Non-consent

[SeraphNocturne]

Time to close not only the thread but the whole of Lit then.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Laurel has in this website her Guidelines of what is acceptable to publish and what is not, and while author's personal opinions of that are their right, they don't necessarily have any control over or right to judge anyone else for what they choose to publish... and that is also in her rules, regarding kink-shaming.

I'd leave it open if I were you Alt and I would ignore anyone who has proven reading isn't their strong point and is getting drastically off topic.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Every fantasy is fine unless it has direct negative consequences. As was mentioned here already, non-con is just an euphemism for rape. This is not the first thread about this category (nor the last) but over time I learned that even those among us who have a problem with rape stories have different reasons for that. For me, it's the real-world consequences. In that previous thread, there were links to some scientific evidence that actual rapists, to put it simply, get enticed to commit rape by reading (or watching) such fantasies. There were a few who questioned the research and evidence and that is all fine by me. Nothing should be accepted without a rigorous process. But the surprising thing for me was how so many participants of that discussion simply ignored the evidence that was linked there and kept talking about something else entirely.
To be completely honest and blatant here, this is how I see a typical author of rape stories: hands over the ears, singing LA-LA-LA I write rape non-con stories and they are just a fantasy, I am doing no harm LA-LA-LA.
It pisses me off because it is the same attitude that made the world a deeply unjust and ruthless place because we are just living our simple lives and we are not responsible for anything that happens out there, right? All the crap that even our own governments do all the time, we are not responsible for it - It is not like we have the power to stop it, right?
Sorry for getting all political there.
There is no conclusive evidence (I think?) that rape stories cause real-life harm. Yet. But there is SOME scientific evidence that points in that direction, and while it's fine to question it and demand further research before we restrict that incredibly important freedom to write sexualized rape stories, ignoring it is simply an act of an irresponsible and selfish mindset.

The evidence only suggests that rapists like to read about rape. We've discussed the cause and effect in another thread, and there is no real proof that rapist rape because they read about it. Quite the contrary, they rape because they enjoy raping and read about rape because they enjoy raping.

 

[SimonDoom]

The evidence only suggests that rapists like to read about rape. We've discussed the cause and effect in another thread, and there is no real proof that rapist rape because they read about it. Quite the contrary, they rape because they enjoy raping and read about rape because they enjoy raping.

This is as good and succinct a summary of things as I've read.

 

[djrip]

And so is rape. But I'm not talking about rape, haven't been talking about rape, explicitly excluded rape in my first post and yet we're all talking about rape.

Which, incidentally, is banned by Lit.

Why do people keep saying rape is banned on lit? No it's not. There's a whole category for it. What is banned is rape in which the victim gets no enjoyment, and permanent injury or maiming or snuff.

 

[Altissimus]

...and in the 'real world' pretty much every noncon story would be illegal.

The action might be illegal, but the story isn't.

Probably late to be printing a clarification, but what I meant was "if one did what most noncon stories on Lit described one doing, one would be breaking the law". I appreciate the stories themselves are not illegal.

 

[John_Vandermeer]

I wasn't going to wade any further in to this thread, but you pulled me back in, damn you @seraph_nocturne! There's R in NC/R for a really good reason. I don't write NC, I write R. There is a massive part to play with stories of reluctance and power exchange where the "victim" is actually the one driving the narrative. I find stories where they are reluctant *because* they are hesitant to discover and embrace their own desires are by far the most interesting in this category. My NC/R stories almost always have an out, via a safeword or some such thing, that would stop everything, but the victim never uses the out because they are on a journey to see how far they can go to find the thing they need (which, yeah, uh... then the crazy shit as you said).

In that light, a rape fantasy, if it's the recipient opening up to new experiences, is fascinating. If it's just turning the woman into a ragdoll for the MMC's delight (with obligatory consent get-out clause at the end) then, no, I've got other things I could be doing.

That's very meta, but have been debating this exact point with @John_Vandermeer elsewhere - the idea of the author as the sadist, inflicting tormented scenarios on the reader, feeding the reader's masochistic need to be horrified, made powerless or vicariously humiliated through the identification with the victim: wouldn't that be deliciously awful if that happened to me?

In NC/R more than a lot of categories, you're taking the reader on a ride that is a lot more Haunted House than Magic Teacups. As in LW, it's tapping into the little dark fear inside us all, and twisting the knife just for the fun of it.

Guys and gals. This thread has had longer, more thought out responses than just about any thread I have read on AH so far. I have refrained from adding my two cents beause I am currently not able to add a long, well thought out response on my own. Fortunately for the thread, it has been mostly devoid of moralistic, inquisition type incursions that previous discussions on NC have had. Good job!

I am going to add my voice to those that broadly see there is more nuance to NC/DubC/CNC than all of it simply being "rapists getting off on what they really want to do." I also know the desire for such writing often comes from the masochist/receiver side, not just the sadist/perpetrator side. I support the existence of NC/R, and just finished writing a seven chapter short novel in it, and do not take kindly to the marshmallows that are trying to "cancel" such writing because it is distasteful to them.

I do think there is an eventual line in noncon, but even if an author crosses it it does not automatically mean ill intent. We certainly ought to explore where that line is, and if nobody ever crosses it what that really means is such exploration was not being carried out in earnest. As @oneagainst can attest, I often debate with some of the themes that I explore that push boundaries --race play, homewrecker play, and yes rape play among others-- how far to go so as to not cross a bridge too far. Again, so long as we are cognizant such things are triggering, and give a fair warning to those likely to be triggered, I believe there should be room for all of it.

 

[Altissimus]

Why do people keep saying rape is banned on lit? No it's not. There's a whole category for it. What is banned is rape in which the victim gets no enjoyment, and permanent injury or maiming or snuff.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[djrip]

And so is rape. But I'm not talking about rape, haven't been talking about rape, explicitly excluded rape in my first post and yet we're all talking about rape.

Which, incidentally, is banned by Lit.

So now we have a situation where we have an entire category that covers *a gamut of* styles and content from reluctance through to non-con and evrerything in between, and Lit doesn't call it 'rape'. Here we are, on an author's forum for that self-same Lit, taking about the non-rape aspects in a category that isn't, for Lit and literary erotica purposes, regarded as rape, and yet some folk are - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "it's still rape though, isn't it?"

Well no, it's not.

I've presented numerous examples of (C)NC that are not rape.


What about manslaughter? Is that evil? What about murder-mystery parties? Evil? Euthanasia? Abortion? Fifty shades of grey.


Not true, I would respectfully invite you to re-read.


I have, as I've already said, defined CNC and reluctance in direct response to your question. And, I think, pretty clearly. I haven't 'appropriated' a term (that is anyway ill-defined and arguably oxymoronic) and in the definitions I've given I can guarantee you that while there may be sensitive 'real-world CNCers' (another oxymoron) finding it 'reprehensible', there are also those engaging in such pastimes on a daily basis that... don't.

Show me the definition of CNC that I'm polluting? Let's ask Google.

"What Is Consensual Non-consent? Consensual non-consent (CNC) is a form of sexual activity involving behaviors like bondage and submissive and dominant traits. Though the name suggests “nonconsent,” it does not necessarily mean that the sexual interaction is sexual abuse."

Yep, that fits some of what I said...

"In a consensual non-consent, while indulging in sexual activities, both partners agree to act out their forced sexual fantasies and fetishes."

...and that fits other aspects.

But hell, I don't really care what we call what I've described so long as it's differentiated from rape.

I also note we are now *so far* from my original question that it's probably time to close the thread.

CNC is play acting bdsm stuff, the end. In stories it's what I have called the "we're just kidding" gambit. Rape story until the end reveals they were just playing. The rest of the scenarios you described fall under reluctance. If there is some kind of coercion it's arguably non-con, ie real rape. That's fine. It's fiction.

 

[Altissimus]

CNC is play acting bdsm stuff, the end. The rest of the scenarios you described fall under reluctance. If there is some kind of coercion they are arguably non-con, ie real rape. That's fine. It's fiction.

