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: 2006-09-21 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.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 02:52 pm (UTC)But I'd bet you're in the minority there. In my fic "Still the Sun", if I hadn't put a non-con label on that, I'm sure people would have complained. I think there is an element of non-con to the fic, and the fact that it gets resolved doesn't mean it was never non-con in the first place.
And even in RL, that can happen. It's entirely possible for two people to be having consensual sex, and then for something to happen that one of them doesn't consent to. Even if it stops and they work it out, it happened. Not labeling that as non-con seems extreme.
Of course, at this point, I'm swinging back towards not warning for anything at all, consequences be damned.