The boundaries of non-consent stories

[SimonDoom]

I do not read many nonconsent stories, but I do read them and enjoy them from time to time, and I'm especially interested in stories that are on the border of nonconsent - they play with elements of reluctance, force, threats, etc., but they don't dive so deeply into them that they deal with plainly criminal behavior.

I'm curious about what people's opinions are about when a story crosses the line, so nonconsent is the right category. There are many stories that touch on BDSM and nonconsent but many BDSM aficionados feel very strongly that BDSM and nonconsent are completely different animals. I understand the point but I'm not sure this is true for every story.

I'm working on a story that I've preliminarily pegged to be an Exhibitionist story, but it involves person A agreeing to be naked, and ultimately to do other sexual acts in a somewhat public setting, in exchange for an offer made by person B that is so tempting that it is hard to turn down. The consequences of turning it down might cause financial difficulty for person A, although that financial difficulty is not caused by person B. The dynamics of the bargain struck are a major, not incidental, part of the story. Reluctance on the part of person A is a big part of the story as well. I'm still inclined to classify it as Exhibitionist, because bargaining, challenges, and reluctance are common themes in Exhibitionist stories, but I'm curious about other opinions.

I should add that the story does not involve any element of actual physical force or injury of any kind.

So is there some point where the terms of a proposed bargain might make it more of a nonconsent story than an exhibitionist story?

 

[AlinaX]

If it's a threat of physical injury or death, it's cut-and-dry non-consensual. Even if it's emotional/reputational blackmail with long-term negative consequences it's a pretty clear case of non-consensual.

 

[AwkwardMD]

The question is one of leverage, and whether person B is in a position to coerce person A.

 

[HeyAll]

When there's force, the threat of force, blackmail, or if the person has no way out.

I recently wrote an incest story where the mom is a mafia killer and she wanted to leave. She agreed to a ceramony with her son to leave the crime family. The boss pushes it further and has them fuck on camera.

That story was moved to non-con.

 

[Brutal_One]

Non con can be of different types. If e.g hypnotism is used or similar ‘mind control’ it can be written to an extent as if it’s consensual but clearly it’s not.

It can be a struggle to try and write it to be honest in that context. It would be clearly if it was written more from a usual forced coercion like black mail.

Clearly there are readers that do like the idea of non con but it can take many forms but the ‘forced’ element becomes more difficult if it’s trying to be anything than standard rape. Those sorts of stories arguably have little place in LIT but in general it’s better to have characters that have something they gain from the story.

Brutal One

EDIT: another thought on this - in general as humans we tend to move towards the good things {Pleasure} and way from the bad things {Pain}. The Non Con is usually of course in the latter, the writing trick is how you are moving them in that direction!

 

[TarnishedPenny]

IMO, if the financial problem is not caused by the person offering money, then it is not non-consent. The deal may Indeed be taking advantage of the one person and may be immoral or unethical, but they’re perfectly free to walk away.

To extend that, a job is no different. I have a financial crisis caused by my not having worked for a long time. I am offered a way out of that crisis by way of a job offer. It may be a nasty job, maybe even embarrassing, but it’s a way out and it’s up to me to decide whether or not to avail myself of it.

(If of course the one individual manipulated things to cause financial distress with the aim of coercing sexual favours, then it certainly is non-consent.)

I look forward to seeing where this goes.

 

[SimonDoom]

IMO, if the financial problem is not caused by the person offering money, then it is not non-consent. The deal may Indeed be taking advantage of the one person and may be immoral or unethical, but they’re perfectly free to walk away.

To extend that, a job is no different. I have a financial crisis caused by my not having worked for a long time. I am offered a way out of that crisis by way of a job offer. It may be a nasty job, maybe even embarrassing, but it’s a way out and it’s up to me to decide whether or not to avail myself of it.

(If of course the one individual manipulated things to cause financial distress with the aim of coercing sexual favours, then it certainly is non-consent.)

I look forward to seeing where this goes.

This is my view. My story is done, with the exception of some final editing and proofing, so I'll probably submit it by the end of the day so I can say I submitted it for Nude Day (even though I missed the contest deadline). I'll submit the story in E&V.

 

[SimonDoom]

Submitted. My first submission since February, and my first story over 750 words since December. I'm hoping, cautiously, I've got my writing mojo back and can complete in short order a whole raft of partially done stories that have lain scattered on my creative plate.

