they're writing "that non-con kink thing" or not, apparently).

I've been confused about the definitions because I -thought- I said I enjoyed (some) non-con (then again, I only enjoy "some" with everything) for a reason. There is this one non-con fic that I absolutely -adore- and think is just unbearably hot and it's made me believe in non-conness forever. It's just. Brilliant. Brilliantly Hot. Beautiful. Gorgeous. YES. It's... not an HP fic, actually. It's `Shades of Gray', a Methos/Kronos/Cassandra & D/M Highlander fic by Mairead Triste. This fic is so hot it got me into the fandom, got me to read a bunch of other Highlander fics by a bunch of other authors; it was the other thing besides the (really hot!) Highlander vids that really hooked me but good. So you can see why I thought I had a reason for saying I like non-con (and this fic is -really- violent and -really- all-out forced-sex all over... sort of).

But. Then again, I keep... not liking the non-con in the HP fandom. I keep thinking... okay, I'm just waiting for the right one. But no. My own non-con fics didn't work for me on a sexeh level. Sara's `Control' doesn't work for me (though it's not really non-con but it approaches these issues anyway), Shalott's `Weather of the Heart' series doesn't work for me, Amanuensis's `And Just Plain Wrong'... ditto. So. Weird, huh. Then I realized that even though on the surface, `Shades of Gray' is non-con as non-con can be... it's... different. It's special. It's got... passion. It convinces me (!! eureka!!). Most non-con just counts on "well, it's your kink too" and doesn't bother to set up the characters as to -why- they're into this against their will (if they are! but that's the most common scenario). Very very rarely does non-con work to set up the situation to be sexy. Of course, rarely does any fic work for its own scenario. Damn, I have to refrain from saying most things suck now. Because uh. That's not nice.

I just realized that there's a world of difference between the "sort" of rape you have when you have... I dunno... aphrodisiacs, heavy-handed seduction, severe aggressiveness, dominance/submission-- and just plain treating someone as an object to use and abuse and discard with nothing to make it a "crime of passion" (the `passion' being the operative word here rather than the `crime').


Like, maybe there's "first-or-second-degree-type rape" in fics and "manslaughter-type rape", where the former is your basic non-con and the latter is... er... my idea of hot non-con, also sometimes known as "date-rape".

A random definition of "date-rape" off of google (what great research skillz I have!) says, "Acquaintance or Date Rape means being forced or pressured into having sex by someone you know-- against your will, without having your consent." But! It seems to me that "forced" and "pressured" correspond to two entiiiiirely different "types" of fic, even if you can say they're equivalent for legal purposes.

Another interesting word to use here is "coerced"-- Merriam-Webster online says "coerce" means:

1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat

The word that most interests me -there- is "compel", so I looked it up:

1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly
2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure
3 archaic : to drive together

So what -I'm- interested in reading in terms of non-con fic (as far as being able to enjoy it rather than be disturbed) is some version of "coerced 2a"-- `coerced' in the sense of `urge irresistibly'. If something is "impossible to resist" (`irresistible' is a simple word with just one meaning, apparently), then it's hard to say whether that's because you're prevented from resisting or you don't -want- to resist. The nature of something being `irresistible' is that it's a totality. There's almost no way to -tell- what came first-- that weakness in you that made you susceptible to the stimulant or the strength of the stimulation, so to speak.

Another interesting corollary (only relevant to me) is that one of the things that makes a "good non-con" fic to me (i.e., one I can enjoy) is that the party being dominated has to resist. If they don't resist for whatever reason, the question of the urge being irresistible becomes moot. One can't be ravished if one is limply lying in their captor's hands, for instance, to get all 19th-century about this. In my own imagination, it works if the captive tries to resist but can't because it's irresistible (whatever that means). That ties in (I think) with my obsessive need for romance and desire to always empathize with the characters. I can really empathize with this whole being irresistible thing, 'cause that's basically the story of my life. One sudden addiction/craving after another~:)

Hee! Yeah, beneath this frumpy exterior beats the heart of a wildwoman. Or... something -.-

Irresistibility is really a classic trope of romance plots through the ages. I mean, if you really broke it down, there's a lot of semi-con and non-con elements in 18th and 19th century (and older, naturally... take Zeus and his conquests) romance ideals. The huge manly man "takes" the fainting delicate woman across his heavily muscled (manly) shoulder and carries her off to be... er... plundered :D :D


"Oh no!!" she squeals. "Let me be, scurrilous rogue! I am a -Lady-! You cannot do this to me! HEEEEELPPP!!"

