That's an understandable definition. I'm kind of coming at this from the opposite direction, as someone who really likes the "really wants it" rape kink trope (even while I recognize it as highly problematic), and that's how I've seen it labeled around in the communities I've been frequenting.
ETA: I mean, communities like the spnkink_meme and blindfold_spn, and the examples of warrior/slave and antichrist/consort--they are labeled as dubcon in these communities. I agree with you in that I'd personally call them non-con, full stop, but they're labeled as dubcon, so I've gone with that labeling system. If people actually consider those to be in any way consensual, I'm going to cry.
Yeah, it's a messy distinction for me of what squicks me and what doesn't. Strapped to the rack with guts being torn out is noncon to me, even if the racked party has an emotional bond to the torturer or physical desire for the sexual act. But that's a dark, dark fic, a hell fic, and of course it assumes an already raped and tortured Dean, not one starting off from a position of power and consent. And that scenario remains less disturbing to me than a fic in which one uses emotional power over the other to get sex that he knows the other desires, but doesn't want. If the desiring/wanting distinction makes sense.
Reply
ETA: I mean, communities like the spnkink_meme and blindfold_spn, and the examples of warrior/slave and antichrist/consort--they are labeled as dubcon in these communities. I agree with you in that I'd personally call them non-con, full stop, but they're labeled as dubcon, so I've gone with that labeling system. If people actually consider those to be in any way consensual, I'm going to cry.
ETA2: Gah. I'm done editing. Sorry.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment