Fandom definitions: non-con and dub-con

[ratherastory]

Hola, flist!

Okay, I can no longer claim to be new to fandom (damn, has it really been almost a year and a half?), but there are still aspects that I find hard to define/quantify/whatever.

This has popped up lately because of a problematic fic (which I haven't read, I will hasten to point out), in which there is apparently an issue of consent. Without getting into the actual debate about posting warnings (for the record, in fandom my rule of thumb is "better safe than sorry" and "add warnings if your readers inform you that they found the material triggering"), I would like to clarify the whole notion of dub-con and non-con.



"Dub-con" is something I had never heard of before fandom. I used to be a pretty active member of a feminist group back when I was in university (yes, back in the dark ages), and so as far as I was concerned, until I got into fandom, the issue of consent was pretty cut-and-dried. No means no, is the catchphrase I live by. Being pressured into sex means no. Being drugged unconscious before sex means no. Feeling like you have no choice but to have sex means no. No means that any attempt to have sex with you is an attempted rape. A husband who has sex with his wife when she tells him she's not in the mood is, in fact, committing rape. In short, I err on the side of caution when it comes to that.

Okay, so rape is not a term I see often in the warnings for fic. Rape usually gets translated into "non-con." Which, okay, I can understand, because the term itself can be triggery.

So what, exactly, constitutes dub-con? I figure this HAS to be a grey area, so I'm curious to hear opinions on the matter. Readers, what do you consider dub-con? Writers, when do you decide to warn for dub-con?

Also, if you feel like staying anonymous, that's fine, just keep it civilized. :)

Comments

[ratherastory.livejournal.com]

If one of the parties involved in sex says no to the other, it's noncon, no further debate.

That's my take on it too. I was trying to figure out where people in fandom consider things to be a "grey area" as it were.

The idea of someone "enjoying" rape or falling in love with the rapist appalls me to such an extent, I can't even begin to discuss it rationally. Just no. No no no. No. And furthermore, no.

[4thejourney.livejournal.com]

There are real life cases where a rape victim "falls in love" with the abuser but it isn't really love- I'd call it Stolkhome(sp?) or something and it's defo still noncon in my book. And just because a body responds to physical stimulus and "enjoys" it doesn't make it consensual either.

[katwoman76.livejournal.com]

It's called Stockholm Syndrome.
But that's not love, that's survival instinct so to speak.
Sadly in fandom it often is written as epic love.

[4thejourney.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with you entirely, but maybe I wasn't very clear in my comment what I meant, sorry :-p It REALLY bothers me when they do the "rape can turn into true love" thing :-(

[katwoman76.livejournal.com]

Nono, you were clear. IMHO we are thinking the same thing.
I always want to scream at my laptop "that's NOT love, that's someone with Stockholm Syndrome. Don't try to claim it's an epic romantic love story!!!",

[4thejourney.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. In fact, when I finally came across a few fics that actually portrayed it as such (Sam bring coerced, tortured, brainwashed, whatever to the point where he began saying yes or thought it was love) I was glad. Not "haha this is such a happy fic" glad but glad to see it shown for what it really was, not as "if I hurt you enough you really will fall madly in love with me." :-(