NonCon related question

[subdued_passion]

So I recently wrote a noncon fluff piece to get a feel of the genre. Consequently ended up reading a lot of the comments posted in that section which has left me feeling rather confused.

According to Lit's stance on the subject (posted several places by Laurel) my understanding is that gratuitous violence is a strict no and that the torture/ rape should be something that the reader should be able to enjoy from the victim's point of view and not the assailant's viewpoint of inflicting the torture. (Correct me if my understanding is incorrect which I suspect it to be).

Having read the comments on the popular/ well rated stories (didn't read the stories themselves) the most common theme I came across is readers enjoying a story when the victim doesn't end up enjoying the experience and it is "real noncon". They praise the stories that evoke the feeling of repulsion. They criticized stories where the woman ends up enjoying it for being weak to have the woman succumb to the magic dick syndrome.

What the hell am I missing here? I thought you had to make the victim succumb to the magic dick/vag for it to pass Lit's censorship filter.

Again, I strongly suspect that the fault really lies with my understanding so I thought I'd come here and ask for some clarification.

 

[VenusButterflies]

So I recently wrote a noncon fluff piece to get a feel of the genre. Consequently ended up reading a lot of the comments posted in that section which has left me feeling rather confused.

According to Lit's stance on the subject (posted several places by Laurel) my understanding is that gratuitous violence is a strict no and that the torture/ rape should be something that the reader should be able to enjoy from the victim's point of view and not the assailant's viewpoint of inflicting the torture. (Correct me if my understanding is incorrect which I suspect it to be).

Having read the comments on the popular/ well rated stories (didn't read the stories themselves) the most common theme I came across is readers enjoying a story when the victim doesn't end up enjoying the experience and it is "real noncon". They praise the stories that evoke the feeling of repulsion. They criticized stories where the woman ends up enjoying it for being weak to have the woman succumb to the magic dick syndrome.

What the hell am I missing here? I thought you had to make the victim succumb to the magic dick/vag for it to pass Lit's censorship filter.

Again, I strongly suspect that the fault really lies with my understanding so I thought I'd come here and ask for some clarification.

I think NonCon is kinda blurry. While the victim may wind up "enjoying" it -- i.e. cumming/thinking of how good it feels in spite him/herself, etc. -- and ultimately in the end caves to the antagonists (maybe), rape is rape. You can dress it up, make the victim like it, beg for more, but NonCon is just that at the offset -- not consensual. And we're allowed to write that. But it has to have a "point." It can't just be gratuitous violence that allows readers to get off on the violence itself. It can't just appeal to a psychopathic urge for violence. . . . Unless, of course, that's part of the story and there's justice in the end (I think).

In one of my recent stories, readers were actually rooting for the protagonist to not give in. They like the fact that she's a "strong," not-easily-broken character. Why? Beats me. It came as a surprise to me.

But to be honest -- and this might be crossing a line -- I think in order for a NonCon piece to be compelling enough, it should have an appeal for both sides: those who envision themselves as the victim, and those who envision themselves as the perpetrator. (I might get reamed for that.)

I've never written a NonCon where the victim doesn't succumb to the magic dick/vag, because part of the rape fantasy (from the victim's point of view, which is where I write from) is to succumb to it. I'd love to hear thoughts from the other side.

So, that probably didn't answer your question, but those are my thoughts. There's a fine line in NonCon.

 

[allamagione]

Nonconsent/reluctance is a contentious category because it encompasses both nonconsent and reluctance, but not all readers enjoy both. If you dig deeper, you'll see just as many comments along the lines of "This bastard should pay!" and "Not erotic at all, this is just textbook rape!"

It appears to me that the censor(s) of this site prefer to err on the lenient side. But I think plenty of authors read Lit's stance and decide not to risk censorship, so they end up diluting and softening their work. And this is why you see comments praising authors who go the opposite route and keep it rough and edgy. Edgy is the reason many readers are there in the first place.

I know this is potentially shocking and unsettling news, but women do have rapist fantasies. They do have fantasies of having a cock and making someone take it against their will. And I'm not a man, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect there are also men who also have rapist fantasies without any inclination to commit the act in real life. This category is, fundamentally, about the eroticism of power. There are readers who enjoy both sides. They long to identify with both the horror of the victim and the sadism of the perpetrator. Fortunately, the site owners seem to get this.