And of course, he laughs heartily and slaps her on the behind. "Ahaha, that's a good one, -wench-!! No one can hear you, here in the wild Highlands! You're -mine- and you will taste my seed before you'll have your supper tonight, make no mistake!"

"Oh mercy!! MERCY!! How can you be so cruel!? So heartless?! Where are my -shoes-?!?! You horrid -beast-! You will -pay- for this atrocity!! OWWWW!"

He gags her, feeling up her legs and pinching her nipples, and of course she squirms and gets all hot and bothered. "Like that, do you, you little hussy? Ach, I knew you'd come around! I know a good piece of arse when I see one!"

She keeps trying to hit his back (weakly) with her (bound) fists, but of course it's to no avail. Naturally, he throws her down roughly on the cave floor and growls, ripping off his breeches and she's glad she's gagged 'cause of course otherwise she'd have drooled, since clearly he's a fine specimen of (ahem!) manhood.

Of course, after they really get going (he's driving manfully into her yielding heat!! ehehehe), he gets all nice and considerate and wants her to orgasm too ('cause aaayyyyy, he -knows how to please a woman-!! it's a matter of Highland -pride-, don't you know). Eventually he's down to kissing behind her ear deliriously and calling her "love" while drooling down her shoulder. Awwww, it's twue wuv.

