Non-Consent

[Nezhul]

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

 

[rutger5]

Apologies Gotham_Central I'm writing this post but I have no intention of posting in this thread again no matter what is said but I can't help from commenting on something here.

(Here's something I think is a positive: there are jurisdictions in England considering making misogyny -- sexist abuse, harassment, boasting about rape et cetera -- prosecutable as a hate crime. Which is fair game because misogyny has in fact been the gateway drug in radicalizing many current neo-fascists, the Proud Boys and "red-pillers" and neo-Nazis and MRAs and general vile parade of scum-baggery that constitutes the Alt Reich. Going out and publishing nonfiction books boasting about how many people you raped would plausibly qualify under those guidelines and if it did, I wouldn't have any problem with similar standards being adopted elsewhere. That's a radically different business from publishing fiction or fantasy.)

I'm curious Cyrano, I understand many of your fellow travelers wish to criminalize any speech they disagree with but I have to say at least in the US right now it is unlikely that you or those that share your views would be the ones deciding. Maybe if Hil had won you might have a chance to work at the Ministry of Truth and decide what speech qualifies as misogyny and what qualifies as hate speech. Better watch it Nezhul, if Cyrano becomes big brother you are in trouble. Wait, your profile says you are in Russia so you already have real big brother, don't reply to what I said or you could be in actual trouble.

Boasting about real crimes you've committed isn't a crime in US or a lot more rappers (among others) would be in jail today. But if someone actually committed rapes (where there is a complaining victim)and then brags about it then this should be part of the evidence in their trial and should help to convict them. Speech should not be crime, no matter how offensive, though I understand that sadly isn't the case in much of the world including Canada and some of Europe. Hate crime is also doublespeak as I don't really care why someone hit someone in the head with a bat, that is a serious crime, much more so then someone scrawling a swastika on a bench with a magic marker.

Btw LeandraNyx, I don't doubt that the human brain isn't fully developed in a teenager so I wonder do you advocate for raising the age to at least 25 for driving, drinking, and most importantly the voting age. The last one certainly sounds like a worthy idea

 

[CyranoJ]

I'm curious Cyrano, I understand many of your fellow travelers wish to criminalize any speech they disagree with

Thank you for being today's contestant on "Can You Get to TL;DR in Less Than Twenty Words." Congrats: you got there.

Mr. Rogers, show the nice lad what he won!

 

[Primalex]

You're trying to argue that children as young as thirteen are able to give informed consent, but the science doesn't agree with you. The reality is that the brain is still developing up until the age of 25, and up until the age of 18 children largely lack the ability to reign in their impulses, accurately assess risk, and properly judge situations.

Being a child is equivalent to being mentally handicapped. That's why we don't allow children below the age of 18 to live on their own, or take out loans, or enter into contracts of their own will. It's the same with sex,

Ahem...

Is it possible that you don't know that the age of consent in 31 states of the US is 16 years and only for 12 states it is 18 years?



(I recommend that you actually read the criminal code of the various states before replying. I did. I don't want you to enter a discussion with me unarmed. Which is another interesting thing, because in Montana 14-year-olds can legally own a rifle. No idea what neuroscience says about that.)

(Disclaimer: I'm not really interested in this discussion. My pet peeve are people who post dumb shit about the legal system.)

 

[Sammael Bard]

As much as I like discussions and heated debates, I'd prefer if you people stayed on topic and discussed what you preferred to see in a non-con instead of dictating what others should and shouldn't fantasise about.

Deleting a bunch of comments means I'll have to trawl through the hellishly long replies, which I'm not remotely interested in.

So:

Take a deep breath. Read the OP again. And then reply to this thread.

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[Nezhul]

Pedophilia and misogyny, cute.

I didn't forget about you, either, mister

How do you like the taste of all the science, bitches?

OMG, Someone's ass is burning so hot right now.

And on topic of pedophilia and misogyny - It's you who spout child-hating and demeaning nonsence. And it's your logic that's one step away from misogyny and other cool things. Not mine.

