Mind Control Really Non Con?

[Neonurotic]

What makes a Mind Control story? Can you write a Mind Control story without the sex in the story being non consent? And really, isn't non consent, rape? I'm trying to write a Mind Control for Survivor this year but it all seems it should be in the Non Con category instead.

Why shouldn't Mind Control and Non Con categories be merged?

 

[sr71plt]

I don't see that. You can condition someone to consent. A "yes" response is all that's required for consent. That's pretty much the definition of the word. To hold that "they may have said yes, but they meant . . ." is you projecting your own opinions on the nature/quality of their act.

 

[Neonurotic]

I'm trying to separate the two in my mind so that I can write the story and place it in the correct category as Literotica has stipulated. Is there some story device that makes it Mind Control rather then Non Con?

 

[3113]

What makes a Mind Control story? Can you write a Mind Control story without the sex in the story being non consent?

Dude, I don't get it either. I agree totally that it's really hard to separate the two and I don't see why mind-control stories aren't in non-con. Is that category really so popular it needs its own section?

That said, I think what distinguishes the two is that non-con has the person still aware and saying, "No! No!" while mind control has them saying, "Yes, of course I want to..." It's a matter, I think, of how the reader wants their non-con. Resisting, aware, having to surrender, vs. unaware that someone is getting the better of them. Mind control has that flavor of a dirty trick, of revenge. The mind controlled person thinks this is what they want while they are being mind controlled, and can come out of it horrified that they did it. While the mind controller get to have what they want easy, no fight, no fuss, no resistance.

The non-con person never thinks they want it, and they know they're doing something unwillingly, reluctantly and under protest. They're horrified it happened to them, not that they did it "willingly." At least, that's the difference I see in the two.

 

[Weird Harold]

Is there some story device that makes it Mind Control rather then Non Con?

Yes, the story device is called "Mind Control" -- duh.

Mind Control encompasses things like telepathy, magic, hypnotism and some types of drugs.

Non-consent encompasses things like coercion, blackmail, date-rape, force and other types of drugs.

The different types of drugs are those which remove the ability to consent and those that incline the victim to consent or become submissive.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm trying to separate the two in my mind so that I can write the story and place it in the correct category as Literotica has stipulated. Is there some story device that makes it Mind Control rather then Non Con?

In my mind control pieces, I have at least the curiosity/buried desire of doing it, even if there initially is a great reluctance, in the mind of the "receiver" character before the "pitching" character goes to work. And I don't initiate the sex act(s) until the "receiver's" inhibitions have been overcome to the extent that there is a genuine, even if still reluctant, yes (or the level of sex acts follows the arc of the "receiver's" acceptance, even if won by subterfuge). At the same time the "pitcher" could be just feeding the "receiver" a load of bull to get what the "receiver" wants. If there's a "yes," though, it, pretty much by definition, is no longer nonconsent.

If you assume that they really don't mean "yes," that's you interjecting your own biases on them.

But if you are uncomfortable either writing or reading it--or can't see the difference--just don't do it. It's pretty silly to do something against your nature just for something as lame as the Survivor contest here.

 

[Neonurotic]

Yes, the story device is called "Mind Control" -- duh.

Mind Control encompasses things like telepathy, magic, hypnotism and some types of drugs.

Non-consent encompasses things like coercion, blackmail, date-rape, force and other types of drugs.

The different types of drugs are those which remove the ability to consent and those that incline the victim to consent or become submissive.

Both examples appear to the same to me. -- thanks.

In my mind control pieces, I have at least the curiosity/buried desire of doing it.

Thank you, that helps me to decide.

 

[oggbashan]

I wrote a mind control story hypnotic. It is four Lit pages.

I'm not wholly satisfied with it, particularly the changes of viewpoint at the end, but the characters explore the non-consent difficulties of Mind Control.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Please bear with me if you can here...

This is just such an AMAZING area, really... I dunno for sure, but I think probably ALL (fiction) writers have some interest in human psychology at its most complex levels.

By 'complex' I mean that creative people are going to think in such different ways - moving into far and strange fields - and maybe sometimes too, they discover or uncover certain truths about humans; truths that are far ahead of the times they live in. I can readily think of H. G. Wells or Huxley or Orwell, but of course there are so many others.

I know it is possible to exert very significant mind control. And it is even possible to exert mind control over natural physical material things and to cross the threshold between ordinary human existence and what is highly supernatural. On the one hand, you might take Oggbashan here, for instance: it may be he is tongue-in-cheek and 'literary' about his being King Ogg of Bashan... Or, he might really be Ogg. One thing is benign, and the other, filled with consequences.