It occurs to me there may be a cross-the-pond distinction here. CNC certainly has a broader meaning in circles I'm aware of, but tomato/tomato. It doesn't really matter what something is called, it matters what it means, and I've explained that I think.

 

[MillieDynamite]

There is always the option, if you don't approve of something, don't read in that category.

 

[djrip]

It occurs to me there may be a cross-the-pond distinction here. CNC certainly has a broader meaning in circles I'm aware of, but tomato/tomato. It doesn't really matter what something is called, it matters what it means, and I've explained that I think.

You know that's a good possibility. After all they call fries chips over there.

 

[AlinaX]

And crisps too.

Walker's potato chips, with just a hint of reluctance. Would you consent?

 

[Altissimus]

There is always the option, if you don't approve of something, don't read in that category.

But... but... how then can you feed your righteous indignation?

 

[MillieDynamite]

It depends on how righteous your indignation is or if it's just wallowing in self-pity or anger that you're turned on by something you hate. Maybe love to love to hate is closer to the truth.

But... but... how then can you feed your righteous indignation?

 

[Altissimus]

It depends on how righteous your indignation is or if it's just wallowing in self-pity or anger that you're turned on by something you hate. Maybe love to love to hate is closer to the truth.

I wouldn't know tbh. I don't get the mindset. Reminds me of the conservative religious types who loudly protest while secretly titillated. Go take a long look in the mirror, folks.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Sorry, Vampire, no reflection. It's a bitch, really, having to trust Jo that I look good.

I wouldn't know tbh. I don't get the mindset. Reminds me of the conservative religious types who loudly protest while secretly titillated. Go take a long look in the mirror, folks.

 

[yowser]

That’s an interesting dilemma… since you’re smack in the middle of the categories, I guess the deciding factor would be whether or not the NC/R crowd would be tolerant of a homosexual story, or whether the GM crowd would be tolerant of an CNC story. You might have to do some research and consult with people who publish more commonly in either category.

I’ve only happened by one story written as gay NC recently, and the story did well in category at a reluctance angle, but I feel like someone like KeithD might be able to better weigh in on how tolerant the GM category would be of a CNC story.

To respond to this specific question: a very early effort of mine, while still trying to figure out the category business and everything else here in fine print, I did a NC story, emphasising the 'reluctance' end of the spectrum (protagonist could have opted out of the scene, but had been blackmailed-forced into the corner, and reluctantly elected to continue.) So male masturbation in the first story with the threat of MM action, migrating to MM contact in the second (and a change in category.)

Going by score? My worst numerical rating ever, by a fair margin. As others have pointed out (and which I had not gathered back then) ANY male-male sexual contact pretty much belongs in GM, the readership doesn't really like it otherwise.

 

[Altissimus]

To respond to this specific question: a very early effort of mine, while still trying to figure out the category business and everything else here in fine print, I did a NC story, emphasising the 'reluctance' end of the spectrum (protagonist could have opted out of the scene, but had been blackmailed-forced into the corner, and reluctantly elected to continue.) So male masturbation in the first story with the threat of MM action, migrating to MM contact in the second (and a change in category.)

Going by score? My worst numerical rating ever, by a fair margin. As others have pointed out (and which I had not gathered back then) ANY male-male sexual contact pretty much belongs in GM, the readership doesn't really like it otherwise.

You can mitigate a lot of this with an Author's Note that includes tags front-and-central.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

To respond to this specific question: a very early effort of mine, while still trying to figure out the category business and everything else here in fine print, I did a NC story, emphasising the 'reluctance' end of the spectrum (protagonist could have opted out of the scene, but had been blackmailed-forced into the corner, and reluctantly elected to continue.) So male masturbation in the first story with the threat of MM action, migrating to MM contact in the second (and a change in category.)

Going by score? My worst numerical rating ever, by a fair margin. As others have pointed out (and which I had not gathered back then) ANY male-male sexual contact pretty much belongs in GM, the readership doesn't really like it otherwise.

Duly noted yowser, and thank you for chiming in, nice to have some insight from one who has experienced it first hand.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I have read much of @Altissimus' work, and he has read a fair amount of mine... there is some mutual attraction... I believe (if you'll forgive the double entendre).

