I Can See the Wank at the Doorstep, but I Just Gotta Ask...

[solar_cat]

((Note: This post is semi-related to the discussion about warnings and triggers that has been going on. For other people's much more informative and well-thought posts on these subjects, see metafandom.))

I hope this post isn't triggery, but I don't have triggers of my own that I've found, so I can't be sure. Please enter at your own risk.

Comments

[puckling]

How do people feel about the fact that we often warn for non-con, rather than calling it rape?

I have no real deep thoughts, but I was just thinking the same thing the other day. I'm interested to see what others have to say.

[solar_cat]

I'm interested to see what others have to say.

Likewise! ^^
(FYI: There are more comments over on my Dreamwidth, if you're interested.)

[meepalicious]

First off, the easy one: I don't distinguish between "non!con" and "rape." They're both the same in my personal dictiona --- okay, as I'm typing this, I'm thinking of a difference. I think that "rape" is when it's, well, rape; in the real world, rape is not about sex, it's about power. I suppose "non-con," then, would be non-consensual sex that is, from the attacker's point of view, about the sex. This is one of those definitions that can only exist in fandomland.

As for dub!con, I'm not really sure ... I think in the example, where the audience could hear that Character A wanted it but Character B couldn't, it's a really fine line. In the universe of the story, I'd say it's non!con, whereas dub!con is something more like you said, something like "aliens made us do it." If I can use Harry Potter fandom as example, something like love potions would be dub!con, I think. I think the biggest difference between dub!con and non!con is that dub!con can have all parties involved on equal footing, e.g., if they're both drunk, it's not one

[solar_cat]

I think that "rape" is when it's, well, rape; in the real world, rape is not about sex, it's about power. I suppose "non-con," then, would be non-consensual sex that is, from the attacker's point of view, about the sex. This is one of those definitions that can only exist in fandomland.

This is definitely one of those nuances I mentioned, that are very fandom-specific. And I think you actually might have managed to articulate a big portion of the nebulous non-con/rape line in my head, so yay! (Have I told you I love you this week? Because I really do. <3 ) I think I agree with this, insofar as my own understanding of it goes. That maybe non-con is rape motivated by the desire for the other character rather than the desire for power over the other character? Would that be a fair way to put it, or am I misconstruing

[meepalicious]

That maybe non-con is rape motivated by the desire for the other character rather than the desire for power over the other character?

Yes! I think Okane ga Nai is an example; Kanou is a creepy asshole, but he's motivated by a desire for Ayase and doesn't seem to want to hurt him. (That this is presented as acceptable and eventually romantic is mad crazy, but a problem for another time.)

Yeah, the love potions thing is weird, because they're consenting because they think they want it, but they only want it because they've been given a love potion and ... ＠＿＠ I think your idea with it only being dub!con if the character would've consented without the love potion is a better one.

[poor_choices]

I don't think much about dub-con--I most commonly associate it with coercion, like blackmail sex. So one party is consenting, but stil forced. That was how I first saw it used, and I was like ...not for me! so I've mostly skipped dub-con since. So I don't have much by way of thoughts on dub-con.

But, on the subject of non-con warnings vs. rape warnings, I've heard it as being that way because rape is a trigger word for some people. I'm not sure if this is the actual reason, but I have experienced people seeing rape in posts/summaries/warnings and asking it to be changed because the term itself is uncomfortable for them, while I've never seen anyone object to non-con.

[solar_cat]

Ahhhh, now this makes me worry about triggering people with the "Rape" in the cut text... D= Well, I hope it'll be okay... I suppose if anyone asks me to, I'll just change it somehow.

See, it's interesting to me, because I could swear (though I'm sure I'd never be able to dig up where, so this is very IIRC) that I've seen people objecting to non-con on the "call a spade a spade" basis--the argument being that it's rape, call it rape rather than making it seem "nicer". Though, I don't know whether any of those people were survivors/people with triggers or not, and I can't even be sure of the context of the discussion, so. *will not dwell long on that one without more accurate reference than foggy memories*

So, on the basis of your mental definition, how would you rate things like drunk!sex fic, or sex pollen? Would you consider those dub-con scenarios, or no? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I promise! I'm just interested! ^^ )

[poor_choices]

