Taking your points in a slightly different order--
3. The label "non-con" means different things to different people. I think this may have been how we got to talking at cross purposes in your last post. If it's worked out between the characters, or the "victim" turns the tables, then in my eyes it's not a non-con story. To me, "non-con" means one of the parties did not consent to whatever sex act took place, not before, during, nor after it. Which to me means they were forced to do it, whether physically, emotionally, or some other way. Which to me makes it rape. Which brings us to
2. Some people think there is only one kind of non-con, and it's all violent rape. As I just explained, yes, to me non-con and rape are equivalent terms. Not necessarily violent--there are more ways than violence to force someone to do something they don't wish to do. This does not mean that I think non-con stories should never be written. As you rightly point out, they can be written by people exploring fears or dealing with traumas. It does mean that, in general, I don't want to read them. I don't put all of those fics into a category of "evil bad stuff I don't read cause who wants to get off on that"; I put them in a category of "disturbing things that I don't want to read, but may in the hands of authors I've learned to trust". I also, in general, choose not to read stories featuring bloodplay, breathplay, bodily wastes, and character death. But I'm still planning to read book 7; I do make exceptions.
1. Some people think all non-con is about sexual gratification. No, non-con [= rape, to me, remember] is not about sexual gratification. It's about power and control and hatred; and trying to make it sexually arousing makes it even less palatable to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 03:52 am (UTC)3. The label "non-con" means different things to different people. I think this may have been how we got to talking at cross purposes in your last post. If it's worked out between the characters, or the "victim" turns the tables, then in my eyes it's not a non-con story. To me, "non-con" means one of the parties did not consent to whatever sex act took place, not before, during, nor after it. Which to me means they were forced to do it, whether physically, emotionally, or some other way. Which to me makes it rape. Which brings us to
2. Some people think there is only one kind of non-con, and it's all violent rape. As I just explained, yes, to me non-con and rape are equivalent terms. Not necessarily violent--there are more ways than violence to force someone to do something they don't wish to do. This does not mean that I think non-con stories should never be written. As you rightly point out, they can be written by people exploring fears or dealing with traumas. It does mean that, in general, I don't want to read them. I don't put all of those fics into a category of "evil bad stuff I don't read cause who wants to get off on that"; I put them in a category of "disturbing things that I don't want to read, but may in the hands of authors I've learned to trust". I also, in general, choose not to read stories featuring bloodplay, breathplay, bodily wastes, and character death. But I'm still planning to read book 7; I do make exceptions.
1. Some people think all non-con is about sexual gratification. No, non-con [= rape, to me, remember] is not about sexual gratification. It's about power and control and hatred; and trying to make it sexually arousing makes it even less palatable to me.