 

[VenusButterflies]

Nonconsent/reluctance is a contentious category because it encompasses both nonconsent and reluctance, but not all readers enjoy both. If you dig deeper, you'll see just as many comments along the lines of "This bastard should pay!" and "Not erotic at all, this is just textbook rape!"

It appears to me that the censor(s) of this site prefer to err on the lenient side. But I think plenty of authors read Lit's stance and decide not to risk censorship, so they end up diluting and softening their work. And this is why you see comments praising authors who go the opposite route and keep it rough and edgy. Edgy is the reason many readers are there in the first place.

I know this is potentially shocking and unsettling news, but women do have rapist fantasies. They do have fantasies of having a cock and making someone take it against their will. And I'm not a man, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect there are also men who also have rapist fantasies without any inclination to commit the act in real life. This category is, fundamentally, about the eroticism of power. There are readers who enjoy both sides. They long to identify with both the horror of the victim and the sadism of the perpetrator. Fortunately, the site owners seem to get this.

Well said!

And yes, it is definitely about the eroticism of power -- a power that goes beyond the consensual exchange in BDSM.

Also, I've enjoyed some futanari hentai in my day.

When people make comments like "Rar rar textbook rape!" I don't get it. What are you doing in NonCon if you don't want rape fantasies? Sure, there's the reluctant side of it, but come on. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[squirrelzo]

I think its very interesting that the one rule of this category is that the victim has to enjoy it in the end. That it has to be about the woman's pleasure in some way, NOT the offender/rapist. That's as good as declaring ok this is about a certain fantasy of female pleasure.
Sure this category is going to attract nuts and a-holes, but just like incest, the admin has decided expressing that fantasy is worth it despite the potential for abuse.

I have also thought there are prob men with such fantasies who don't want to actually rape anymore than the typical reader wants to commit actual incest.

These discussions have made me think about how very very taboo this all is. It would be no matter if there was actual rape or not. That just messes up the taboo even more.

Nonconsent/reluctance is a contentious category because it encompasses both nonconsent and reluctance, but not all readers enjoy both. If you dig deeper, you'll see just as many comments along the lines of "This bastard should pay!" and "Not erotic at all, this is just textbook rape!"

It appears to me that the censor(s) of this site prefer to err on the lenient side. But I think plenty of authors read Lit's stance and decide not to risk censorship, so they end up diluting and softening their work. And this is why you see comments praising authors who go the opposite route and keep it rough and edgy. Edgy is the reason many readers are there in the first place.

I know this is potentially shocking and unsettling news, but women do have rapist fantasies. They do have fantasies of having a cock and making someone take it against their will. And I'm not a man, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect there are also men who also have rapist fantasies without any inclination to commit the act in real life. This category is, fundamentally, about the eroticism of power. There are readers who enjoy both sides. They long to identify with both the horror of the victim and the sadism of the perpetrator. Fortunately, the site owners seem to get this.

 

[StrangeLife]

It's like Comic-con, except with no comics.

 

[PennLady]

I think its very interesting that the one rule of this category is that the victim has to enjoy it in the end. That it has to be about the woman's pleasure in some way, NOT the offender/rapist. That's as good as declaring ok this is about a certain fantasy of female pleasure.

I don't think the victim has to enjoy it "in the end." As I recall, the victim has to get some enjoyment out of it, but I don't see why that couldn't mean liking something at one point and regretting it at another.

Also, it doesn't have to be about the woman's pleasure -- there are some stories where a man is the victim. Certainly the other is more common, but still.

 

[lovecraft68]

Nonconsent/reluctance is a contentious category because it encompasses both nonconsent and reluctance, but not all readers enjoy both. If you dig deeper, you'll see just as many comments along the lines of "This bastard should pay!" and "Not erotic at all, this is just textbook rape!"

It appears to me that the censor(s) of this site prefer to err on the lenient side. But I think plenty of authors read Lit's stance and decide not to risk censorship, so they end up diluting and softening their work. And this is why you see comments praising authors who go the opposite route and keep it rough and edgy. Edgy is the reason many readers are there in the first place.

I know this is potentially shocking and unsettling news, but women do have rapist fantasies. They do have fantasies of having a cock and making someone take it against their will. And I'm not a man, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect there are also men who also have rapist fantasies without any inclination to commit the act in real life. This category is, fundamentally, about the eroticism of power. There are readers who enjoy both sides. They long to identify with both the horror of the victim and the sadism of the perpetrator. Fortunately, the site owners seem to get this.