Drunk!sex depends on the context for me. I don't care if I'm warned for it either way, but I admit to having a squick for fics of that kind where both characters aren't under the influence--especially where the initiator isn't under the influence--because then there's a power imbalance involved that is more questionable to me. It's not a trigger for me, so this is a personal preference as opposed to "this is how it should be for everyone's own good," but if two people are drunk and have sex, I think of it more as poor decisions than dubcon. If one person is drunk and the other takes advantage of their state, then I would give it a warning. I think. WATCH ME HAVE WRITTEN A FIC WHERE THIS HAPPENED AND FAILED TO WARN FOR IT.

triggery terms here

[shinetheway]

See, what comes to mind with this discussion is that the word "rape" itself, legally, is a very specific term that only refers to forced penile-vaginal sex. So far as I understand, anyway. Lawyers? Everything else--forced anal sex, vaginal sex with a non-penis object, etc--is called "sexual assault". So "non-con" strikes me as an good umbrella term for rape, sexual assault, and any other sex act performed without consent, that nevertheless lacks some of the emotional baggage that comes with other terms.

Plus, as I'm writing this occured to me--it's a fannish term (I assume, since I've never seen it anywhere else) and therefore there may be an "ownership" thing there. It's safer, maybe, because we claim it and we own it. It's our name for our thing.

[turntap2]

Holy shit, that's meta. You're asking if dub-con should be defined on the basis of (1) the reader acknowledging it or (2) the characters...acknowledging it?

[solar_cat]

Um... well, yes, I suppose maybe I am. Or at least, I'm asking what people's thoughts on the subject are. Does the line for dub-con/non-con get drawn based on what the reader knows, or what the characters know? Does it matter to you as a reader?

[turntap2]

Both and neither? Yay for a vague answer!

I think that (and especially with literature) a lot imperfection lies in the fact that generalizations are subjective. It's a matter of opinion in the sense that no two people can perceive dub-con/non-con in exactly the same light. The line for dub-con/non-con would be drawn somewhere in-between the differing opinions of the reader (perceiving the action) and the author (who supplies the characters' perception of the action). Perhaps it is ultimately up to the reader to decide where to draw the line. This, however, does not truly define what dub-con/non-con is.

And that made no sense so nevermind. XD

[solar_cat]

Hahah, no, no! It made sense! (Okay, I admit, it took a couple of read-throughs. XD )

So is what you're saying that the definition will always be subjective, so there's no way we can ever say definitively, as a collective, that X is dub-con and Y is non-con?

[rainchild]

Oooh, this is a really interesting subject. I will say upfront that I read and enjoy dub/non-con

[solar_cat]

I certainly think it's an interesting subject (that's why I asked!) and everybody seems to have really interesting things to say about it, too. So hooray for good discussion!

So if I'm reading you correctly, for you the line between non-con and rape is simply that the account in the fic is a fictional one, as opposed to a person's own account of being raped, or the story of a real person being raped?

Based on your comment, I'm not sure I follow your opinion as regards dub-con. Are you saying you don't feel that dub-con exists at all, or in other words, that you don't distinguish between dub-con and non-con, such that anything labeled "dub-con" you would take to mean "non-con"? Where do you, personally, draw the line? Or do you not draw one at all?

[rainchild]

So if I'm reading you correctly, for you the line between non-con and rape is simply that the account in the fic is a fictional one, as opposed to a person's own account of being raped, or the story of a real person being raped?
Yeah, that's about it. Although I've seen a few other intriguing definitions in this comment thread that I'm going to have to think about, too.

I guess I do have a pretty inclusive idea of what constitutes non-con, so I was trying to think of what I actually consider dub-con. I guess that term leaves room for a third party/non-sentient force that causes sex. For example, "the aliens made them do it" or "Spock is going to die unless he has sex because of Vulcan biology" or even just alcohol/other drugs. Basically, the situation forces them to have sex, rather than a specific character taking on the roll of a rapist.

I dunno, I'm still thinking about it, but I have to go so I'm just going to comment now. :P

[rainchild]

*drugs as in, say, random aphrodisiac flowers plot device! rather than date rape drugs

So maybe I'm saying non-con refers to deliberate rape by a character, while dub-con refers to accidental forced-to-have-sex by the situation type things.