Non-Consent

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[CyranoJ]

It is, unfortunately, one of the tactics most often used by charlatans and even worse, predators. If you've got a decent enough vocabulary, make a good show of having conviction, and primarily target the naive, you can often convince your victim that what they "perceive" as abuse isn't actually abuse because of x,y,z complicating factors. You can use the "complexity" of consent to confuse issues that really aren't that confusing, and convince your victim that they are overreacting or mistaken altogether. It's one of the reasons I see red flags whenever someone starts to argue that "consent" is an inherently ambiguous concept.

Absolutely. I try not to assume too much about people's motives I can avoid it, but it's an inescapable possibility that you have to be aware of in adult kink communities.

 

[clistenovena]

Perception is one person's subjective reality. Getting other people to go along with it, which one periodically needs to do, requires those perceptions to be in some way convincing to more people. One of the best ways to do this is to try to make perception work with those kinds of reality that don't budge whether you believe in them or not.

CyranoJ, exactly that about one's perception- it is subjective. Completely. That said, many people set their subjective perception as their foundational truth and can't see beyond it to the middle ground of logical, rational behavior. When it comes to non-consent, that can muddy the waters, as it were, and cause a myriad of problematic scenarios. Which is why this:

It's one of the reasons I see red flags whenever someone starts to argue that "consent" is an inherently ambiguous concept.

...is so important to figure in to the non-consent realm. I reference back to the abc definition LeandraNyx used previously as it covered the big three key points of what I believe consent to be at its core. For face-to-face, kink encounters anyway.

That said, which definition of consent figures in to all the different perceptions that exist in the world? The one agreed upon between consenting adults? The one the law decrees? The behavior the majority decides? Or is the definition fixed in place for everyone across the spectrum because it needs to be? Sincere questions all.

And what of erotic literature? Do any of the rules, standards of behavior, ethics, norms apply for an author who is creating a make-believe, non-con story?

Thanks for the back and forth. Most interesting.

 

[Gotham_Central]

And what of erotic literature? Do any of the rules, standards of behavior, ethics, norms apply for an author who is creating a make-believe, non-con story?

Thanks for the back and forth. Most interesting.

This is at the heart of the reasoning behind my question, what does the reader SEEKING Non-Consent storylines look for in a "good" -by their individual standards- story. Once that is known, then it becomes a matter of community standards, Lit guidelines, and personal willingness, can I write what others are looking for? Am I willing to paint in words the scene they desire?

I believe that it is only in understanding all three the desire of the audience, the interest of the writer and the standards of the community can be reconciled to develop an output that allows the author -who weeks to understand and appeal to her audience- to chose to write or not write on a given subject.

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[rutger5]

When discussing non-con fiction (really any fiction or online role play for that matter) what is acceptable to the reader is personal and subjective. As far as what Lit permits as acceptable is up to one person (Laurel). But in all these cases we are discussing words being typed just like the words in this post. The worst thing that happens is someone is offended and maybe their opinion might change about the person who wrote the offending words.

But this thread also touched on consent in the real world. I think most would agree on the written definition of the word consent. It’s how an actual person perceives different real situations where opinions may differ. Looking at the example clistenovena witnessed at a play party I think most people would have agreed with her initial reaction and wanted to do something – call 911 or intervene or something. Even after it was explained by the ‘victim’ clistenovena still felt ‘pissed’ due to perception of what consent is. And what if two weeks after this incident the ‘victim’ decided that in fact a line was crossed consent wise, not the dragging by the hair part but later on when there were no independent witnesses present. What would people in a jury think if it went that far? Even if something is scripted in advance that is no guarantee something may not go wrong. What about someone being whipped with a ball gag in their mouth? They didn’t mind the first ten blows with the riding crop but when they didn’t want more they tried to ‘tell’ the whipper with their eyes but since the script said twenty blows that’s what they received. Was a legal line crossed?

Mental capacity in regards to drunkenness is another area that isn’t always simple. What if two people meet at a club/bar and are both drinking to the point that both would be unable to legally drive. Not talking about someone being slipped a mickey or being drunk to the point where they are unconscious –semi-conscious. They leave together (taking a cab) and go to one of their places or hotel and engage in seemingly consensual sex. The next morning they wake up and while one says “Hey you want to do again?” the other says “I was drunk last night so you took advantage and I’m having you arrested.” If it goes to court would all twelve jurors agree what it was that happened.