I opted for E&V as the category and I think that was the right call. It's my Nude Day submission, four days late.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm working on a story that I've preliminarily pegged to be an Exhibitionist story, but it involves person A agreeing to be naked, and ultimately to do other sexual acts in a somewhat public setting, in exchange for an offer made by person B that is so tempting that it is hard to turn down. The consequences of turning it down might cause financial difficulty for person A, although that financial difficulty is not caused by person B. The dynamics of the bargain struck are a major, not incidental, part of the story. Reluctance on the part of person A is a big part of the story as well. I'm still inclined to classify it as Exhibitionist, because bargaining, challenges, and reluctance are common themes in Exhibitionist stories, but I'm curious about other opinions.

Noting that the category is nonconsent and reluctance, so you certainly could post this there if you wanted. But talking specifically about the "nonconsent" side, I don't think this is an easy one to define.

Scenario 1: Pat's car has broken down on a back road in winter, and Pat's in danger of freezing. Dylan drives by and says "I can get you home, but you have to put out for me. Otherwise you can wait and see if anybody else comes by."

Scenario 2: Pat needs a job to pay for life-saving medical treatment. Pat is the best applicant for the position, but Dylan (hiring manager) says "If you want this job, might be an idea to put out".

Scenario 3: Pat needs a job to pay for life-saving medical treatment. Pat, while eminently qualified, is only the second-best applicant. Dylan says "If you want this job, might be an idea to put out".

In none of these has Dylan created the predicament that makes Pat vulnerable. But I think most including myself would see #1 as clearly NC, and from there it's not obvious why #2 should be different.

Is #3 consensual?

 

[Voboy]

If I read that story, I'd expect it to be in Exhibitionism. To me, the bargaining makes it consensual.

And "the boundaries," generally, are that the reluctant or nonconsenting party needs to enjoy it in the end. Or in the front; whatever your plot calls for.

 

[SimonDoom]

Noting that the category is nonconsent and reluctance, so you certainly could post this there if you wanted. But talking specifically about the "nonconsent" side, I don't think this is an easy one to define.

Scenario 1: Pat's car has broken down on a back road in winter, and Pat's in danger of freezing. Dylan drives by and says "I can get you home, but you have to put out for me. Otherwise you can wait and see if anybody else comes by."

Scenario 2: Pat needs a job to pay for life-saving medical treatment. Pat is the best applicant for the position, but Dylan (hiring manager) says "If you want this job, might be an idea to put out".

Scenario 3: Pat needs a job to pay for life-saving medical treatment. Pat, while eminently qualified, is only the second-best applicant. Dylan says "If you want this job, might be an idea to put out".

In none of these has Dylan created the predicament that makes Pat vulnerable. But I think most including myself would see #1 as clearly NC, and from there it's not obvious why #2 should be different.

Is #3 consensual?

I agree with your analysis, and this is the sort of thing (not quite so neatly broken down analytically) I was thinking about in trying to categorize my story.

I would be uncomfortable writing a story based on your situation number 3, because, whether or not I decided it was actually nonconsent (I think it's close), I couldn't find it erotic. The behavior would be too scummy for me. Ultimately, it's only erotic for me if Person A finds enjoyment in what happens, of at least some kind, AND if there's a way of construing Person B's behavior as playful and erotic as opposed to purely sociopathic, and I couldn't write a story in situation 3 where I could convince myself that Person A enjoyed it or that Person B was a person worthy of being viewed erotically. Some other author might, but I don't think I could. I don't know. It's a weird and uncomfortable category. I'm analyzing this on the fly. I suppose I could change my mind.

The circumstance in the story I've written is different from your Situation 3, because the consequences of not satisfying Person B's offer are not as dire, and I don't think one could say that Person B has any moral obligation to give to Person A what Person A wants in my story, as I think is true in your situations 1 and 2. 3 is ambiguous from that standpoint, but it's not ambiguous that Person B in your Situation 3 (assuming Person B is fully aware of Person A's situation) is acting in a rotten way.

In my story, I'm sure some discerning readers will object to the way Person B acts, but the consequences aren't the same so I decided nonconsent wasn't the right category.

 

[KeithD]

Noting that the category is nonconsent and reluctance, so you certainly could post this there if you wanted. But talking specifically about the "nonconsent" side, I don't think this is an easy one to define.

Scenario 1: Pat's car has broken down on a back road in winter, and Pat's in danger of freezing. Dylan drives by and says "I can get you home, but you have to put out for me. Otherwise you can wait and see if anybody else comes by."

Scenario 2: Pat needs a job to pay for life-saving medical treatment. Pat is the best applicant for the position, but Dylan (hiring manager) says "If you want this job, might be an idea to put out".