I think just today or yesterday some Swedish University came out with some idea that creative people, especially writers (how 'bout that?!), are actually crazy - including some supposed evidence that a high proportion of them have family members with various mental issues such as autism, and that they are overly-represented in suicides!

However every real writer knows that half the reason they write is to communicate unique experiences they are privy to and that they want to share, often to see if there are any others with any kind of similar experiences. These unique experiences are not because 'they are crazy,' but because they are far more advanced than the people of their day. Fiction foreshadows reality. And why does it do that? Certainly not because scientists are smarter. No. Creative people are smarter. And seem sometimes very crazy.

Wilhelm Reich, widely dismissed by many mainstream psychologists and scientists, more or less 'captured and put in a bottle' - albeit through arguably speculative writing - what is now scientifically acclaimed as some wildly advanced thing called the Higgs-Boson. But he was onto it first. Others will argue this but they are wrong. He was onto it first.

I think there are a number of movie directors particularly who are extraordinarily gifted mesmerists, or hypnotists, if you like. I rank Roger Vadim as the absolute best. He never made a truly great movie but he married a large number of the most beautiful women in the world - too many, really, to account for it by simple things alone. In every movie he made you will literally witness his female stars be put into a trance - not, I believe, that they may have realised it at the time - and they suddenly undergo incredible change; of personality, of presence and aliveness, of persona. I believe he 'made' global superstars out of very ordinary people.

His key scenes have been copied continuously: Bardot's tango scene borrowed and exploited successfully in 9 and a 1/2 Weeks, The mirror scene in Night Games into Basic Instinct's famous interview scene. That's just to name two important instances.

These actresses had no idea what was happening to them. I don't believe so, anyway. Would they give away their fame and wealth? It is moot.

I have made a study of their techniques and probable knowledge, based on what is available to know of their own educations and knowledge-base and exposure to this type of, let's call it, psychology.

At some point I arrived at a personal belief that I had amassed quite some techinque myself... But no sooner than I had considered that this might be true, than the problem of the ethics or morality of coersive strategies entered my own mind...

I note that without makeup Sharon Stone is not as hot as popularly imagined, however, were it possible to literally manifest oneself magically into her bedroom - does the creepiness of such a thing stop me, that is, would it...? Would I prefer to somehow have her close to full personal consciousness, and somehow SEDUCE her... And only resorting to some blurred edge of 'mind control' so that you got a legitimately intelligent return from a consciously sexual being. Or would I prefer to simply truss her up both physically and mentally and just procure non-consentual sex and then wipe her mind totally of what happened, so that the 'pleasure' and incident was known only to me?

I cannot say what my decision might be. Both sides of the equation have pragmatic attractions.

But let me suggest that those of you who have access to good download speeds, look up 'Alucidnation' on YouTube, and listen to and/or watch 'The Infinite Variety' or 'Deep Rez' by Alucidnation - and try to juxtapose the scenes either of extreme seduction, or extreme mind control and physical restraint, against these soundtracks and audio-visual ideas.

I hope you will agree then with me after that, that total mind control and non-consentual sex are real things and are like a huge tidal wave or erotic force that happens to the victims - and that erotic sex itself is like some kind of metaphysical continuum, where towards one extreme end of it, it merges and blends with cosmic nature itself. The only mind control that is ultimately truly possible, is one that works absolutely in harmony with the real, active, present and numinous erotic undercurrent of the Cosmic Universe itself.

There may be weaker forms of mind control, but at its very highest, it is Cosmic and coersive; one can only submit to it or become an apostate of the Eros of Life...

One can only wonder what if a glamorous and sexual attractive person, came upon the same tools and knowledge, and started to work it in the other direction, and you were the victim yourself of a forcibly coersive intent and action.

 

[sr71plt]

My mind control pieces tend to be less cosmic: someone who is clever and who latches onto someone vulnerable manages to maneuver to get into their pants and to at least make them think eventually that this is what they want.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Well, yeah - you're of course right too. Reduced to what Hollywood calls the log-line, the thing amounts to what you say as one fundamental kind of 'backbone.'

I always wonder about the built-in-by-nature effect of hormones and neurotransmitters, and that perhaps, 'nature' - which is why I also say 'the Cosmos' - places a sort of underlying general form of coersion in there.

When you take the generic story to its specific levels about 'persons' and specific individuals, then the generic compulsion of sex has to morph into some reason to encourage someone's specific response to another specific human being.