Ahahahahah. And now that I've embarrassed myself utterly.... I'll just shut up now -.-
~~~

EDIT - omg, I adore nacey's art! Wah! And she draws (really sweet) Harry/Hermione! This is so... wrong! And yet! So pretty (especially this last one, with Harry&Hermione&Draco in it. Ack.)! And naturally, she's a professional fantasy artist. Duh. Who draws fairies! And Delirium..!..!..!!1 And eeeeeeee, two Lunas!!1 >:O

Comments

[ashjay.livejournal.com]

Now see, I found this very interesting. I've wrestled with my own attraction to non-con fic - or rather fic, to use the very important distinction you made, that has been labelled non-con.

I've got my own issues with the concept, not the least of which comes from working at a rape crisis center and being just... ripped apart from seeing what any form of rape does to people.

Your discussion on 'coerced' versus 'painful' non-con made things a little clearer for me in terms of my own preference. Sex as a tool for destruction does nothing for me - there has to be caring involved to make it even a little bit hot.

However, the interesting thing I realized when I thought about it was that my emphasis was more on the wanting than the yielding. That is, that the degree of desire necessary for someone to coerce sex from another person is somehow attractive to me. The concept of being wanted, and the necessary corollary that the attacker somehow cares about the satisfaction of the victim - that forcing pleasure from them is better than causing them pain - is somehow tied up my idea of what seperates 'good' non-con from 'frightening' non-con.

And along with that goes the resistance you mentioned, because wanting is tied up with effort in non-con, and without effort it's... well, dull. Which is why very few romances are written without a strong central conflict... and why your lovely example there cracked me up more for it's accuracy than for anything else. Hee. My shoes!

But on the other hand, some people thought my Forget (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ashjay/2631.html#cutid2) was non-con, and I never really got that vibe while I was writing it. So I think that part of the problem here might be that everyone is working from a different mental dictionary here, and trying to shoe-horn all of these various kinks and preferences and power issues and such under one heading leads to confusion and, probably, some people not reading fic they'd like because they think it's non-con and other people hating fic they read because it's not their idea of non-con.

Huh.

You're going to have to stop making me think, Reenka. I'm not built for it. *g*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, definitely agree with you on... er... the stuff I like to see. Or, I guess, I like to see the same stuff. The idea of "real rape" in fiction is so far from hot to me as to be on the planet of Anti-Hot. On the other hand, -elements- of semi-consent are everywhere. It almost seems as if using the language of "non-con" is like, using too heavy of a battering ram. Like... sort of like using the word "evil" to describe Draco Malfoy. I mean, a lot of people like him because he's mean in a cute way. A lot of people also like him because they think he's mean in an evil way.

I think possibly that's a source of contention between the different people who all like Draco but disagree so vigorously on his characterization: it all probably comes from what they -want- to see in him, what -pleases- them, and it seems like the "really evil!Draco" people despise the ideal of the "really kind of pathetic yet cute!Draco", and vice versa.

So definitely the idea of "not my non-con" really seems to apply. And your whole thing about -wanting-, because -yes-. And yet, I'd suspect that the people who're into "the other sort of non-con" (which is to say, actual non-con) are more into the yielding, and the wanting is irrelevant (so they can appreciate a fic where -no one- is enjoying it, too, which is -impossible- for people who're into it for the runaway desire aspect). "Swept Away By Passion"-- sounds like yet another Really Bad romance novel~:)
That, or Irresistible Poison, eheheheheh >:D

Sheesh!

[illiterate.livejournal.com]

So I'm going to ramble at you because this post really made me think --
a rare occasion, I assure you. :>

While reading your insightful dissection of your own feelings about non-con or fics with elements the aforementioned, I couldn't help but agree with you. I mean, most Harry/Draco could be considered "non-con" if they're both completely in-character. Objectively speaking, any sort of fic where the seduction or lack there of begins with a fight is almost non-consensual, isn't it? And speaking from a slightly less violent point-of-view, couldn't one-sided romances almost be considered non-con as well? What I find remarkably interesting and that you've noted how many different kinds of non-con there are. You are so completly right. I totally agree with you. I cannot be anymore emphatic on that point.

What you were saying about your obsessive need for romance-- I feel that way too. My first fandom (or the first fandom I wrote in, although it was terrible stuff -shudder-) was The X-Files and while I have to admit I was an insane MSR 'shipper, I did read a fair share of slash. Mulder/Krycek is notoriously rape-laden. And not the pretty kind, either. I could go for the bondage type stuff, but only if there was longing on the part of characters. I did also read non-con fic, but even if it wasn't expressed explicitly, Mulder had to at least want Krycek a little bit, no matter how he was resisting, you know? I think that makes it sound like I don't enjoy non-con at all, but that isn't true... I think I'm just very particular about my rape, thankyouverymuch! -.-