As far as prostitution if a woman is forced into prostitution by violence or the threat of it clearly that isn’t consensual for her. But if the ‘client’ has no idea she is being forced as she never said or did anything to inform him and acted normally would he be guilty of a crime? And if the prostitute isn’t being forced by another person but by circumstances. She has a child to feed and rent to pay and has no skills or job. Of course not patronizing prostitutes is the best solution but it is clear that prostitution isn’t about to disappear.

Or let’s say you have a couple, whether friends with benefits or up to being married, that has a long standing consensual sexual relationship. They have sex Saturday night before falling asleep. The next morning person #1 wakes up to discover person #2 performing oral sex on them. Now if person #1 says “That feels great, keep going,” one might say from that point on they’ve given consent but what about before they woke up? Or if when they wake up they say nothing and actually reach orgasm but never give verbal affirmative consent. Doubt that 100% of people would agree on that case even if they all agree in principle what consent means. The point I’m making is consent is an idea/concept. It does represent something real but unlike gravity or atmosphere which can be objectively proven and verified it is nebulous. If someone who doesn’t ‘believe’ that gravity exists steps off a cliff (or a two foot drop) gravity will still function. Two people can agree that consent exists but have different, honest opinions about a particular situation, especially in certain murky circumstances.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m for punishing the guilty. If I believed someone was guilty of a crime I’d support harsh punishment unlike some who might think consent is always easy to prove and set in stone but are soft on crime. (Not saying anyone here.) But there are situations where things aren’t so cut and dried and that’s not meant as an excuse for bad behavior.

 

[CyranoJ]

Yeah, I mean, basically what the market for these multiple thousand-word screeds about how "complicated" all this consent stuff seems to be--setting aside dudes who want to blame people for their own rapes--is dudes who want to get some drunk nookie or pay for some rumpy-pumpy* and are worried whether this "consent" business is going to get them caught up.

[* I'm not saying this in judgement, by the way.]

The short answer is no, it isn't. In order of rutger5's questions: Yes, BDSM practitioners have safe words and signals so that they know what's consensual even if someone is gagged. (They figured that one out a long time ago, trust me. You don't have to worry on their account) No, someone can't change their mind and charge you with rape if they went home and had drunk sex with you; impairment nullifies consent when it was inflicted or when it reaches the point where a person can't respond to requests for consent. (If you get drunk enough to reach that point, you're not fucking anyone. If someone else gets drunk enough to reach that point and you're still sober enough to take advantage, then you were sober enough to figure out they weren't conscious. And in the extremely unlikely case said little miss wants to falsely claim that you mounted her unconscious body, the courts are still far likelier to believe you than her.) No, you're not on the hook if you poink a prossie and it turns out someone was coercing her and you didn't know (unless of course you're in a country where being a John is illegal, in which case you'll want to find that out before going). You're only responsible for what you can reasonably know. Nobody claims otherwise.

Most of this amounts to irrational fears about urban myths and/or highly improbable situations whose likelihood is vastly magnified among wagging tongues in the locker room. They are not valid discussions of actual "complexity," another reason you'll find many people rolling their eyes when these supposed "problems with consent" come up for the umpteenth time from the upmteenth dude who mistakenly thinks they're fresh insights.

It having been otherwise stipulated that people's reactions or the application of law can be complex (the latter, honestly, usually because -- as with murder -- navigating the attitudes of the people involved and figuring out where the truth lies is the complex bit), I would really recommend further would-be entries just watch this video and save some time.

 

[CyranoJ]

Dammit, I wanted to just come back in here and get back on-topc. Sorry, Gotham. I'll refrain from anything further on the consent tangent.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I don't think I ever answered your original question, lol. I just kind of jumped in once we started debating the concept of consent. But I'll answer it now, since noncon is my most favorite genre of erotica.

Thank you very much!

 

[CyranoJ]

Anyway. Following @LeandraNyx's lead, I'd like to go a little deeper into the actual point of the thread.