In the fictional context I just always want the protagonist to be able to nail the target, as it were! Not sure I really have any moral constraints about it. That is to say, in fact I don't think that I do.

As far as actual storylines go though, there is a clearcut difference between a story proposition where mind control was employed, and then sex took place - and a deliberate proposition about a subject's responses to not being given any choice (non-consent) at all when sex took place. The two storylines are different but personally I think they are both valid and are potentially also very engaging and entertaining.

I think the difference in the two storyline types is in the clearcut deliberate intention IF non-consent was to be an actual feature. Again though, I don't have a strong moral problem with the latter. And that's because I don't see sex on its own as negatively-loaded or harmful - but then there are other related issues that might be. So my moral compass would be set around the harmful factors - which might include psychological factors or medical issues - and this would determine how I made my story run.

Does hindsight acceptance of what was essentially enforced, mind control, mean a kind of retrospective consent...? Yes, I think it does.

So, whatever immediate belief the 'victim' experiences and that they feel to be valid and without feeling major self-doubt, determines whether it was ADEQUATELY consentual or not.

The thing resolves as a spectrum - where 'adequate' forms the qualification, the blurred edgespace which defines the consent threshold.

 

[naivesluts]

While they seem really similar when you dissect them logically, I feel they are definitely different enough to merit different categories. In fact, Mind Control is one of my favourite categories to read and I very rarely ever read a Non Consent story.

For me, the magical element is a huge part of Mind Control. The fact that - in most cases - the situation is categorically impossible really creates that "fantasy" vibe that I prefer in my erotica. I know many read or write erotica to capture a plausible scenario (like most in Non-Con), but I would actually say that Mind Control is far more similar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy in that it is creating an implausible universe; despite the similarities in power dynamics/resistance from the "victim".

Am I totally off base, Non Con fans?

 

[sr71plt]

Although I think mind control can be done as SciFi, I would not agree that it's principally connected to SciFi. It--the effort to control someone else to do what you want by mind games--is principally tied to basic human nature, I think. Although I put my mind control stories in historical scenarios sometimes, I don't employ any magic at all. To me, that would cheapen it as a theme to develop.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Am I going out on a limb here...? What is objectionable about rape is that it is pure negative violence and the removal of all rights of one person by another.

Non-consent...? A different - and a difficult and complicated matter. Non-consent might be only some 'stage' in what is a robust tussle over a sexual act or THE sexual act. Non-consent all the way - that is, where the non-consent remained afterwards, is hard to justify morally, even in a fictional story.

In my view, in order for non-consent to have some moral validity in the playing out of a sexual event, there needs to be rights granted to the non-consenting person - even if that person is vastly overpowered so that they can really not at all prevail if they tried. Without the moral dimension being considered, one is not writing erotica, but horror and/or shock fiction.

...I think.

 

[JonB1969]

Mind control isn't necessarily about making people have sex with you regardless of their personal choice. That would non-consent, ie, rape.

Its more about people doing sexual things they would have never thought of before (in my opinion), fulfilling particularly risque fantasies (for example) or doing something sexual they have never done before (like a threesome or anal sex).

So I hope this helps separating the two. It is a bit of a fine line but non-consent is non-consent period.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

A "yes" response is all that's required for consent.

It has to be "informed" consent. For example, if you are drunk you might consent in a non-informed way. Or drugged. Or if you are under age. Or if you are under duress: "consent, or I'll kill you!".

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I know this is asking for trouble to raise this, but - what if a person, after they DIDN'T consent, and something happened, ended up LIKING what happened...?

 

[sr71plt]

It has to be "informed" consent. For example, if you are drunk you might consent in a non-informed way. Or drugged. Or if you are under age. Or if you are under duress: "consent, or I'll kill you!".

No, it just needs to be a genuine "yes" response. (You could discuss what is "genuine," of course, but it doesn't include the requirement to be informed.) Being drunk really doesn't equate to being uninformed, by the way.

I'd say a pretty large majority of folks make most decisions they make without being sufficiently informed. It doesn't prevent their decision from genuinely being an intentional one.

Legally, if you are underage, you can't make such a decision--you can do the act, of course; any "yes" just isn't valid, though, and the pitcher has a legal responsibility to know that. So, this discussion is irrelevant to that case.

If you are under duress, it's highly arguable whether you can make a genuine "yes" decision. In any case, being informed or not has nothing to do with that.