On another note entirely, I tend to connect non-con to stockholm syndrome*; because, actually, of The X-files. Often fic authors used the syndrome as a means to bond Mulder and Krycek together, or even Krycek and Scully. See, I'm actually quite fond of fics like that because I find Stockholm syndrome fascinating-- and in a way, I think it would make non-con fic even more believable. I think people often have their characters experience the syndrome without calling it by name. I'm reminded of Harry and Draco in Cassie's DS. I actually think it would make a slew of pairings, however unsavory some of them may be, more plausible. Harry/Voldemort, anyone? -snerk- Bah... I've totally lost sight of where I was going with this. Sorry to have rambled at you. But you made me think! :D

*In 1973, four Swedes held in a bank vault for six days during a robbery became attached to their captors, a phenomenon dubbed the Stockholm Syndrome. According to psychologists, the abused bond to their abusers as a means to endure violence.

hmmm...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I find your mention of Stockholm syndrome fascinating also~:)
If anything, I can't necessarily think of any fics with that exact scenario, exactly, but I do think it works and I would (probably) enjoy it more than your basic victim-is-traumatized-the-end sort of deal. In a way, I suppose a number of hurt/comfort fics would utilize it, maybe. I remember reading a bunch of Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon fics where Qui-Gon went mad or something (or was it Obi-Wan? Oh god, I can't remember!) and like... raped Obi-Wan, except Obi-Wan didn't mind because..... Ecch, I don't remember, but it was all doomed and hurt-comfortey. And, yeah. There's that definite vein of characters getting acclimated to the horror, eventually growing to like the situation.

A great example would be a fic on restrictedsection.org called `Chains', I think, which I didn't really find hot, but it had slave!Draco being held captive by Next-Voldemort!Harry, and like, he really didn't like it at -all- for -years-, and they never had pleasurable sex or any of that, but then Harry let Draco move during sex and Draco was on top and they -kissed-. So then Harry says "you're free to go" and undoing the chains holding Draco to his Dark-Lordy throne, and the fic ends with Draco refusing to leave and laying his head on Harry's lap and Harry smiles evilly or whatever. So yeah ^^; That's the most textbook case I can think of, anyway.

I find your idea of violence-necessarily-begetting-non-con-elements and in-character H/D being necessarily non-connish to be v. interesting, too, at least because it applies to `Control', anyway. Hmm. I think it's like, a change in perspective... whether the reader wants to see a whole range of shades of "non-conness" or whether for them non-conness is this monolithic thing called "rape". Personally, I don't see how any human-interaction phenomenon can be definitionally monolithic, but I mean, this is a touchy subject. People like to think of "okay touches" and "not-okay touches" these days. Or something.

And like... well... most all vaguely-in-character H/D is going to be full of "not-okay touches". Which doesn't necessarily make it -rape-. What about non-con kissing? Where does consent enter into it, since most people don't -ask- or answer? I mean, I can see two very gentle people on the best of terms with each other asking, "can I kiss you now", but not Harry&Draco. It's all, kiss-first-ask-questions-later. Which is automatically not really -consent-, right there.

I mean... usually, in a romance, the answer is "yes". But it's that very -possibility- that the answer could be "no" that makes people nervous to make the first move, isn't it? I mean, because then, not -only- are you going to be embarrassed, you're going to be sorry 'cause you've really kind of assaulted this person you like, basically. So to get past that hurdle, some insensitivity (or raging passion) would be involved.

The whole "kind of rape" thing reminds me of spare_change's problem with splitting up non-con into gradations. I mean. -If- you think "non-con = rape" then yeah, I don't know if there's such a thing as "a kind of rape". There's only, "a gradation of consent", maybe~:)

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

To me this is sort of like the debate over "she wanted it because she wore this tight little dress" or spousal rape because "dude, s/he's my fucking wife/husband! S/he's supposed to fuck me!" Both are just excuses to justify the actions in terms of 'they enjoyed it.' Enjoying it doesn't make it any less rape.

I guess my problem with this, even in literature, is that it minimalizes the psychological impact. It's usually worse for the people who enjoy it or orgasm. They feel like their body's betrayed them.

See, my realism kink totally outweighs my non-con/rape kink. Totally. My mother was a social worker who worked with abused kids all when I was growing up. You have no idea what rapes does to these people. I hate seeing it treated frivolously.

I think, as I would term things, what you want to see in terms of coercion isn't strict non-con, because at some point there is consent simply because of the totality or the inevitability of things happening. Questionable consent, yes, non-con/rape, no.

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

You have no idea what rapes does to these people. I hate seeing it treated frivolously.

I agree, but on the other hand, some people -- like myself -- are just able to put fantasy and reality into completely different parts of their head. I've been sexually assaulted, and I liked reading noncon before that, and after that as well. There was no connection between what really happened and reading it on the page.

Now I can understand a lot of folks who had been through that experience might not think similarly, in which case they should avoid fics like that, but I don't have a problem with such fics existing.