You are quite dumb to call me pedophine, because not in one post I expressed interest in having sex with pre-adolescent people. The fact that I protect children's rights to have certain freedoms makes me a pedophile. Riiiiiight.
Well, you call them mentally handicapped, that makes you child hater, abuser and an advocate for taking away their freedoms and rights (because they don't know any better).
[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

This is what people with logic like yours came up with.

 

[JasonClearwater]

Hey OP

Getting back to the topic at hand, what's good in non-con.

For me, I liked to read stories where the victim was coerced into doing something they didn't want to do. If they feel pleasure, that's great, as long as it's not fifteen orgasms in ten minutes, since that screws my suspension of disbelief, and as long as the enjoyment isn't a complete mental switch from their previous state.

Meaning, you can acknowledge that the body and the mind have two very different agendas when it comes to sex. You can physically want to have sex with someone, while completely rebelling against it mentally (with the mental decision being the one that matters, since consent is all about the cognitive decision to enter into something, regardless of how your body feels about it).

The war between body and mind is something I like to explore in detail myself as an author, although I don't always write what gets me off personally. (Mostly because I get interested in the characters, and the sex just becomes part of their journey instead of the focus).

I don't like reading 'He slammed his cock into her arse'. If other people are getting traction with 'slamming' cocks into arses, please let me know. I'm always interested to learn something new. But to me, that's deeply unsexy.

I like it when the tormentor insists on pleasuring someone against their will, and that doesn't come from a lack of care. The opposite. It comes from careful, considered manipulation of someone's desire.

I like it when things ramp up - when tamer acts lead to more involved, more invasive intrusions on the person's sense of self.

I like the build of suspense, and hammering home the loss of safety before anything happens.

Sometimes it's good to see the tormentor's thought process when they're gaining power they haven't had before over someone else. That can be a lot of fun, because the actual power lies with the object of THEIR desire. They've just stolen it temporarily.

And I like it when the victim still retains a sense of self. Still has a spark. I don't like stories that end with the victim (usually a woman, since there's not as much gay non-con, sadly) completely compliant and willing, and then ending up calling her tormentor 'sir'. I don't like that complete surrender of mental self. Physical self, sure. But it turns me off when a person allows themselves to be turned into an object, even if their tormentor objectifies them.

One thing I've noticed is that non-con is definitely driven by people's kinks, not just the non-con element. My highest rating stories involve cuckolding - views are four times as high on those stories.

 

[HaremStarter]

One thing I've noticed is that non-con is definitely driven by people's kinks, not just the non-con element. My highest rating stories involve cuckolding - views are four times as high on those stories.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Incest non-con so I can see how this holds true.

I think for me for Non-Con to work for it's fullest extent one of the participants truly has to be against having sex with the other in the beginning.

 

[PervOtaku]

Geez, so much activity in just the past week.

Cyrano wasn't saying that women aren't at the center of their own rape fantasies. Of course, they are. He was saying that actual rape isn't the fault of the victim, but rather, the rapist is 100% responsible for the action and its consequences.

Well, no disagreement there, but are we talking about actual unwanted rapes all of a sudden? I'm talking about women with some degree or other of rape fantasy/kink. I mean we need to agree which thing we are talking about here or the conversation will be very confusing.

It's a tad ironic that you would say this, while simultaneously claiming to speak for a demographic you don't belong to; this thread is filled with women who have rape fantasies who are telling you that your view is skewed and yet, you continue to ignore them.

I'm not "speaking for" anyone. I'm just describing what I've seen and heard elsewhere. This thread isn't the only place with rape kink girls.

For the bazillionith time, no. It's not. The line between actual rape and rape fantasies/consensual rape play is not "fine." It is a thick, bold line that everyone seems to be able to see just fine, except for you, for some reason.

It's a fine line talking about it for this exact reason because I can't say a damn thing about letting women have a rape kink without people accusing me of supporting unwanted rape.

Look, I'm not sure what ugly corner of the internet you frequent--where women apparently talk about "rape baiting" and shame their partners for being "too respectful" on a regular basis--but you need to stop going there. Those sorts of places will--and it seems they already have--drastically skew your view of women--particularly kinky women--in dangerous ways.

