A post-script on the non-con issue
Sep. 20th, 2006 11:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmagrant01In 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...
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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 09:09 pm (UTC)This sort of runs into the ideas of the writer's intention (which the reader assumes but doesn't actually know) and the purpose of a scenario. In horror, for example, a non-con scene generally would be seen as intended to inspire horror or fear. In romance, the intention is generally assumed to be arousal. Do most people read most fanfic as romance? Is there an assumption that if a fanfic story is grim, it must be intended to arouse though a kink?
Thanks for writing on this subject. Very interesting, and I hadn't thought about it before.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 11:06 pm (UTC)I don't really get any reading pleasure from non-con alone -- for me it's all about the power dynamic between the two people and how it affects them. I want to know why they're in that position and how it affects them, more than what specifically happens. In fact, I find exessive detail in non-con scenes a big distraction, because to me, it's not the sex act that is the most interesting thing there. Rapists generally aren't just horny. It's about power.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 11:38 pm (UTC)I'm also afraid I might be one of the people Emma got the impression thinks all non-con is meant to be porn. The problem is, I have read non-con that the writer said wasn't meant to be porn that read...rather a lot like porn.
That is to say, the story was very clear on the fact that rape is wrong and a bad thing and that it causes suffering, but it still read, even though this was a published novel, that the victim's suffering was being fetishised. Mercedes Lackey is in my opinion particularly guilty of this.