If I'm writing a story, the necessaries for me are:

1) The heroine has to be a character. Distinct in her own right, with a personality. She's not an avatar for something like Liberalism or Feminism or White Supremacism or Uppity Bitches Who Need Putting in Their Place or anything else, she's a person. And she has to be a person that I can feel at least some connection with, no matter what horrible things are going to happen to her. For me, just apart from any other factors (although there are other factors) the events have more impact and the story is hotter that way. Nothing sets its hooks in me like actually wanting to root for the heroine in an NC/R story, even if I know she will eventually succumb.

2) The villain has to be a character. He (or she) can be menacing, he can be frightening, he can be unhinged or dangerous... but he can't be an unadulterated power fantasy, because those are mostly boring to write and are often just as boring to read. He (or she) has to have flaws, conflicts, weaknesses. Confederates who let him down, impulses that trip him up, habits that betray him. Things should go wrong for them at some point or in some way, even if they eventually "win." Again, this is as much about narrative interest as anything else.

3) There has to be pleasure. (Expanding on my brief remarks earlier.) I've tried writing stories without and I mostly can't stand them and moreover can't get into them erotically. Realistic rape is not a turn-on for me. Fantasy rape that involves pleasure for the victim is a cop-out in other ways, but for me, it's a necessary cop-out. Maybe the "forced orgasm" is an absurd trope -- it does happen IRL but the results are vastly more damaging and less sexy than I allow for in my fiction -- but in its fantasy form I lurrrve it. There's nothing hotter.

4) There has to be story. Dude randomly rapes chick for some ridiculous reason is no-go. For me, effective smut is all about the set-up and the context, and sex scenes are dull if they're not also advancing character or story or both. Like 'Nyx, I find it hard to get into cliched setups like "Your husband owes money, now we gotta fuck you" or "I'm the Border Patrol! Spread 'em!" There needs to be more than that going on.

Far as misogyny goes, it's hit and miss. I'm down with it if it's an organic part of the villain's character (which it often is, for obvious reasons), but I'm a lot less down with it if it feels like the villain is a mouthpiece for the author. It's not an easy balance to strike.

I can sometimes go afield from my personal writing tastes as a reader (which is to say I can find something hot as a reader that I myself would not write), but deal-breaking turn-offs do exist: predictability is death, and characters who yield too quickly and suddenly decide the villain is their "master" after a few smacks are kinda dull. Extreme violence, maiming, snuff, vore and scat are hard no. Mostly so with watersports too although it can be done in a hot way, it just often isn't.

 

[clistenovena]

It having been otherwise stipulated that people's reactions or the application of law can be complex (the latter, honestly, usually because -- as with murder -- navigating the attitudes of the people involved and figuring out where the truth lies is the complex bit), I would really recommend further would-be entries just watch this video and save some time.

Best comment from that vid: "Also, being dressed for a tea party doesn't mean they want tea either."

Back to non-con:

4) There has to be story. Dude randomly rapes chick for some ridiculous reason is no-go. For me, effective smut is all about the set-up and the context, and sex scenes are dull if they're not also advancing character or story or both. Like 'Nyx, I find it hard to get into cliched setups like "Your husband owes money, now we gotta fuck you" or "I'm the Border Patrol! Spread 'em!" There needs to be more than that going on.

This! This all day, everyday! All year long! Please, authors, read this!!

 

[SilenceDances]

It might have already been said, but

What I find captivating in non-con is:
A deeper connection with the characters. I like knowing what is going on in both of their heads, and knowing why they are where they are. I like the victim to desire their captor, and the captor to be conflicted. They want this person, and they will take them, but they feel bad about it afterward. Deep internal conflicts are my cup of tea.
I like having there be reasons or misunderstandings that lead to the non-con scenes. Maybe they only think they have to rape the person, or maybe they're trying to keep the person from someone worse. Maybe it's a case of mistaken identity, or they believe their victim is a bad person when they really aren't.
I really like love in noncon.
I like innocent (not always virginal) women and men who are erotic "kings of the night" sort of characters. I like power imbalances, like royalty and maids, teacher/student, boss/employee... or even more blatantly I like strong men and not as strong women (though a good physical struggle is always great, and warrior women who are overpowered always have a wonderful fire in them). I like women who don't just give up when they're assaulted. They fight, or they fall in love. Sometimes they do both at the same time.