I already mentioned reddit and I've said repeatedly that I'm perfectly aware they aren't representative of normal women by any stretch of the imagination.

why dear god do you feel the need to enter into a conversation about healthy, consensual rape play to insist that, actually, sometimes women want to be raped for real?

Yeah, do you think I believed it the first time I read it? Of course not.

You shouldn't. Blurring that line as an excuse to promote actual rape

Full stop. I never promote unwanted rape.

... they are still not actually talking about literally wanting rape in the vast majority of cases. And in that minority of cases where there is someone appearing to invite rape or some kind of irresponsible non-con "play" in front of one -- yes I know they exist -- that's still not an excuse for raping someone.

Never said it was. The guy who falls for such a ploy is still a scumbag rapist. Look, you're not raising any points I haven't heard before. The "failure to get myself raped" stories from these baiting girls are actually pretty reassuring in terms of how many guys out there are or aren't sexual predators.

She's as close as anyone I've ever encountered to actual "baiting," and yet even for her the act was about baiting a facsimile of rape which was about the marks believing they were having their way while she was still secure and in control of the situation.

Sound like we're describing the same thing and all that's left is the semantics. If the mark believes what he's doing is real, then the only real control the girl has is to surrender and cooperate, which is pretty much what typically happens. If you want to call it a facsimile of rape that's fine, I mean some distinction between baited and unwanted rape on the girl's part is definitely useful for context.

Yep, that's strike three for moronic recycling of rapist psychology. No, someone seeking out consensual nonconsent play does not literally want actual rape. That you keep trying over and over and over to blur that distinction tells me your sounding like a creepy redpiller is no accident.

You're clearly not paying attention. This is about rape victim psychology, not rapist psychology, and baiting is at a level far, far above consensual nonconsent play on the rough sex/victim kink scale.

I am 99% certain that no one reads a Stephen King novel and thinks, 'Oh gosh, I'd really love to be carved up by a clown tonight!' (except maybe a couple of crazy German guys). And while maybe one in a million people read IT and thought, 'Gosh, I'd really like to be a clown and carve someone up tonight!', most people are riding the fear for the thrill of that moment when they hit the light again.

I often make a comparison with horror movies or thrill rides like roller coasters. Triggering a fear response is quite an exciting thing, and people do it all the time in order to get a thrill. (Usually with no actual threat present or sufficient safety measures in place, though there are also some really stupid people out there that land themselves in the hospital.)

So mix this with sex and what do you get? Non-consent stories, cybersex non-consent roleplays, men and women that like to watch simulated rape scenes from Hollywood films and/or hardcore porn. Mix it with actual sex and now you're into consensual non-consent play, which is as far as most people ever take it, as far as a man should ever take it, and really as far as any reasonable woman should take it. (The women with quite a bit less reason than that, well we know that controversy already.)

I think a lot of people - writers, critics, readers - fear rape scenes way too much.
It seems that they think that by writing a sexy rape scene you are promoting rape, justifying it and making it "allright" to do in a real world. As if by making a rape scene exciting and sexy you are actually making more people to commit rape, or making other people hate rapists less and let the bastards do their thing.

That's not the case at all.**

Hear, hear! And by extension, women who admit to finding any aspect of rape exciting and sexy can find themselves similarly shamed by others. It's not really an easy kink to have in that regard.

People with weird and wacky fetishes like furries, or ballooners, or giantess stuff, or even taboos like bestiality and (non-molesting) incest, we say "haha that's weird, you're strange, but to each his own I guess". Bring up rape and the torches and pichforks come out. Not without good reason, mind you. As I've said it's really tricky to talk supportively about women's rape kink without people thinking you are in favor of genuine unwanted rape.

Well, on the point of separating things, I'm always writing non-con sci-fi so far.

I do mostly monster stuff.

I do have the one non-monster story where a guy finds out about a woman's kink for rape cybersex and then stalks and rapes her. Every blog page I have I wrote "Yeah, but don't ever actually do that even if you have the opportunity." Main point of the story was a "careful what you wish for" kind of thing, I wanted to do a head trip on non-con loving women who read it. The character does go through some confused trauma before finding herself firmly on the side of wanting more. Then I continue to blur the lines between real and roleplay, wanting it and not. Fictionally. Because head trip. And yeah it's pretty dark.