You don;t seem to grasp the difference between rape and rapist fantasies.

First off women are rarely the "rapist" so the word doesn't truly apply to their fantasies in the first place.

Now, I have decided I am going to waste my time and explain this.

Rape fantasy from female perspective. The fantasy is as much about relinquishing control as it is the sexual act, being forced to do dirty things that perhaps they feel are shameful so the fact they are being forced against their will justifies that shameful act.

But if the fantasy is making you hot and getting you worked up then you are enjoying it and many women do enjoy it at some point in their fantasies. Which is part of where I think lit got their "have to enjoy it" rule because that makes it rape fantasy, not a reality.

As the cliche goes, you cannot rape the willing. The woman is enjoying her fantasy therefore not truly being "raped"

Now for men it differs. Women are the victims (usually) men are the rapist. Again their fantasy is about control as much as sex. That and "giving it to that stuck up bitch" however in most male rap fantasies the women begins to enjoy it as well.

Why? Mostly because the vast majority of men do not want to actually rape someone even in a fantasy, two, male ego. They are such amazing lovers even their victim starts to love it! So even in most ale rape fantasies the woman will "get into it" so again we are back to can;t rape the willing and simple rape fantasy.

Both version are akin to "don't, stop! Don, stop! Hey, I said don't stop!"

Rapist fantasy? pure and simple no enjoyment at all. The sexual thrill is the humiliation, pain and suffering of the victim. There are no forced orgasms no "Oh, Oh, damn that is good!" Nothing but pain. True rapist fantasy is a predominantly male trait and again its about making women pay for whatever reason and inflicting pain, both emotional and physical, they get off more on pain than the act of sex.

Best example I have seen of rapist fantasy came from a book called MIndhunter written by John Douglas who was pretty much the pioneer in FBI profiling. In fact in Silence of The Lambs SCott Glenn's character was loosely based on him

In his book he interviewed a serial rapist. Now the history was the guy raped quite a few women. he was deliberate, methodical, stalked them for a long tiem learned the routine, whatever. But he raped them he did not kill them

But he killed one. The assumption was she might have somehow identified him or something happened to spook him etc...

During the interview he was asked why he killed the one victim. His reason? The girl- who of course did not know he would have spared her decided to play along. She pretended to enjoy it, even faked an orgasm for him

That's why he killed her. She took his pleasure away because the sole purpose of his act was to hurt her and get off on it. When she pretended to come she ruined his rapist fantasy and he killed her.

That is rapist fantasy. Most stories are along the rape fantasy lines, but many are extreme rapist fantasy, the kind the site claims they don't allow, but since their screening process is a joke so they are all over the place.

 

[lovecraft68]

Seeing I am talking to myself I'll go one more point.

The whole, okay that brutal rape scene you just read? That vicious gang rape? Oh, it was a role play! It was her hubby and some friends acting out her fantasy for her birthday so....hey just pretend.

Okay, fine. The author gives you this brutal scene (where no enjoyment is had as these are the stories I am referencing) but he/she is going to take their foot off the gas and tell you, hey look no one was harmed during the writing of this story.

That's fine and is the end around to lits rule(as if it is actually enforced) But....here is my issue and take on it.

What was the reader stroking to? They were not whacking off going "I bet its a game, I bet she loves it" no they were whacking off the woman getting hurt that is what got them off, hell some might just zip up and never get to the author saying it was not what it seemed.

So sorry, but spin all you want the peoplke truly getting off on the full out non consent stories here are men who want to see women hurt. True rapist fantasy.

and what type of consent or enjoyment is had in the countless date rape drug stories? What consent is shown in the sexual trafficking stories. Woman is drugged wakes up and is gang raped she is sold and gang raped then she is raped again and again and again. No consent just her being raped repeatedly.

Bottom line and I have said an others before me have said it and others will after me.

If the victim has to consent at some point(by showing enjoyment)...

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE A CATEGORY THAT IS CALLED NON CONSENT?

Reluctance would be all they would have if they were anything, but two faced hypocrites.

 

[allamagione]

Please, do continue. Tell us more about what women do and do not fantasize about.

Tell us more about what women truly get off on.

 

[squirrelzo]

That's quibbling.

In the end; at some point; whenever...

I would say the feminine or feminized role. Anyone can occupy it in their fantasy--a man, a woman. If it's two men, would that not be GM or lesbian as the case may be? So we're talking hetero in the NC section.