And BTW: I totally agree that this dichotomy that may work for a porn reader (does he end up liking it or not?) has no place in the real world, where the mindfuck is only another way the rapist shatters the victim.

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with the literature existing. Frankly, I'd rather people deal with those impulses on paper than in real life! I just have a problem with the trivialization and fetishization of the rape victim. It's made attractive and sexy to be sexually assaulted, because, of course, the victim wanted it deep down and that's where the consent comes from (the subconscious).

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I agree with you, of course, that in 99.9% of the cases, in real life, enjoying it doesn't make it less of a case of rape. I do wonder whether I somehow dragged real-life ethics into this post without meaning to, because I definitely didn't. I wasn't trying to talk about rape, just non-con fics and the labelling thereof, which seems to be a somewhat related but really a different subject. I mean, non-con fics -reference- rape, but not -really-, at the same time. It's like, as I was saying, when they -are- rape, it's almost like I'm -surprised-, like I didn't expect that because it's not what I want to read.

A number of different scenarios get classified as "non-con". I mean, if in real-life you wouldn't say that "wanting it" affects whether it's "strict rape", how does of the "inevitability of things happening" and questionable consent make it less "non-con"? Because if non-con-fic - rape-fic (some people do think that's the definition) then does that mean one should apply real-life rape-definition standards to the fic?

I agree with you, as far as fic-about-rape goes. When I tried to write it (twice), both times I couldn't help but envision the emotional consequences of this act and that made it unsexy (which is to say, I haven't had anyone who liked non-con find `As Good As He Got' sexy). On the other hand, there was no "inevitability of consent" in that fic because it didn't have Draco's (the victim's) pov, if anything. Although if it -wasn't- treated frivolously or shallowly in -some- way (like I didn't treat it frivolously in my own fic), one imagines most people (even ones who enjoy non-con generally) wouldn't be able to enjoy it. And I suppose that's the point of porn, and all that~:)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think that fictional non-con that works for a person probably ties into a freedom--at least that's the way I think it works for me. It's not the force that's attractive, it's the idea that because you can't fight it you're not responsible. It gets you out of your head if you're a head person. That's obviously going to come up in H/D because even if they were attracted to each other they'd have so many reasons to not allow themselves to act on it. So in that way the force is almost a relief because the choice they're afraid to make is taken out of their hands.

This of course has nothing whatsoever to do with actual rape. Rape fantasy/rape two totally different things.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yes, though I feel bad that somehow I apparently have tied this in with real rape. I am totally unfit to discuss real rape. I never want to even approach it 'cause people get all upset and stuff. I know fantasy & reality are different things. When someone brings it up, I wonder if I didn't bring that across somehow. Like, why does anyone even mention it?

The truth is, a lot of things I'd like in fantasy, I'd like in reality. In fact, probably almost everything. I can honestly say that. Even the whole ravishment thing-- if I -was- in the situation of a fictional heroine who secretly had a thing for the hero and yet was too indecisive/shy/virginal/whatever to ever go for it, I -would- enjoy being swept off my feet, basically. I -do- want to be a wizard, I wouldn't mind being a gay boy, etcetc and so on and so forth. Maybe I just don't understand that for people who -do- fantasize about things that are unsavory to them in real life, this is a very touchy issue. This makes me very meepish and sorry and wanting to say `I didn't mean it!!!' a lot, though I'm not sure what I didn't mean, exactly.

I mean, even "rape fantasy" means different things for different people. Some people want to -want- it, want to get off on it-- some people don't. I really and truly think that's a different sort of fantasy in -kind- altogether, but that doesn't mean I think that distinction (did the victim secretly want it?) should or could be made in a court of law or whatever, so I can see the problem. I wasn't trying to apply any of this to real life, though! Eek!!

The cases that -go- to court are already -guarranteed- to be there because the person in question is feeling victimized (most of the time, some of the time that's not true). But definitely, most cases where this "sexual assault" later becomes seen as desireable don't make it into court. If that kind of thing -were- to happen in real life. Which it usually -doesn't-. And I never said it -did-. Gah. I feel all. I dunno. Wibbly.
So. I mean. Yeah. Rape is bad. The end.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Like, why does anyone even mention it?

Not because you didn't put that across in your post, imo. I just put it in just in case for my own post. Sort of like Seinfeld's "not that there's anything wrong with that." I'm just throwing out a disclaimer that when I say non-con provides a form of freedom I do not mean that this should ever be applied to a person who was actually raped. It should be obvious--probably is obvious--what you might as well put in the reminder that we're talking about something in fiction happening to characters.

