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

[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.

Re: California is CLEARLY fucked up, rape-wise.

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

Um...it doesn't seem particularly medieval, except for Sec. 266
Though the issue of jurisdiction does make me wonder. Post Lawrence v. Texas, did any states both to enact forced sodomy statues, or is that just a big legal hole now?
PS. If you want medieval, try reading the Texas penal code. I can't even find the rape statute.