Yes it could be a woman in the dom role, but the passive part is going to be coded as feminine.

QUOTE=PennLady;58104295]I don't think the victim has to enjoy it "in the end." As I recall, the victim has to get some enjoyment out of it, but I don't see why that couldn't mean liking something at one point and regretting it at another.

Also, it doesn't have to be about the woman's pleasure -- there are some stories where a man is the victim. Certainly the other is more common, but still.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bramblethorn]

What was the reader stroking to? They were not whacking off going "I bet its a game, I bet she loves it" no they were whacking off the woman getting hurt that is what got them off, hell some might just zip up and never get to the author saying it was not what it seemed.

So sorry, but spin all you want the peoplke truly getting off on the full out non consent stories here are men who want to see women hurt. True rapist fantasy.

Some, sure. But I've dated several women who got off on full-out non-consent fantasy, who enjoy reading stories like that and imagining themselves as the victim. At least one was a rape survivor herself. For them, playing it out as fantasy was enjoyable, even though their attitude towards RL rape was very different. People are complicated.

I read and love horror stories but it doesn't mean I want real people to get eaten by giant spiders.

That said, I'm not very comfortable with how Lit handles NC. I think the "must end up enjoying it" rule is problematic; aside from inconsistent application, it encourages the idea that victims will end up enjoying it (and that this retroactively makes it not-rape) if the partner refuses to take no for an answer. And that is a message that's pushed pretty heavily in culture - everything from "Blurred Lines" to "Baby It's Cold Outside" and "Revenge of the Nerds" - so I'm not entirely comfortable with seeing it reinforced here.

If people enjoy a rape fantasy and are clear in their heads that this is Not Okay in real life, go, have fun. It's where it confuses their ideas about what counts as rape that I get twitchy.

 

[Hypoxia]

I read and love horror stories but it doesn't mean I want real people to get eaten by giant spiders.

Some people, anyway.

My stories involving non-con mostly feature a male narrator tied up and abused by his sister. (He's not a wimp; she waits till he's unconscious.) I don't know if that's a common fantasy, but my first such entry got a very good response.

I *do* have a story where a woman is (non-violently but firmly) forced into public sex with the man she abandoned-betrayed. The story did NOT get a good response. (Except for the "a lovely celebration of skankdom" comment.) I'll probably not use that trope again.

 

[Weird Harold]

Having read the comments on the popular/ well rated stories (didn't read the stories themselves) the most common theme I came across is readers enjoying a story when the victim doesn't end up enjoying the experience and it is "real noncon". They praise the stories that evoke the feeling of repulsion. They criticized stories where the woman ends up enjoying it for being weak to have the woman succumb to the magic dick syndrome.

What the hell am I missing here? I thought you had to make the victim succumb to the magic dick/vag for it to pass Lit's censorship filter.

What your missing is that the commenters aren't bound by Lit's fuzzy censorship of non-consent. Non consent is also one of the heavier trolled categories, where commenters often don't read the story before posting their rants.

Making the victim orgasm or surrender to the rapist is NOT the magic formula for passing Lit's censorship, The magic formula is "rape fantasy" as opposed to "rapist fantasy" -- easy to say, hard to define, which is why the censorship is so fuzzy.

 

[subdued_passion]

...
In one of my recent stories, readers were actually rooting for the protagonist to not give in. They like the fact that she's a "strong," not-easily-broken character. Why? Beats me. It came as a surprise to me.
...

...
When people make comments like "Rar rar textbook rape!" I don't get it. What are you doing in NonCon if you don't want rape fantasies? Sure, there's the reluctant side of it, but come on. You're not fooling anyone.

What your missing is that the commenters aren't bound by Lit's fuzzy censorship of non-consent. Non consent is also one of the heavier trolled categories, where commenters often don't read the story before posting their rants.

Making the victim orgasm or surrender to the rapist is NOT the magic formula for passing Lit's censorship, The magic formula is "rape fantasy" as opposed to "rapist fantasy" -- easy to say, hard to define, which is why the censorship is so fuzzy.

I've been reading the comments section in the noncon category, especially of the highly rated stories and the common trend I see is that a story is praised where the writer is praised for writing characters that are not easily broken/ does not give in/ does not end up enjoying the experience. If someone comments saying that it's just rape/ rapist fantasy I've noticed that many readers comments stating that it's noncon and expected- shouldn't have bothered with the section if you don't like that sort of thing. And they're not anonymous readers in fact they're trending on the noncon comments.