And in that sense sure it's something you'd want in real life...which doesn't mean you desire to be sexually assaulted at all, because your reaction to some guy forcing you to have sex would not be the same as the fictional characters. Any more than somebody locking you in a small closet for hours would make you feel like Harry Potter.

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. This post touched a nerve for me, and really got me thinking. I have some very definite preferences in fic, and there have been non-con stories I've adored. (Hell, I've even written a few!) But these days, in the HP fandom, I pretty much avoid them.

To me, non-con implies a situation in which one partner (if it indeed involves only two people) does not initially want or agree to intimacy, but at some point in the proceedings comes to enjoy it -- not just physically, but in the sense that s/he is (perhaps secretly) glad things turned out the way they have. If there is not some evidence of enjoyment and/or this (even secret) change of heart, then it's rape, which is a totally different thing. To me the critical point at which rape becomes non-con is the moment (even if it's never acknowledged) when the person being coerced changes his/her mind. If that point isn't clearly put forth in the story, then it remains a rape story, which is definitely not anything I want to read.

I'm also leery of non-con fic because often, even if the coerced partner is enjoying it, there's an element of humiliation (even if only the private humiliation of one's body reacting when one would rather remain aloof/indifferent) and I have a huge humiliation squick. I'll read it from a writer I trust, but otherwise, I'm more likely to pass than to take a chance and end up feeling creeped out and upset.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I would've easily agreed with the "non-con as delayed consent" definition except that spare_change, for instance, who sees "non-con" as meaning equivalent to "rape". Which is to say, some people think non-con is rape and rape is rape is rape with no gradation. So now I'm all ":-?" and tentative. I wouldn't say that real-life -rape- is modified by forced consent, basically (as differentiated from forced -participation-), but I do think that in -fic-, there are different types of -stories- based on whether there's consent and what kind of consent it is and so on. In a way, strictly-speaking, "non-con" basically means no consent, which is totally equivalent to rape. Which is why I was thinking that really what a lot of people mean by it is semi-con or something like that.
Although I can see why people's emotions could get wound up on this subject, because in real rape scenarios, it is true that this "secret consent" is a touchy issue since a part of the victimization is often to make the victim think they wanted it. The difference being that in fiction, the victim -could- have wanted it, I guess, whereas in real life it's highly unlikely.

And I definitely know what you mean about humiliation. I have a -huge- squick with it. Huge. Can't even think about it without cringing and being physically discomforted. Probably the hugest squick I have -period-, actually.

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

I think my definition of non-con works for me because in fiction/fantasy we have the benefit of knowing the victim's secret thoughts and desires. (Or, if from the aggressor's POV, the author knows those secret thoughts and desires.) We can know, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, that the 'victim' is enjoying it, if the author so chooses. Not to mention that there need not be any post-event psychological fallout, unless the author so chooses.

In real life, real people get hurt and there's absolutely no way to know if a victim secretly enjoyed/wanted it -- even the victim doesn't know that (I'm thinking of situations where the victim is forced to orgasm, for example) -- and so I agree with Spare Change that in real life, ALL degrees of non-con can be considered equivalent to rape, and the idea of secret consent or enjoyment shouldn't even enter into it.

The thing is, as many people have said, there's a massive difference between real life and fiction/fantasy. LOTS of women have rape fantasies, but that absolutely doesn't mean they actually secretly desire to be raped. I just don't think it makes sense to judge fictionalized sexual fantasies according to real life ethics.

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

*facepalms*

Most non-con just counts on "well, it's your kink too" and doesn't bother to set up the characters as to -why- they're into this against their will (if they are! but that's the most common scenario). Very very rarely does non-con work to set up the situation to be sexy. Of course, rarely does any fic work for its own scenario. Damn, I have to refrain from saying most things suck now. Because uh. That's not nice.

Reena, we all have our kinks, and you're defending what you like, which is cool. But don't diss other kinds of fics as "not sexy" and hence not done well, simply because they're not your kink. I mean, that logic is totally circular.

I find all these gradations of noncon to be creepy, because noncon is noncon is noncon. As a reader, I think it's fine to be able to spell out precisely what kinds you like to read, but don't forget than in a court of law, all of these are rape.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I wasn't really saying that the fics aren't done well in some sort of objective way, was I? And I mean. I thought I was saying that the things I want don't really add up to "rape", per se. I wasn't sure. I mean, in the American legal system, all sorts of things are rape, and that's the -law-, but just because it's the law doesn't people's psychology necessarily follows it, or something. I mean, "law" is about punishment in assault cases anyway, and definitionally, you have to clarify exactly what you're punishing.

