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.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-14 05:37 am (UTC)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.