A post-script on the non-con issue

[emmagrant01]

In my last post, I asked people to give their opinions on non-con in fanfic, and the results surprised me. I knew that the label meant different things to different people, but some of the perspectives that were expressed in comments really caught me off guard.

1. Some people think all non-con is about sexual gratification. That surprised me. While I do get that people have rape fantasies and fic fulfills that particular kink, I don't think it's fair to assume that all or even most non-con in fic is there to be sexually arousing. There are other reasons for inserting non-con scenarios into stories, and many of them have much more more to do with power and providing a catalyst for character development than they do with getting the reader off. Just because it's about sex doesn't mean it's a PWP.

2. Some people think there is only one kind of non-con, and it's all violent rape. I don't want to get into a huge discussion about what rape is and isn't. I have some personal experience with the issue that I don't want to get into, and besides -- that's not the point. The point is that this is about people (mostly women) exploring fears and fantasies or dealing with their own particular traumas through writing fiction. To put all of those fics into a category of "evil bad stuff I don't read cause who wants to get off on that" seems strange to me, considering how much kink there is in the fandom. We're usually all quite open-minded about people's motivations for writing a particular kink in a live-and-let-live sort of way, so why do we make assumptions about people's motivations in this case? I'm not saying people shouldn't read what they want, of course. I just find it interesting that people feel that way.

3. The label "non-con" means different things to different people. Yes, duh. But still, it's made me question how useful that label even is. Depending on who you ask, I have either never written non-con, or I've written a ton of it. At this point, I'm leaning toward the first, because I haven't ever written a sex act that would classify as rape according to my own definition. Even in situations where there was dubious consent at best, it always was worked out between the characters before they got to any actual sex. Either that, or in the cases when consent wasn't given, the "victim" was able to fight back and turn the tables. For me, writing those stories is about empowerment, not stripping people of power. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with flat-out rape in fic, because that is something many people clearly want to read and write. But should all of those fics be classified in the same way? I just don't think so.

Anyway, those are some thoughts I had as I was reading over comments on that post last night. And now, off to a meeting...

Comments

[zedmeister.livejournal.com]

The distinction is simple: If the "victim" changes their mind during the happenings, it qualifies as non-con.

How on earth did they come up with that definition? *boggles* If I understand you corectly, what they're saying is something along the lines of "a)this is non-consensual (hence the label), but b)it's not rape, and c)it's actually consensual by the end." Isn't that rather contradictory? How can it be non-consensual and consensual at the same time?

I'm actually really curious here - I've read a lot of debates on this topic, and I have never, ever heard the term 'non-con' defined like that. I've always seen this sort of fic labeled as dubious consent ("dub con"), with the understanding that it may or may not be rape, depending on your POV.

Of course, I may be thinking of a different kind of story here than they are - what do they mean by "the character changing their mind"? That they come to enjoy it grudgingly, but there is still an element of violation (as in most stories I've read), or that it turns into fluffy, consensual sex with the victim not minding at all that it started as an assault? I assume it's the latter, but then how would it justify the label "non consensual"?

[sorion.livejournal.com]

Isn't that rather contradictory? How can it be non-consensual and consensual at the same time?

It's not contradictory, it's a graduation...
I mean, there are two expressions. Rape and non-con. If they were exactly the same thing, why use both of them?

A rapist doesn't care whether the victim enjoys what happens. It is purely about control, not about sex.

With non-con, two people don't come together and decide to have sex, as it would be with consensual sex. One of them forces the issue...

Now, I would agree that non-con is completely fictional. (Or at least, I'd have problems imagining a real situation, where the "subject" would come to agree to the sex.) And I believe the writers/readers are aware of that.


In fics, I understand the appeal of non-con. About giving up control, completely, without having a rape victim that at no point is able to enjoy what happens.

[doro-chan.livejournal.com]

A rapist doesn't care whether the victim enjoys what happens. It is purely about control, not about sex.

I think that's a good definition. Rape is about power and hurting the victim, while non-con is actually about sex and control.

But I think that's a problem with most warnings in fanfiction. People just can't agree about what they mean. It starts with "yaoi" where people mean "shounen-ai". And of course there's the problem of when to label a story Harry/Draco or Draco/Harry. And of course the list of potential warning is so long, it's really hard to figure out which apply to your story.