I don't know. I feel bad having brought "real life" into this because I know that gets people's emotions up, and I was merely mentioning it on a tangent. I think that there's perhaps such a lack of realism in the whole "ravishment" idea and the whole concept of the victim "really wanting it" as to make it almost entirely fantastic, but it can still work in fiction and I dunno if it's the same "non-con" as evil-rapist-forces-100%-unwilling-victim-in-an-act-of-pure-hateful-violence. Both "passionate-boy-in-throws-of-desire-jumping-someone-equal-in-size-and-able-to-throw-him-off" and that get labeled "non-con", for instance.

But it seems to be that there -can- be semi-con, or maybe it's just that a lot of things that -aren't- non-con get labelled that way, I just don't know. I mean, the whole "court of law" thing doesn't really apply to fic classification, really, so I'm sorry I brought it up.

I wasn't trying to make gradations within pure non-con, but that rarely happens, and when it happens, I don't enjoy it. And yet, what to call the stories I -do- enjoy? If it's the same thing, why do I find one example sexy and not the other? -Do- I have a non-con kink or not? I mean, if I -do-, then why do I not like all these more brutal fics? If I -don't-, then what to call `Shades of Gray'? I was thinking about fic definitions, really, that's all.

In terms of a court of law, nothing I say or think even -matters-, anyway. I have nothing to do with the law, but I also think that rape is subjective upon the person being raped. If you -think- you are, then you are, basically. I mean, because most often a rapist will say "but that wasn't rape, she wanted it", so who'd listen to the rapist? It's all about what the victim says. This seems to be shaky ground for basic definitional statements, but law isn't about theory, it's about practice, so really I don't bother with it, basically. I'm sorry if I upset you in any way, though. :(

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

So what -I'm- interested in reading in terms of non-con fic (as far as being able to enjoy it rather than be disturbed) is some version of "coerced 2a"-- `coerced' in the sense of `urge irresistibly'.

Hmmm...if you're bored or feeling adventurous, try this one (http://www.squidge.org/~kali/uruk.html) (Methos/Kronos -- fairly short) and let me know if it meets your definition. I'm curious as I've had a wealth of interesting reactions to it. Lot's of "teetering on the edge of consent/seduction" reactions specifically.

fandom nomenclature

[(Anonymous)]

You might be interested in this post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rosenho/144649.html#cutid1) by rosenho and the responses. It's about the use of the term "noncon." (i.e. why use "noncon" rather than "rape" to describe a fic?)

My 2 cents: "noncon" doesn't have the same jarring connotation as a word that "rape" does. Rape is 100% awful and unsexy and pain and real life horror. Noncon can be that 1980's bad romance ravishment (or whatever else) *fantasy* that one can take a sinful, guilty pleasure in.


Alice :D
(who 1st started reading HP fic due to a link from fannish butterfly's "slash without consent" page.)

Re: fandom nomenclature

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

*waves, watching you pass by on the horizon*
Dude. I am -itching- to just. Offer you a code. On a plate. With a ribbon. Heh.

But no, livejournal is evil, I know this~:)

It's just that I find that lots of/most non-con fic -isn't- rape-fic anyway, yet some of it is. They're all coming from different angles, really. Like ashjay said, my non-con isn't necessarily your non-con. Or something like that. Which is why I was all... so do I or -don't- I like it? It's confusing because it depends on the definition and no one can really agree completely (though that's how it is with most things, I guess).

Thanks for the link, btw :D :D

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Non-con. It squicks me. It hurts me. I don't like it. I think it's the candyfloss side of my brain.
Can't like it. Don't like it. Shades of Grey, Plague of Legends, you name it, I can be impressed by the author, I guarantee I'll be squicked by the sex.
And that may come from reading one of those very trashy romances when I was about eight, and away from home, and I'd already been treated (THANKS MOM) to innumerable practical sex books, and thus I KNEW that was rape, and I didn't understand how she could want it and how it could be justified, and thus I wept and wrung my hands and stayed up late at night going 'can't sleep... Marquis will ravage me...'
*taps foot* what is *keeping* the Marquis?
Nevertheless, I was amused by the definition 'irresistibly urged.' 'Well, officer, it *was* rape. I mean, he's so attractive I couldn't resist him and so he suggested sex and I threw him down and ripped off all our clothes and indulged in hours of animal sex. Nobody's saying that's not unfair coercion, I hope!'
... no matter how serious I may be, I feel I can always trivialise a subject.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee. I do think that's related to the whole thing of it being impractical to relate real-life morals to these sorts of stories, 'cause they just don't -fit-, really. I don't like non-con either-- almost -all- of it, but there's a few which seem to get past my squick if they really distance themselves thoroughly from anything "real-life" or really traumatic for the characters, maybe?

I guess I never really equated the way sex happens in fics to the way sex happens in real life... I mean, they're just not that similar. If anything, because "real" sex is all non-verbal and lots of cues and memories and aspects of it simply can't be transcribed or remembered very well, maybe. No matter what, if you verbalize it in fiction, you're making it much more set-in-stone and definite than it is "in reality", with a lot more certain emotional responses for both parties. So you know, you can just -write- a character in a certain way, and that's the way they are, whereas in real life, it's all much fuzzier, I guess.