Any rape/non-con fantasy innately already has every needed red flag for people to understand it's not OK.

Well, one would hope, anyway. I mean one generally expects that the other folks around are proper civilized people in possession of such understandings. The alternative isn't nice to think about.

There is no reason you can't construct a fantasy universe in which, say, rape and war are inherently and fairly obviously bad but many of the characters revel in both and the reader is left to navigate some moral grey areas.

Hell, there are much worse examples out there. Go read about the Gor series by John Norman. It's pretty much every iteration of "Men treating women like shit because that's what the culture is here, but it's okay because the women like it, and the ones that don't will before too long." I mean it's pretty intentionally misogynistic stuff from what I know of it. And one might suggest it's "all in good fun" as long as you don't take it seriously (without a like-minded partner behind closed doors).

 

[CyranoJ]

Meaning, you can acknowledge that the body and the mind have two very different agendas when it comes to sex. You can physically want to have sex with someone, while completely rebelling against it mentally (with the mental decision being the one that matters, since consent is all about the cognitive decision to enter into something, regardless of how your body feels about it).

The war between body and mind is something I like to explore in detail myself as an author, although I don't always write what gets me off personally.

I definitely agree with this. The mental aspect of sex generally and non-con specifically is often the most interesting part of erotic writing for me; it's what can take the proceedings beyond the level of workaday tab A into slot B and make a scene genuinely hot.

(I do try to make the sex part of a larger arc or story... but I vastly prefer to write something that gets me hot as part of that. I try to have something there to really satisfy readers who come looking for the sex, something that would authentically get me hot as a reader if I came back to it.)

 

[Nezhul]

WHo's the moderator that keeps editing my posts? At least leave your name when you do, so I can talk to you.

Because while I COULD see how you can stretch forum rules to edit my first post - I can not, for the life of me, get how you found the last fragment you deleted offending them in any way.

So yea, would like to hear how your thought process went about this "last warning".

 

[sr71plt]

The moderators are clearly identified for the separate forums on the discussion board main page. Beyond that the moderator for "Story Feedback" has posted as the moderator to this thread.

 

[Daniel_Matthews]

WHo's the moderator that keeps editing my posts? At least leave your name when you do, so I can talk to you.

Because while I COULD see how you can stretch forum rules to edit my first post - I can not, for the life of me, get how you found the last fragment you deleted offending them in any way.

So yea, would like to hear how your thought process went about this "last warning".

Any time volunteer mods edit your post, you'd see a "last edited by" under your posts. Apart from Laurel and Manu, everyone else is a volunteer mod. Laurel doesn't leave that trace.

When you see the "Last Warning" thing, it means you've dragged out Laurel into your mess. Could've been spam, advertisement or underage advocacy stuff. If you post anything of that nature again, you'll be banned. Her decision is final.




FYI, Laurel's the owner of this place.

 

[Nezhul]

meh...
don't really ahve anything to say to that, apart from - stupid. Especially that last edited-out bit that doesn't even break any of the forum guidelines - it's just that she didn't like it, apparently. But yeah, I guess her house - her rules. I just don't think they are very smart rules.

Ban me if you will, but that's just stupid-ass site management.
p.s. oh yeah, and if you DO ban me - don't forget to remove all the rest of my stories from ere, because I'm not giving you permission to host them in that case.

Cheers.

 

[Yerkiddin]

For those of you who are fans of the genre, what do you look for in a story? What are the "must have" elements? What makes it a story you'll come back to time and again? And possibly more important, what ruins it for you?

What do I look for? Can't answer. Too many fun things.

Must have? My favorite stories are where a guy is seduced. Almost the slower the better. (once you get a woman's slopes slippery, she's hard to say "no" to!) ;-) Another set of stories that I find fun are where a guy has lost a bet, and gets used by woman or women as a sex toy of some kind. (Even more fun if it's the guy's wife that lost the bet, and the guy gets tasked to make good on that!) These are examples of stories I keep coming back to.