That said, our definition of CNC, NC, and "rape" differ somewhat... and that's fine.

My own personal definitions, based in my own idiosyncrasies and understanding of the English language are:

CNC: A game two lovers agree on, i.e. "pretend rape" (regardless of whether it's in a story or real life).

NC: Non-consent. A polite name for rape. It covers a wide range of categories within erotica, but it would all be horrible in real life. As soon as the potential victim says "No" if the aggressor proceeds, it's noncon. (For the record, gagging someone who is trying to say no doesn't change anything... That's still noncon).

Dub-con: The potential victim never says "No" but also never says "Yes." Their feeling are unclear. Still horrible in real life. (While in real life that technically includes date rape, within erotica, I consider date-rape noncon, because you've rendered the victim incapable of saying no... The same as gagging someone).

Rape: Everyone knows what this means. It's a blanket term, although I quite often use it to refer to violent rape.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Edit: I came to this discussion this morning in a bad mood over unrelated matters, and about 80% of the snark in my post here is due to that rather than things you've said. I don't have the time or spoons right now to rewrite this in the gentler tone that it should have been in, so I'm just going to apologise for the grouchiness up front.

And so is rape. But I'm not talking about rape, haven't been talking about rape, explicitly excluded rape in my first post and yet we're all talking about rape.

Beg pardon. "Nonconsensual sex". Definitely not rape! ;-)

Which, incidentally, is banned by Lit.

Why do people keep repeating this claim when it's so obviously untrue?

A few of the stories published in NC/R within the last 12 months:

So now we have a situation where we have an entire category that covers *a gamut of* styles and content from reluctance through to non-con and evrerything in between, and Lit doesn't call it 'rape'.

(except when they do)

Here we are, on an author's forum for that self-same Lit, taking about the non-rape aspects in a category that isn't, for Lit and literary erotica purposes, regarded as rape, and yet some folk are - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "it's still rape though, isn't it?"

Sorry, musta been confused by the "nonconsent" in the category name and all the stories with "rape" in the goddamn title.

Well no, it's not.

I've presented numerous examples of (C)NC that are not rape.

"CNC" and "NC" are different, mutually exclusive things. I'll agree that you have posted examples of CNC which aren't rape, e.g. "traditional CNC where permission was granted in advance" and "implied consent within BDSM play", but I'm struggling to see anything you've presented here which appears to be "NC that isn't rape".

It is of course possible to write a story that contains both consensual and non-consensual activities ("not there of own free will | but willing to participate while they are"). That doesn't make the non-consensual parts consensual.

What about manslaughter? Is that evil? What about murder-mystery parties? Evil? Euthanasia? Abortion? Fifty shades of grey.

I'm not sure what "murder-mystery parties" are doing in that list, but in any case, this is still missing the point: while those lines are in some cases difficult to draw, I don't see anybody defining them differently in fiction to the way they define them IRL. There are people who believe abortion is a heinous sin, people who believe it's fine, people who believe it's sometimes-okay-sometimes-not.

I don't see anybody saying "well in real life the word 'abortion' means X, but in fiction it means 'Y'". Where are you seeing that?

Not true, I would respectfully invite you to re-read.

I have re-read, and it's still unclear to me, so I'm going to need you to clarify.

When you say this:

We know it's fantasy, so we have a 'broader' definition of 'acceptable'

Are you comparing "willingness to accept NC acts IRL" with "willingness to write/read about such acts in fiction"?

Or are you comparing "willingness to accept NC acts IRL" with "willingness to treat these acts as morally excusable, when performed in fiction"?

I have, as I've already said, defined CNC and reluctance in direct response to your question. And, I think, pretty clearly. I haven't 'appropriated' a term

...well, yes, you have. You've already acknowledged that you're using it in fiction with a meaning that's significantly different to how it's used IRL.

(that is anyway ill-defined and arguably oxymoronic)

Did you know that a hamburger isn't made of ham? Or that the Lord Privy Seal is neither a privy nor a seal?

Some terms in English can't be understood simply by splitting them into their component parts and summing the meanings of those parts. Sometimes we just have to refer to how they're used in toto. "Consensual non-consent" is one of those times.