But if the story -doesn't- really set up the character in a way I can swallow as being "not really non-con" or at least as being something they wanted or could want or were a mostly-equal participant in, then I can't enjoy it at all and it just disturbs me. I have my own very specific idea of what I want from "non-con", which isn't really non-con even though a lot of writers would label it that, though it might still be in "real life", though thankfully that doesn't really apply, you know?

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Highlands?
Wah! You mean Duncan, don't you? My darling Boy Scout would never do anything like that!

Re: Shades of Gray, Methos is enjoying the rape. Admittedly he's fucking Cassandra while Kronos is raping him, so that probably skews it somewhat - but yeah, while he's madly resisting and the orgasms are presented as Kronos beating him into submission rather than enjoyment, the fact is he's having them.

Psychologically he doesn't want it to happen, even post-first orgasm, so maybe in that definition it is complete non-con. Hmmm.

Non-con works well in Highlander because it's normally K/M. And even if it's present-day, when Methos is reformed, the presence of Kronos reminds us that in the thousand or so years he rode with the Horsemen, he (to quote Cassandra) "raped alongside him" so he deserves everything he gets from that quarter.

And there is of course the simple fact that Methostorture is incredibly hot. No HP character has anything near that quality.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Nah, that wasn't Duncan. There's other men in the Highlands, you know. Er. I think :-?
Anyway, a lot of Really Bad Romance Novels get set in Scotland for some reason. Lots of rough-and-tumble men, or ...something?

Heh.
I find the idea of raping-the-rapist interesting. I don't really consciously think of it that way (or any way, I guess), though the whole environment in `Shades of Gray'-- the entirely different time period, atmosphere, the whole hunter/hunted-and-both-playing-willingly thing. There's this feralness that's an accepted part of the dynamic, so maybe that makes it a different sort of game, even though Methos does get traumatized by the end... though I didn't like the latter bits as much. I don't know if I'd ever think that Methos -deserved- it, but on the other hand, I wasn't entirely feeling like he was being victimized. I mean, it was such an interesting situation because he was also the aggressor (with Cassandra) and there was that whole `equals' thing which really attracts me to H/D, too.

It's almost like K/M is -safer- than usual, somehow, merely because of their mutual history & personalities, and also because this is so very very long ago and we know what happened and it was all couched as a flashback from within a healthier dynamic. Hmmm. I mean.... I do think I can enjoy non-con and not just in Highlander, but it's just... weird because I shouldn't think K/M isn't as "wrong", and yet it isn't. It's just. Playing by different rules entirely, maybe, not -modern- in any case. It really helps if it's not happening in the modern day, for some reason (which is why even my little parody was in some indeterminate but far-off time).

Hmm.

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

What about both ways non-con, say, when both parties are under the influence of a love-spell?

Hmmm, non-con. I think, for me, enjoyment depends more on the characters. I can't imagine enjoying non-con of the HP characters, because, well, the ones I like, I like, and I don't want to see them in any way abused, and the ones I don't like, I don't care enough to read about. I like...a more complicated kind of situation. Like, the irresistbly compelling exterior force, which is non-con in its way. Or something that's more consensual, like the character choosing to have sex with the other character because it's better than some other alternative, or because the character is somehow psychologically defeated - the act itself never being forced. Yet I like the resistance aspect too; DV10 - I think it was DV10 - is a good example of that kind of thing.

This doesn't make too much sense to me as I can't think of a single example of a non-con/rape anything that I've actually enjoyed. The most recent example I can think of is Tess of the d'Urbervilles, which has features of all of the above, and yet I don't like any of that, because I love the character of Tess. Rape scenes usually sicken me. So I have no idea how I came to have preferences on the subject. *shrug*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I actually don't like -rape- scenes either. I like love-scenes where one character is enjoying it in spite of themselves and it's all, "No...NO....NOOOO... OHGODYES"... that sort of thing~:)

I don't like psychological defeat, actually, -ever-. That's probably the heart of what turns me off 98% of everything labelled(!) non-con. I hate to see characters -psychologically- abused-- physically is fine because I like characters who can (psychologically!) overcome, you know? Bounce back. So it's not all goodness and light (i.e., I like angst), but on the other hand it's not bleak.

I do like the "outside force" idea, because in a way, -love- is that outside force~:))
And yeah, the aggressor is also, in a big way, helpless (in their passion, heheh). Calling it a -rape scene- over-defines it, I think. I like more ambiguity than that. And more emotional depth. Rape is so simple-- pure violence and hate, really. So yeah. I like it when things get hard-to-define and passionate and out-of-control, for whatever reason~:)