The point of mind control (at least in my writing) is that the receiver is conditioned to give a genuine "yes." I usually go beyond that in my own writing--I have that "yes" lurking there under the receiver's inhibitions, and what happens in my mind congrol is that the pitcher brushes away the inhibition through mind games to get to the basic "yes' that's there. It helps, since I'm writing male-male situations that I believe that everyone is basically bi anyway. The purists use of mind control in this way can be seen in habu's (one of my pen names) book, Cairo Surrender. This also can be seen in such stories I've posted to Literotica as "Honey Hollow Swimming Hole."

 

[sr71plt]

I know this is asking for trouble to raise this, but - what if a person, after they DIDN'T consent, and something happened, ended up LIKING what happened...?

"What if" in what context? If it's in the context of whether such a story can be posted to Literotica, the answer is "yes." It's the basis of most of the Nonconsent/reluctance stories posted here, I think. If it's in the context of whether it's morally right to write such stories, I'll give that a pass. I don't come to Literotica to have others try to dictate their morality to me on a porn forum.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I read some of your posts here and there, sr71plt - and they pretty much clearly say the kinds of stuff I believe/think. 'Reluctance' I suppose, was what I was thinking about in my question.

In my own mind and thoughts, any real situation of 'non-consent' is sometimes very clear, and then again in some other cases very very blurred. Obviously so-called Stockholm Syndrome is relatively more obvious in that it involves taking the subject away from a normal context in which their feelings would be truly legitimate responses.

But the type of situation you touched on - an underlying bi capability, that was not recognized or even socially trained into hiding (by what is otherwise 'normal' society) - is difficult for me to clearly define as true 'non-consent...'

I mean I know I might sound like I'm going round in circles but look at the situation of a child being given flu shots - they might TOTALLY not give consent, but the thing 'might' be good for them (don't want to get into debate about the medical world though!!! It's just an analogy here...) In my thinking, sex is often just like being a child with inadequate knowledge and experience; first you think you don't consent and then you 'find out' that you might or you do in some cases.

My personal judgement of this issue resolves in other things actually apart from sex itself (i.e. the sex act/acts): there are boundaries to aggressiveness and force beyond which things turn into pure pointless violence and lack of proper consideration for the other person. Thought experiments in writing though, I accept as a philosophically necessary freedom - and so, in writing, anything goes as far as I'm concerned. I fall on the extreme end of libertarian there; I might not write certain stuff myself but I accept the right of others to.

Of course the beauty of fiction is that writers can experiment with difficult ideas without creating anywhere near as much consequence as they would if someone were to simply experiment actually on actual people to test a moral question!

'Informed consent?' I am inclined very much to agree with what you said on that. I would even go so far as to say the phrase is meretricious. People hope that it means much much more than it actually can. 'Informed...?' How well informed?

Love and sex and even lust and erotic psychology generally and all of this is much more of a mystery to me than it apparently is to quite a number of others - who must know a hell of a lot more about it all than me. And I'm sure I'm VERY well-informed and highly knowledgable.

(btw You wouldn't believe I'm a massively busy guy with a fulltime professional job, would you?)

Best to all

 

[sr71plt]

But the type of situation you touched on - an underlying bi capability, that was not recognized or even socially trained into hiding (by what is otherwise 'normal' society) - is difficult for me to clearly define as true 'non-consent...'

True. I think I've been speaking to reluctance, though (and where I see the difference is between that and nonconsent)--and how mind control stories can be an approach to the reluctance issue. I explore reluctance a lot in my writing. But the reluctance is in being inhibited to let one's true desires be let loose. The nuance in my mind control stories is the motivation of the one engaging in mind control. I can as easily write it as a liberator or someone who just wants to get in the other person's pants. I think either type of character in these situations can be valid.

I would agree with those here who say that there isn't really any difference between nonconsent and rape and that nonconsent only exists at Literotica as part of a category (it's paired with reluctance) as a way to get around the ban on rape fantasies here--that the formula here is to write the rape fantasy and then tack a "however, she realized--or came to realize--that she liked it, so it's all good that it happened" ending on it.

So, nothing I've been posting has been trying to rationalize "nonconsent," I don't think.

I've written and posted some of these formula stories myself--but that's because I can separate reality from "let-all-the-stops-out" fantasy, and I'm writing erotica because the mainstream I also write gets too confining for me. So can erotica, although the limits are farther out there. There are times that I want to let all of the stops out, though. That doesn't mean I'd actually do any of that stuff--it just means sometimes I want to let my writing go over the edge to see where it would go without limits.