What ruins it for me? Snuff. (not into that) Scat either.

 

[Hypoxia]

ObTopic: (Non) Consent can be firm or squishy. NO means no. NOT NOW means later, maybe. NOT YOU means them, maybe. I'D RATHER NOT means [sigh] I'll put up with that for now - but you're history, probably. Force means rape. I've written of a guy raped by his sister. Hey, this is fantasyland. Believe nothing of what you read here.

 

[fertile_babygirl]

For those of you who are fans of the genre, what do you look for in a story? What are the "must have" elements? What makes it a story you'll come back to time and again? And possibly more important, what ruins it for you?

For me, it's complete loss of control taken from you. Literally. Even if the character being taken wants it in some form... the fact is the other individual takes what they want regardless of the main characters feelings on it.

Oh, and a good non-consent story for me usually involves lots of dirty talk and humiliation. Just what I like. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy a non consent with no filthy talk.

What ruins it for me is when the non consent is TOO rough and maddening. I guess my idea of being taken against my will in fantasy land would involve me not being truly hurt. So I don't like in the story where the aggressor comes off as he has no feelings towards the main characters life and well... sorta well being.

Gosh, That got complicated.

 

[kropotkin]

Non-consent, consent, and safe words

I'm not a fan, so I apologize to the originator of the thread. I am very interested in the manipulations of language used to justify the assault that is inherent in non-consenting sex, which seems a long way to say rape. From the outside looking in, I will say that there is a facility for consent and non-consent. This language provides several safe words without any equivocation:

"No" means no. "Stop" means stop. "Don't do that" or "I want to stop" mean don't do that and I want to stop. "Quit it" is a variation of stop. "Let me go" means let me go. "I'm leaving" means I'm leaving. "I don't want to" means stop forcing me. "I'm yours" contradicts the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments and therefore is of no legal consequence in my country.

"Yes" means yes. "Go ahead" means continue or start. "Continue" means continue. "Love it" means go on or try something else similar, or move to the next act. "Do it" means ready and do it.

There are many variations, but these are clear.

If you play the contrary, where "no" means yes and yes means yes, the safe word becomes important and everyone had better remember and obey it.

Because if I'm on your jury and a victim said "No" or "stop," I'm saying guilty, regardless the code word forgotten in a stressful moment.

 

[JasonClearwater]

Because if I'm on your jury and a victim said "No" or "stop," I'm saying guilty, regardless the code word forgotten in a stressful moment.

I like to think that we are all extremely aware of this, and this is what fuels the fiction. Knowing that even the slightest hint of coercion where the victim is showing body language or spoken language that shows discomfort is wrong [I'll never argue with this], allows writers of dub-con and non-con fiction to play out everything from the more subtle elements of power abuse to a complete power hijack.

While I'm sure some get confused about the line of consent, and that'll depend on their upbringing, and sometimes on whether or not they've been abused themselves (it helps to have been abused yourself if you're a man... hard to understand the power dynamics of coercion if you've always held the power), as the writers of any category of fiction on here, it's an exploration of dark fantasy, not an exploration of 'things we should do this weekend'.

 

[CyranoJ]

I'm not a fan, so I apologize to the originator of the thread. I am very interested in the manipulations of language used to justify the assault that is inherent in non-consenting sex, which seems a long way to say rape.

The manipulations of language identify the boundaries of fantasy as opposed to reality. "Noncon" is ravishment with the illusion of the loss of control but that ultimately is differentiated from rape by the context of fantasy, the fact that you know roughly what the end point is going to be (those endpoints varying according to the fantasists); the kind of managed flirtation with danger that is common to all forms of violent fantasy, including "horror" and "action." The reality is just rape, which is why protecting the boundaries can become important.

[For further commentary on consent I politely suggest that you just read the thread. There's been extensive discussion already, to put it mildly.]