[sorion.livejournal.com]

People just can't agree about what they mean.

That is often a problem... Not only online ^_~

But since the YaoiGer debacle, I solved the non-con case for me, and I apply it that way.

[doro-chan.livejournal.com]

I kind of missed that. One day, I went to yaoi.de and could not access the stories.

And it wasn't discussed at Animexx yet, so I never spent much time thinking about it, like I did with chan and rape.

[sorion.livejournal.com]

Animexx uses a password. Should they ever get on the radar of the juvenile protection, though, they've got a problem... The password lock looks good, but wouldn't pass a legal inspection.

[doro-chan.livejournal.com]

The password lock looks good, but wouldn't pass a legal inspection.

In the end, what would? The yaoi.de method isn't good either. If children really want to read/watch porn, they will. Just like people who want to take drugs will take drugs, forbidden or not.

[zedmeister.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying about the graduation, but that's why people use the label "dub con". To indicate that it's either not a clear-cut situation, or that it becomes consensual by the end. I'm not sure that 'non-con' is applicable in that case. Except that they obviously think so. But like I said, that's the first time I've run into that particular usage.

I mean, there are two expressions. Rape and non-con. If they were exactly the same thing, why use both of them?

Well, that's where the debate comes in :) A lot of people believe that they *are* exactly the same thing (for example, see amanuensis1's comment here () - she's a very prominent writer of HP non-con and considers it rape). A lot of other people don't, but can't seem to reach a consensus on what exactly the difference *is*. There seems to be a lot of individual interpretation, which is frustrating, because these labels *should* hold a universal meaning.

A rapist doesn't care whether the victim enjoys what happens. It is purely about control, not about sex.

Yes, but there are many, many fics in which that exact dynamic exists, and they're still labelled 'non-con', not 'rape'. How do you explain that fandom phenomenon? (I'm not trying to be confrontational here, sorry if it comes across that way; I'm honestly curious.) In a lot of these fics, the aggressor *doesn't* care whether the victim enjoys themselves, and if they do bring them pleasure, it's in a very humiliating way.

Let me quote one of my own comments here to explain my own position on the matter, since I'm too lazy to reword it:

I've finally come to the conclusion that usually the only difference between fics labeled "rape" and fics labeled "non-con" is that the objective of the latter tends to be sexual gratification for the reader, which might be spoiled if you called it rape.

Most people don't like to *admit* that they have rape fantasies, whether they picture themselves as the aggressor or the victim. Labeling something as non-con allows you to enjoy it without feeling as guilty. Hence, "non-con" = titillating rape, while "rape" = dark, realistic, violation.

But keep in mind that in that comment I'm talking about 'true' non-con fics, and not the kind we've been discussing here (which I'd still prefer to label 'dub-con').

[doro-chan.livejournal.com]

Yes, but there are many, many fics in which that exact dynamic exists, and they're still labelled 'non-con', not 'rape'. How do you explain that fandom phenomenon?

I'd say it's because people don't think much about what the difference is. It's like labelling a shounen-ai story as yaoi. There's a difference between the two, but I often get the impression that a lot of people think they're the same.

[zedmeister.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between the two, but I often get the impression that a lot of people think they're the same.

Yes, but these people aren't ignorant. They're not unaware of 'the difference' between rape and non-con; their considered opinion is that there *is* no difference. That's why there's so much debate :)

[doro-chan.livejournal.com]

their considered opinion is that there *is* no difference.

Then maybe for them a rape warning is applied when the character is raped, but it's not the major part of the story, like a PWP. Are there any PWPs out there that have a rape-warning?
I think the rape warning is most often used in longer stories, and the rape tends to take place at the beginning. It's does rarely occur between the characters of the main pairing, but rather on of them and a third character.
So maybe for them, while they think there is no difference between the act in itself, the difference for some people lies with the characters involved and their role in the story.

[gmth.livejournal.com]

Well, as one of those who uses "rape" and "non-con" interchangeably, none of what you've suggested applies to me. The two words are the same to me. I use "non-con" more often in my warnings because it seems to be the generally accepted terminology in fandom, but when I'm discussing the genre I use both terms to mean the same thing.