My question is if the victim doesn't surrender or enjoy or if you don't end with a "oh it was just a dream/ roleplay" how is it a rape and not a rapist fantasy?

Some, sure. But I've dated several women who got off on full-out non-consent fantasy, who enjoy reading stories like that and imagining themselves as the victim. At least one was a rape survivor herself. For them, playing it out as fantasy was enjoyable, even though their attitude towards RL rape was very different. People are complicated.

I believe victims fantasizing about rape was actually used as a form of therapy as it encourages them to feel in control of a situation that they were actually not in control of and in that sense try to regain some of their sense of power and control over their body.

...
I know this is potentially shocking and unsettling news, but women do have rapist fantasies. They do have fantasies of having a cock and making someone take it against their will. And I'm not a man, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect there are also men who also have rapist fantasies without any inclination to commit the act in real life. This category is, fundamentally, about the eroticism of power. There are readers who enjoy both sides. They long to identify with both the horror of the victim and the sadism of the perpetrator. Fortunately, the site owners seem to get this.

There are lots of studies that show that rape fantasies in women are more common than may think. I remember reading a study once by an evolutionary biologist that proposed that these fantasies are an evolutionary adaptation because rape has been prevalent throughout human history. I won't go all GB and post 20 links here, as the point I'm making is that, yes, I am aware that rape fantasies exist, that they are highly prevalent, and that they are not wrong.

I read My Secret Garden when I was of an impressionable age and learnt about all the fantasies out there and how common the rape one is.
From the book:
"Rape does for a woman's sexual fantasy what the first martini does for her in reality: Both relieve her of responsibility and guilt. . . . She gets him to do what she wants him to do, while seeming to be forced."

^^^ Explains what a rape fantasy is. Now tell me how does getting drugged and raped or kidnapped and raped or sold into slavery and raped where you remain strong- you and your body does not cave in to the torture your tormentors put you through- fit that description.

But yeah, maybe they needed all those pages (in every chapter) of torture that the woman was put through to really set the scene and show you how strong the heroine is.

I personally have no issue either way. I'm just trying to figure out where this line in the sand actually is.

 

[squirrelzo]

Is this lit's officially stated position?

Making the victim orgasm or surrender to the rapist is NOT the magic formula for passing Lit's censorship, The magic formula is "rape fantasy" as opposed to "rapist fantasy" -- easy to say, hard to define, which is why the censorship is so fuzzy.

 

[subdued_passion]

Is this lit's officially stated position?

Lit's Stance on Non-Consent/Reluctance

"As far as sexualized violence for non-plot-motivation reasons goes - some women (and men) enjoy reading about rough, sometimes even degrading sex. My guideline generally is that if I feel a reader with that kink could enjoy placing themselves as the recipient of the sexual roughness, then it's postable. If it's a fantasy written as an aggressor-fantasy with no regard for the recipient, then I may send it back to the author, who can then send it back to me with reasons why I'm wrong - and they're sometimes right."

 

[squirrelzo]

Thank you. I looked all over for this.

So then you could draw some distinction of "rape" vs. "rapist" i.e. "aggressor" but this IS resting on enjoyment vs. disregard for victim. If that's what you want to call it. Its just a way of interpreting lit's policy, not some apparent general term.

Its not necessarily helpful. Someone could use "rapist" fantasy to mean a regular (i.e. enjoyable) rape fantasy seen from "the rapist's" pov, as allamagione was. She's not the one doing the confusing. Who ordained that the "no regard for victim" fantasy becomes the "rapist fantasy."

Lit's Stance on Non-Consent/Reluctance

"As far as sexualized violence for non-plot-motivation reasons goes - some women (and men) enjoy reading about rough, sometimes even degrading sex. My guideline generally is that if I feel a reader with that kink could enjoy placing themselves as the recipient of the sexual roughness, then it's postable. If it's a fantasy written as an aggressor-fantasy with no regard for the recipient, then I may send it back to the author, who can then send it back to me with reasons why I'm wrong - and they're sometimes right."

 

[allamagione]

You don;t seem to grasp the difference between rape and rapist fantasies.

OK, after reading additional comments on this post, I have to admit it. I don't grasp the difference at all. I wish someone could explain it to me so that I could understand why I — a decent, ethical, and relatively docile woman — get off on stories that make other people scream, "This is brutal rape! How is it erotic?"