ObTopic: I went back to the roots of my own NC fantasies today and I'm struck by how much my own tendencies as a writer mirror my initial source of inspiration. My own relationship with the fantasy started with a noncon / aphrodisiac scene in a romance novel, and I'm suddenly aware of how my writing often reflects an attempt to capture what that scene -- from Johanna Lindsey's Secret Fire -- captured in terms of the loss of control, terrified anticipation / disorientation and a final humiliating / liberating orgasmic surrender. I don't think I've yet managed to really replicate the full impact of that scene in my own fiction, but maybe I'll manage it one day.

 

[JasonClearwater]

ObTopic: I went back to the roots of my own NC fantasies today and I'm struck by how much my own tendencies as a writer mirror my initial source of inspiration. My own relationship with the fantasy started with a noncon / aphrodisiac scene in a romance novel, and I'm suddenly aware of how my writing often reflects an attempt to capture what that scene -- from Johanna Lindsey's Secret Fire -- captured in terms of the loss of control, terrified anticipation / disorientation and a final humiliating / liberating orgasmic surrender. I don't think I've yet managed to really replicate the full impact of that scene in my own fiction, but maybe I'll manage it one day.

That's an interesting discussion in and of itself. The original inspiration to explore the genre. I'm going to have a think about that.

 

[Charmolypi]

This thread went every which way but I appreciate the non-con genre. It's also the one that irks me the most when it's done poorly.

Love:

• A suspenseful build up to the actual act of sex
• Aggressor shows care or concern for the receiving party somehow during or after
• Plenty of sexual warm up before any penetration.
• Something about feeling the aggressor's breath on their before any touch always gets me too

Hate:

• The recipient is portrayed as pitifully dumb or lacking common sense
• The phrase "her body betrayed her"
• Sexual acts that cross into plain violence
• Bonus hate points if she then miraculous cums and "her body betrays her" after being hellishly brutalized

And just throwing this out there, what if it wasn't always women being preyed upon? A story with a man in the reverse role would be a refreshing break from the usual.

 

[CyranoJ]

And just throwing this out there, what if it wasn't always women being preyed upon? A story with a man in the reverse role would be a refreshing break from the usual.

I've wanted to transplant this story out of Russia for some time. I hope to have time to take a run at it before the end of the year.

 

[hylas_]

Hey, it's a non-con thread! Sure, I'll play.

I enjoy:

- When the victim is male. Especially if he's a douchy, cocky, arrogant, overconfident, sexist, bigoted, macho bastard. Someone who "deserves it."*

- I'm very much into the "he ends up enjoying it" thing. Combine that with what I wrote above, and we get an alpha male who gets sexually degraded and, to his own confusion, ends up enjoying it.

- I wanna see what's going on in the victims mind, especially the part where he goes from "Hell no!" to "Fuck... I'm enjoying this? What's happening?" to "Ohhhhhh yeah, right there!" I like it if the scenario leads to the victim discovering parts of himself that he didn't know about.

- When the whole scenario is made public, especially the part where the victim is clearly enjoying himself. The public humiliation of it all.

- When the scene ends, and the story implies that the victim will voluntarily be back for more (at which point it's not non-con anymore, I guess.)

- Some violence. Ballbusting. Bondage.

- Scenarios in which it looks for a while like the victim is going to be castrated.

- I'm into scenarios that involve slavery. (Since slaves can't give consent, every scenario involving sex between a slave and a free person is non-con.)

- Some race play: black perpetrator, white victim.

- Supernatural body modification or transformation, to a certain extent.


I'm not into:

- Victims that don't end up enjoying themselves. Victims that only enjoy themselves in the moment, but feel terrible afterwards.

- Female victims. Whoops, there go 99% of all non-con stories.

- Victims that are clearly underpriviledged in some way. Not my cup of tea.

- Same thing for slavery fantasies: no scenarios in which the slaves are, you know, black.

- Extreme violence. Blood. And since I mentioned castration above: I don't enjoy it when the victim gets actually castrated.


* This should go without saying, but pre-emptive strike: It's my opinion that, IRL and outside the purely fictional, entirely unrealistic realm of erotic fantasies, nobody deserves to be raped. In fact, nobody should ever be raped, ever. Rape is awful, consent is great and in fact essential. Good talk, you guys.