"Ill-defined"? To a degree, in the same way that a word like "Britain" might be said to be ill-defined: there's some fuzziness around the borders, and different definitions may not match perfectly. But that doesn't mean France, or even Brittany, is now part of "Britain".

and in the definitions I've given I can guarantee you that while there may be sensitive 'real-world CNCers' (another oxymoron) finding it 'reprehensible', there are also those engaging in such pastimes on a daily basis that... don't.

Show me the definition of CNC that I'm polluting? Let's ask Google.

"What Is Consensual Non-consent? Consensual non-consent (CNC) is a form of sexual activity involving behaviors like bondage and submissive and dominant traits. Though the name suggests “nonconsent,” it does not necessarily mean that the sexual interaction is sexual abuse."

This is a description, not a detailed definition. I could equally well describe pet-play as "a form of sexual activity involving behaviours like bondage and submissive and dominant traits", but that doesn't mean pet play = CNC.

(Do I really need to explain why relying on Google's machine-generated canned answers is a poor substitute for reading critically through some of the links that a search will turn up? Not that the quality of Google's search results is what it used to be, but it's still better than the canned summaries.)

 

[Altissimus]

...grouchiness...

A) already conceded that rape is a thing on Lit. I seem to have a blind spot on this - tbh I struggle to accept how broad the Lit definition is and seem to keep assuming that it wouldn't be allowed. It is, of course. Ok.

B) I don't really care what you call CNC or what term we use to describe the concept of a "non-consent-flavoured premise that presents the 'victim' as willing to some degree or another, with or without implied/explicit consent being given" or however it is being defined. Again, not too fussed about the definition or the label, an acknowledgment of its existence would be a reasonable step forward.

Clarifying these two points would seem to allow me to raise follow-up questions, possibly such as those I asked 72 posts ago at the beginning of this thread where I foolishly mentioned the 'r'-word and dared to put a 'c' before a 'nc' with a degree of artistic licence that reflected the broader way it is used in the real-life circles I'm personally familiar with.

However, at this point I'm resigned to the fact that threads on topics such of these are simply an opportunity for those with a superior moral compass to point out how degenerate I am, and that it is unlikely that any further answers will be coming beyond the smattering of on-topic replies sparsely scattered through the rest of the noise.

Thank you to those individuals.

 

[AlinaX]

You have received a lot of thoughtful responses, and certainly more than this topic usually leads to, so I wish you'd stop acting like a victim just because your definition of CNC is confusing people.

I have answered your original question in my earlier posts, but let me add:
1. With CNC, the characters/participants understand that the scenario is fictional.
2. For Lit's NC/R, the reader knows the stories are fictional, and that allows the reader to perhaps enjoy a scenario that they understand would be horrifying and ultimately traumatic if lived through in the real world.

Where NC/R becomes uncomfortable - and this goes for LW too - is when it feels to the reader that the author is indulging in personal fantasies of hate.

Finally, people complain about Lit's insistence that all participants end up enjoying the sex as if this is profoundly unreal - and I'm not going to argue that it isn't unreal. But that is merely a challenge to the author to create scenarios, however improbable, and make them believable. If that means ending a story before the victims collide with cold hard reality in the aftermath, then that's an easy way out, I guess. Readers don't read fiction out of a desire for more reality; they get enough of that already.

 

[Altissimus]

...stop acting like a victim...

Non consensual arguments.

Where NC/R becomes uncomfortable - and this goes for LW too - is when it feels to the reader that the author is indulging in personal fantasies of hate.

I think this is a really good point.

 

[SimonDoom]

Where NC/R becomes uncomfortable - and this goes for LW too - is when it feels to the reader that the author is indulging in personal fantasies of hate.

I agree, and I would add that this is often somewhat obvious. In a previous nonconsent thread somebody linked to a story that appeared from my perspective to violate Lit's own noncon rules, and there was a disturbing sense that the author really enjoyed the suffering his characters went through and enjoyed the pleasure the assailant got out of inflicting suffering. As soon as I get that vibe I'm turned off.