 

[PervOtaku]

I've known women who 'want' to be 'raped' on many different levels, from reprocessing real trauma to breaking free from social conditioning. Some of them have actually put themselves in the way of being raped, and have been.

Over on reddit, we've taken to calling it "rape baiting". And yes, it blurs the lines quite a bit.

Of course folks all still agree that rape is bad when the victim at no point likes it and remains traumatized afterwards. (Unless it's a totally fictional story! Just not one on Literotica )

there is no big mystery about what constitutes sexual consent, which means full informed consent at all stages of the act regardless of what situations the various parties may have "put themselves in" initially.

Yeah, except tell that to every woman in the history of the world that's played "hard to get" with a guy. No means no, except when no means yes, and the problem for guys is there's no way to really tell.

All the politically correct garbage about men always being predators and women always being victims doesn't apply 100% of the time in the real world.

For me, the appeal of noncon is fear. That's my aphrodisiac: fear. But here's the thing, I can't enjoy fear without also feeling both safe and secure. It's like riding that first big hill on a roller coaster.

I quite agree. The entire point of a thrill ride is to invoke fear while actually being safe. That's why most consensual non-consent play involves limits and safe words. However, as with all things, people have different tolerance levels. For some folks the roller coaster isn't enough, and they go out and do genuinely dangerous stuff and most of the time come out okay because they've practiced a lot. Similarly, for some girls a planned noncon scene isn't enough, and so they take things much further.

These are outliers, to be sure. However:

When I find posts by a noncon author expressing opinions like "women who dress provocatively are asking for it" or "blackout drunk women can totally give valid consent" or "all women secretly want to be taken against their will," their work immediately stops being sexy. Now, when I am reading their work, I don't feel safe anymore; I don't feel secure.

There are women who do enjoy that sort of thing. Or at least, being able to pretend for just a little bit that it's true and they have no choice but to be used like a fuck toy at the slightest whim of whatever man happens to be nearby. Is it extreme, it is over the top, it is not acceptable in a civilized society? Of course, and they know that too. Most folks (I hope) are capable of compartmentalizing their kinks.

A big one is misogyny. I get that's a kink for some people and yeah, my kink is not your kink and all that.

Indeed, yes. Fair enough.

 

[CyranoJ]

Yeah, except tell that to every woman in the history of the world that's played "hard to get" blah blahh

Go watch the video. (Bottom of this post.)

EDIT: Oh, fuck it. If LeandraNyx can suck up the patience to respond to this garbage then I don't really have an excuse, do I.

Yeah, except tell that to every woman in the history of the world that's played "hard to get" with a guy. No means no, except when no means yes, and the problem for guys is there's no way to really tell.

Just to amplify what LeandraNyx already said: to believe "playing hard to get" indicates anything at all similar to "no means yes" -- with "every woman" no less -- is like 100% authentic actual rapist psychology. It's not a good sign, dude. Means you should spend less time whinging about "political correctness" and more time getting your head right*.

There is BTW no "politically correct garbage about men always being predators." There is actual fact about rapists always being responsible for rape. Yes, that even includes when you encounter people prone to risky behaviours or bad decisions. Their bad decisions don't ever, in any case, nullify your responsibility for your decisions.

If you're looking for excuses or ways to wriggle out of this, you're the problem.

(* Addendum: Just cutting off the red-pillers would be a good place to start. That whole game is about deliberately inculcating you with vicious bullshit -- "rape-baiting / playing hard-to-get is asking for it" is a great example -- in order that the justifiable disgust of others sends you scurrying back where they can whisper in your ear about how it's all the fault of "cultural Marxism." The end-point is to make you into one of those repellent little neo-Nazi robots who sports a Pepe avatar, writes letters to the editor claiming that women are parasites who never invented anything, tries to boycott Star Wars movies that have the balls to say the Empire were the bad guys and so on. If they haven't sucked you in fully yet, don't let them.)

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[CyranoJ]

I love it when the trash takes itself out.

I guess there is that.