Rapist fantasy? pure and simple no enjoyment at all. The sexual thrill is the humiliation, pain and suffering of the victim. There are no forced orgasms no "Oh, Oh, damn that is good!" Nothing but pain. True rapist fantasy is a predominantly male trait and again its about making women pay for whatever reason and inflicting pain, both emotional and physical, they get off more on pain than the act of sex.

So is sadism your qualification for a rapist fantasy? Is that what you're saying?

Best example I have seen of rapist fantasy came from a book called MIndhunter written by John Douglas who was pretty much the pioneer in FBI profiling. In fact in Silence of The Lambs SCott Glenn's character was loosely based on him

In his book he interviewed a serial rapist. Now the history was the guy raped quite a few women. he was deliberate, methodical, stalked them for a long tiem learned the routine, whatever. But he raped them he did not kill them

But he killed one. The assumption was she might have somehow identified him or something happened to spook him etc...

During the interview he was asked why he killed the one victim. His reason? The girl- who of course did not know he would have spared her decided to play along. She pretended to enjoy it, even faked an orgasm for him

That's why he killed her. She took his pleasure away because the sole purpose of his act was to hurt her and get off on it. When she pretended to come she ruined his rapist fantasy and he killed her.

That is rapist fantasy. Most stories are along the rape fantasy lines, but many are extreme rapist fantasy, the kind the site claims they don't allow, but since their screening process is a joke so they are all over the place.

If I were to read about this in a nonfiction source, I would be horrified. How is it, then, that the same thing, imagined and dramatized, turns me on? I wish I knew. Clearly I have no desire to experience it in real life, and it infuriates me that a human being would do this to another human being in real life.

But. If we take away any sense of physical enjoyment as a motivation, what are we left with? My answer would be that we are left with an eroticization of power. This person is getting off on having complete control over another person. And that, as evidenced by the subheading of the Lit category, is what this fantasy is all about. Not sex and enjoyment per se. It's about control. Power.

I could hypothesize here about how women are often stripped of power in many aspects of their real life, and this is why they're so fascinated by the concept in an erotic context, but I think that would be vastly oversimplifying it. I think people, both men and women, enjoy fantasies of control for as many different reasons as there are variations of the fantasy.

 

[VenusButterflies]

OK, after reading additional comments on this post, I have to admit it. I don't grasp the difference at all. I wish someone could explain it to me so that I could understand why I — a decent, ethical, and relatively docile woman — get off on stories that make other people scream, "This is brutal rape! How is it erotic?"



So is sadism your qualification for a rapist fantasy? Is that what you're saying?



If I were to read about this in a nonfiction source, I would be horrified. How is it, then, that the same thing, imagined and dramatized, turns me on? I wish I knew. Clearly I have no desire to experience it in real life, and it infuriates me that a human being would do this to another human being in real life.

But. If we take away any sense of physical enjoyment as a motivation, what are we left with? My answer would be that we are left with an eroticization of power. This person is getting off on having complete control over another person. And that, as evidenced by the subheading of the Lit category, is what this fantasy is all about. Not sex and enjoyment per se. It's about control. Power.

I could hypothesize here about how women are often stripped of power in many aspects of their real life, and this is why they're so fascinated by the concept in an erotic context, but I think that would be vastly oversimplifying it. I think people, both men and women, enjoy fantasies of control for as many different reasons as there are variations of the fantasy.

Maybe "fantasies of control" isn't quite hitting it. I have fantasies of powerlessness. I'm the victim in all my fantasies. Or, you could say, I'm the aggressor against myself.

The thing about the rape fantasy is that it's a paradox. When we fantasize about it, we're in control of everything, from the how the aggressor looks to what s/he says, to how rough it gets. So is it really a rape fantasy? Yes.

It's not about the particulars. It's about the essence of the thing. The feeling of the situation. Perhaps it's about what we've defined for ourselves as an acceptable amount of powerlessness to have, that we get off on. Powerlessness that goes beyond contracts and rules and safe words, powerlessness that we're uncomfortable enough with that gets us off. It's a sort of powerlessness that goes beyond our defined, real-world limits. It's not about what happens in the rape fantasy, it's about what we feel and think is happening. That's what I get off on when I fantasize about it. The images are just metaphors of the same thing to get me there.

 

[allamagione]

The thing about the rape fantasy is that it's a paradox. When we fantasize about it, we're in control of everything, from the how the aggressor looks to what s/he says, to how rough it gets. So is it really a rape fantasy? Yes.