[sorion.livejournal.com]

The internet is still too dynamic and therefore vague, for all users to use the same expression the same way.

I stick to the German version, because it has a legal base and makes the most sense to me.


I've finally come to the conclusion that usually the only difference between fics labeled "rape" and fics labeled "non-con" is that the objective of the latter tends to be sexual gratification for the reader, which might be spoiled if you called it rape.

Interesting... I don't feel that way, but it's interesting ^_~
Rape (as in, my definition of it) doesn't turn me on. Non-con is a different matter, entirely.

[zedmeister.livejournal.com]

Oops, forgot to add the link to amanuensis1's comment (http://ausmac.livejournal.com/388590.html?thread=1546990#t1546990).

[cleverthylacine]

I mean, there are two expressions. Rape and non-con. If they were exactly the same thing, why use both of them?

Well, when I see the word "rape" I think of forced penetration, whereas non-con is any kind of forced sex.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is the old definition of rape.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Do you know if that's the legal definition? What if a sex act is performed against someone's will that doesn't involve penetration, like a man forcibly performing oral sex on a woman?

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Rape is, in most jurisdictions, a crime defined as sexual intercourse or penetration without valid consent by both parties. In some jurisdictions, rape is defined by penetration of the anus or the vagina by a penis, while in other jurisdictions, the penetration of either the vagina or the anus need not be by a penis, but can be by other objects such as a finger or a hand-held object, or the forcing of a penis into a vagina by a female (male rape). Some jurisdictions expand the definition of rape further to include other sexual acts without valid consent, including oral copulation and masturbation. The lack of valid consent does not necessarily mean that the victim explicitly refused to give consent; generally, where consent was obtained by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress, or where consent was given by a person whose age was below the age of consent, a person who was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, or a person who was mentally impaired by illness or developmental disability, the consent is considered invalid. (When the sexual activity involved a person whose age was below the age of consent, the crime defined is often known as "statutory rape," although a number of U.S. jurisdictions use terms such as "unlawful sexual intercourse" to avoid the forcible connotation of the word "rape.")

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Interesting... So if Wiki is to be trusted, it sounds like whether or not something is legally considered rape depends on where the parties involved were when it happened. That seems a bit random. :-P

Thanks for posting that!

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Yes, it does. It has to do with the jurisdiction.

If you want I could point you to a discussion I had a few months ago in little_details.

I gave the movie Irreversible: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/
as research material for those who wished to write about rape-rape and not just non-con.

Funnily enough, the first comment I got was from somebody who got angry at my use of the word "rape," the fact that I used it I mean. There are plenty of people there who were knowledgeable and spoke about the definitions of rape and how it had to do with the law of the land. Since in many countries it is not believed that men can get raped, anal penetration is not included, and only penis-vagina penetration is mentioned. In other countries, anal penetration is simply covered by the term "sodomy," because who would be willing to get fucked in the ass?

So you see, it's a tricky little word.

[cleverthylacine]

The legal distinction would be between "rape" and "sexual assault". I think. But I am sure it varies by locality.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

I mean, in the US or England...

Don't know where you're from, could be current where you are.

[cleverthylacine]

California, actually.

California is CLEARLY fucked up, rape-wise.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Abuse/lisk/legal_rape_definition.htm

http://www.ucdmaar.org/penalcode.htm

Just look at that definition, freaking Middle Ages.

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

Now, I would agree that non-con is completely fictional. (

Personally I think this is an extremely important point. Exactly true. In real life, a person's thoughts and motivations can never be known for certain by someone else (and sometimes people don't know themselves what they think or feel, and sometimes people lie, and ...), so "consent" will always be slippery to pin down (thus, I think, it makes sense to set the bar pretty damn' high and say anything other than a direct "yes" means "no."). In fiction, the author knows the mindset of both (or all) characters in the situation. There is no uncertainty about whether consent exists or not, or whether the parties are too ignorant to know. The author has complete control over whether the characters consent or not, whether it's informed or not, etc. One of the many reasons you can't compare fictional sex acts to real sex acts on any sort of equivalent basis. The other being - hey, it's fiction. No real people were violated. :)