I'm honestly just kind of waiting at this point for someone to show up and do a Rocket Raccoon routine with this. "Look, we all agree rape is bad... but it's not black and white. Like, suppose I want to have sex with someone, and they say no? But then I ask them again, and they still say no? But I really want to have sex with them. Are you really gonna tell me that's rape? You people always want to deny the complexities of the real world."

PervOtaku already came pretty close to this, but I'm sure there must be one more contestant ready to take it into the end zone.

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[CyranoJ]

BTW, love the creepy new avatar!

Ithankyou. The Babadook is life.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Over on reddit, we've taken to calling it "rape baiting". And yes, it blurs the lines quite a bit.

There are seven billion people in the world. I'm prepared to believe that there among them are a few women who get off on posting rape-baiting fantasies to Reddit and Tumblr, and perhaps even some who do it for reals. But it really doesn't complicate things for everybody else.

If some anon person posted on Reddit about how they loved sneaking into supermarkets and replacing bleach with delicious beer in fake bleach bottles, no sane person would look at that and go "okay, maybe I should pour my friend a glass of bleach".

If it turns out that 10% of all "bleach" is actually beer, that's still not a good reason to give your friend a glass of bleach. Hell, if 90% of "bleach" was beer, you still wouldn't take the one-in-ten chance on poisoning your buddy. But for some reason, a lot of guys think "there's a small but non-zero possibility that she's playing hard-to-get" is adequate justification for ignoring a woman's "no".

It's like: "rape is bad! But if I can convince myself that there's even a tiny chance this isn't rape, then that's enough for me!"

By all means enjoy nonconsent/rapebait as fantasies, as long as we're clear that it's not a significant consideration for how you should behave IRL when somebody tells you "no".

Yeah, except tell that to every woman in the history of the world that's played "hard to get" with a guy. No means no, except when no means yes, and the problem for guys is there's no way to really tell.

This is not a "problem". It is a very easy situation to deal with: if you don't know whether she wants to have sex, do not fuck her. Same as if I offered you a glass and said "I think this is bleach but maybe it's beer"; the obvious and correct answer is "nope".

Yes, it means that once in a very long while you might miss out on no-harm-no-foul CNC sex. It also greatly reduces your chances of being a rapist and seriously harming somebody. This is not a difficult choice for anybody who values the well-being of their sexual partners.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What do you mean, "there's no way to tell" whether or not someone wants to have sex with you? You really can't tell? You're that bad at reading social cues?

FWIW - I'm autistic. I'm terrible at reading social cues. In hindsight, I'm pretty sure I've missed out on quite a few opportunities to have sex because I didn't notice when people were flirting with me, or I noticed but didn't realise they were serious.

Yet somehow I still manage to navigate this stuff and find consensual sexual partners. I use my words; I make it clear that I'm interested, and give people an opportunity to indicate consent. Sometimes they don't, in which case I leave it there...and sometimes they do

And if anybody ever did say "no" and mean "yes" to me, well, (a) I've done my little bit to teach the rest of the world that they ought to say what they mean, and (b) if somebody is that mixed-up about communication, I'm probably not missing much anyway.

Ithankyou. The Babadook is life.

It's been weird seeing the non-Australian world discover the Babadook. I saw it three years ago, enjoyed the film, pretty much forgot about it, and now suddenly it's everywhere.

 

[cuck72]

Total faggot humiliation in front of the girls

I'm looked up to at work by the guys and girls. They don't know I'm very submissive in my fantasies. I get in trouble at work, So I think of my boss in his office making me go to my submissive knees and suck him off to keep my job. In there he has a couple of the girls I work with getting to watch. They would see my 4 inch hard little dick and laugh.

 

[CyranoJ]

It's been weird seeing the non-Australian world discover the Babadook. I saw it three years ago, enjoyed the film, pretty much forgot about it, and now suddenly it's everywhere.

Funny how these things go, isn't it?

For what it's worth I've been 'Dook from Day One, a phrase I just completely made up.

I'm looked up to at work by the guys and girls . .

Not trying to play thread cop or anything mate, it's just that if you're looking for playmates you need Fetish & Sexuality Central. It's being-hit-on-the-head-lessons in here.

 

[cuck72]

Funny how these things go, isn't it?

For what it's worth I've been 'Dook from Day One, a phrase I just completely made up.