That is the thing, isn't it? When I'm writing a rape story, I'm 100% controlling what happens. And when I'm reading one, I can always back out of it if it gets too intense for me. Either way, I'm in control.

Here is a recent example of a story that I think pushes the boundaries of Lit's stance. It's a power fantasy, not a powerlessness fantasy. I found it erotic, but I think plenty of people would give me the side-eye for that.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Lit's Stance on Non-Consent/Reluctance

"As far as sexualized violence for non-plot-motivation reasons goes - some women (and men) enjoy reading about rough, sometimes even degrading sex. My guideline generally is that if I feel a reader with that kink could enjoy placing themselves as the recipient of the sexual roughness, then it's postable. If it's a fantasy written as an aggressor-fantasy with no regard for the recipient, then I may send it back to the author, who can then send it back to me with reasons why I'm wrong - and they're sometimes right."

So what this means is that there is no bright-line test. Every story is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There is no rule--only guidelines. Not particularly helpful, but still good to know.

 

[VenusButterflies]

That is the thing, isn't it? When I'm writing a rape story, I'm 100% controlling what happens. And when I'm reading one, I can always back out of it if it gets too intense for me. Either way, I'm in control.

Here is a recent example of a story that I think pushes the boundaries of Lit's stance. It's a power fantasy, not a powerlessness fantasy. I found it erotic, but I think plenty of people would give me the side-eye for that.

I found it erotic too. No side-eye here!
I think that was a really good example of a story that pushes the boundaries. It definitely toes the line.

But there's still a difference between that, and a story about how a serial rapist killed one of his victims for playing along. It's a different sort of power, a different sort of urge. On one hand, you have someone who gets off on violence alone, and on the other, you have someone who gets off on the objectification, degradation, and use of women. In that story, the guy wants his victim to cum. That's in opposition to someone not wanting their victims to derive any sense of pleasure from the act whatsoever. In my opinion, it's a totally different level.

 

[squirrelzo]

Its a bogus, confusing terminology.

The distinction per lit is some form of enjoyment vs. Just hurt the bitch, whatever

Apparently this is the so-called rape vs. rapist terminology.

Its silly. Every "rape" so-called includes a rapist, and every "rapist" so-called includes a damn rape.

Its a made up way of looking at things that no one has the right to lecture you or anyone else for not "understanding."

There's so much bull in that post Its not worth thinking about.

OK, after reaeding additional comments on this post, I have to admit it. I don't grasp the difference at all. I wish someone could explain it to me so that I could understand why I — a decent, ethical, and relatively docile woman — get off on stories that make other people scream, "This is brutal rape! How is it erotic?"



So is sadism your qualification for a rapist fantasy? Is that what you're saying?



If I were to read about this in a nonfiction source, I would be horrified. How is it, then, that the same thing, imagined and dramatized, turns me on? I wish I knew. Clearly I have no desire to experience it in real life, and it infuriates me that a human being would do this to another human being in real life.

But. If we take away any sense of physical enjoyment as a motivation, what are we left with? My answer would be that we are left with an eroticization of power. This person is getting off on having complete control over another person. And that, as evidenced by the subheading of the Lit category, is what this fantasy is all about. Not sex and enjoyment per se. It's about control. Power.

I could hypothesize here about how women are often stripped of power in many aspects of their real life, and this is why they're so fascinated by the concept in an erotic context, but I think that would be vastly oversimplifying it. I think people, both men and women, enjoy fantasies of control for as many different reasons as there are variations of the fantasy.

 

[allamagione]

I found it erotic too. No side-eye here!
I think that was a really good example of a story that pushes the boundaries. It definitely toes the line.

But there's still a difference between that, and a story about how a serial rapist killed one of his victims for playing along. It's a different sort of power, a different sort of urge. On one hand, you have someone who gets off on violence alone, and on the other, you have someone who gets off on the objectification, degradation, and use of women. In that story, the guy wants his victim to cum. That's in opposition to someone not wanting their victims to derive any sense of pleasure from the act whatsoever. In my opinion, it's a totally different level.

I see your point in regards to the part in boldface, although I'm still scratching my head over the pleasure part.

If we have a story from an aggressor's POV, in which the aggressor has no regard for whether their victim enjoys the act... that's not quite the same thing as the aggressor getting off on the victim not enjoying it. I realize I'm splitting hairs here, but LC gave an extreme example. I've never read anything like it in Lit's Noncon category.