Not trying to play thread cop or anything mate, it's just that if you're looking for playmates you need Fetish & Sexuality Central. It's being-hit-on-the-head-lessons in here.

Ok I understand Sir, thank you for being nice about it.

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[PervOtaku]

Just to amplify what LeandraNyx already said: to believe "playing hard to get" indicates anything at all similar to "no means yes" -- with "every woman" no less -- is like 100% authentic actual rapist psychology. It's not a good sign, dude. Means you should spend less time whinging about "political correctness" and more time getting your head right*.

Holy fuck, did you just take me entirely out of context? I did not say every woman plays hard to get and no means yes. I said every women who plays hard to get. I make no remarks on what fraction of total women they represent, other than it's a non-zero number.

There is BTW no "politically correct garbage about men always being predators." There is actual fact about rapists always being responsible for rape.

And again, entirely out of context. I did not say rapists are not predators. I said men are not always predators, or not always rapists. A non-zero number of men are predatory rapists and a non-zero number of men are not predatory rapists.

Look, no matter how much the anti-rape crusaders hate the idea, there are some women who like rape stories, or rape roleplays, or rape whatever, and there are men willing to help them out with that. Essentially all such people do not encourage or condone actual rape of victims who do not want it. Do not conflate the consensual practice of extreme kink with illegal or immoral activity.

"No" never, ever means "yes," the only exception being when it's been negotiated in advance and then the chosen safeword fills in for stuff like "no" and "stop" and "fuck off." Really, truly, it's not that complicated.

I've literally heard stories from men who backed off from a girl saying "no" only to be told the next day that she was disappointed he didn't press onwards. I've also heard from the women who engage in such behavior. By no means do I think this is normal or common, and as far as we know it could just be bullshitters posting lies on the internet. But I think this does occur in small but non-zero quantities.

And frankly my usual advise to men who suspect a girl is playing "no means yes" is to not take the chance, because you don't want to be wrong about that.

nobody said that men are always the predators and women are always the victims.

Maybe not here, but that theme is out there being promoted by a lot of people.

Wanting to actually rape someone is not "a kink."

Well, agreed, but wanting to be raped is. (Though not a common one, of course. Although a lot of women do want some subset, i.e. rough sex without specific rape overtones.)

I guess there is that.

I'm honestly just kind of waiting at this point for someone to show up and do a Rocket Raccoon routine with this. "Look, we all agree rape is bad... but it's not black and white. Like, suppose I want to have sex with someone, and they say no? But then I ask them again, and they still say no? But I really want to have sex with them. Are you really gonna tell me that's rape? You people always want to deny the complexities of the real world."

PervOtaku already came pretty close to this, but I'm sure there must be one more contestant ready to take it into the end zone.

That's making it all about the rapist. I'm talking about when the victim isn't a victim because she wants it. Again, it's not at all common, I would never make an assumption that any given victim of rape falls into this category, mostly because girls that wanted to be "raped" don't turn around and complain about being raped. This is not something you hear about outside of rape-fantasy-focused web forums and all the women who leave favorable comments on non-con erotica stories.

There are seven billion people in the world. I'm prepared to believe that there among them are a few women who get off on posting rape-baiting fantasies to Reddit and Tumblr, and perhaps even some who do it for reals. But it really doesn't complicate things for everybody else.

Agreed.

It's like: "rape is bad! But if I can convince myself that there's even a tiny chance this isn't rape, then that's enough for me!"

Nor would I ever any such a thing. Remember, the context of this discussion is who is out there enjoying non-con erotica. And all I'm saying is, these are the kind of women that do.

By all means enjoy nonconsent/rapebait as fantasies, as long as we're clear that it's not a significant consideration for how you should behave IRL when somebody tells you "no".

Absolutely.

This is not a "problem". It is a very easy situation to deal with: if you don't know whether she wants to have sex, do not fuck her.

Well it's more a problem for the girl doing it than it is for the guy, frankly. But I mean look, take the sex and rape out of it for a minute. Men and women have been slinging bullshit at each other during courtship since time immemorial, including "playing hard to get". Nobody's saying "Yeah! Rape the bitch!", but these are games that some women do play on varying levels.