Scenario 3: Pat needs a job to pay for life-saving medical treatment. Pat, while eminently qualified, is only the second-best applicant. Dylan says "If you want this job, might be an idea to put out".

In none of these has Dylan created the predicament that makes Pat vulnerable. But I think most including myself would see #1 as clearly NC, and from there it's not obvious why #2 should be different.

Is #3 consensual?

If sex takes place, I see none of these as nonconsensual. This goes with the trend of not accepting full responsibility for oneself. It slides around on what consent is or isn't. Maybe there should be a new category that makes it socially unacceptable but this dovetails into what I see as overreaching in the MeToo movement.

If you want this part in the movie, you have to sleep with me.

If the sex happens, I don't see that as nonconsensual. I see that as making a career decision for yourself. You have no inherent right to be a movie star. Your only choice in life isn't being a movie star. If you want to out the other one, good and fine to take them down in reputation leading to loss of position/job. That doesn't make the other one responsible for the decision you make to have sex for career enhancement. You don't lose all responsibility for your decisions.

All the scenarios above should, I think, lead to repercussions, but not on the consent/nonconsent divide. They are unacceptable for other reasons--some even are illegal to start with. (I bolded this, because sure as tootin' I'm going to get responses that ignore that I said the behavior was unacceptable.)

I'm sure this will lead to all sorts of shit. It did the last time it came up (taking umbrage on a porn site at receiving mash notes when you use a slutty account name and write slutty stories and board posts). I don't care. There's entirely too much not taking responsibility for oneself going around, I think.

 

[lovecraft68]

The category is non con reluctance so regardless of what your idea is, if its one or the other you're in the right category, so it doesn't matter as far as how its received. I imagine there are factions there who prefer one or the other.

NC/R is a landmine category because the two are totally different so mixing them leads to a lot of readers starting a story in hope of one and discovering it the other.

If you're looking for someone to decide for you whether its NC or reluctance then I wouldn't bother publishing or even writing it until you have that understand...and that means you're okay with the understanding, seems like you're morally questioning your story, so I think you have to decide the line in your mind because its a gray area and one person can see it one way the next another.

I think this is your call to make and it seems you're not equipped to make it at the moment.

 

[LupusDei]

As a frequent reader of E&V category I can attest that stories with dubious consent isn't at all infrequent in that category. It's quite a mix and have very fluid borders with several categories, non-con and bdsm including. Willing slave girls are a plenty around there, for one trope.

If one has to nitpick, both exhibitionism and voyeurism are inherently breaking consent, one by flashing unexpecting spectators, the other by observing supposedly unsuspecting "victim" in a private moment, so it is, to a point expected and at least tolerated.

 

[Ravenmiller]

When there's force, the threat of force, blackmail, or if the person has no way out.

I recently wrote an incest story where the mom is a mafia killer and she wanted to leave. She agreed to a ceramony with her son to leave the crime family. The boss pushes it further and has them fuck on camera.

That story was moved to non-con.

HeyAll, I read the story you're talking about--I thought it was straight incest, but that's my one person opinion. Do you have any insight as to how your story was moved to nonconsent? I asked because I had several cougar stories under Erotic Couplings that, after 2-3 week at the top of the chart (or whatever that's called) got moved to Mature. Now I'm publishing Cougar under Mature, I'm just curious about the timing.

 

[HeyAll]

HeyAll, I read the story you're talking about--I thought it was straight incest, but that's my one person opinion. Do you have any insight as to how your story was moved to nonconsent? I asked because I had several cougar stories under Erotic Couplings that, after 2-3 week at the top of the chart (or whatever that's called) got moved to Mature. Now I'm publishing Cougar under Mature, I'm just curious about the timing.

Hi,

Frankly, I wasn't suprised.

The mafia mom asked the boss 'are you going to have your men rape me?' That may have set off a trigger.

Also, the mom/son were surrounded by armed gangsters when they were pushed into going further.

So when it was approved, I saw that the approval was for non-con and the approver put a note on top that the story had incest. It wasn't moved after published.


Cougar works better under Mature, so that's the good thing. There are a lot more readers in Mature than E/C.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I’ve been thinking about this, on a philosophical basis. Let me go back to my employment analogy. Before I start, let’s not anybody start screaming about stereotypes and street people being victims. I’m talking hypothetically.

So, scenario: It’s not that I’m lazy or sick. I’ve been offered work and turned it down, feeling that labour is beneath me, that I don’t want to waste my sweat to make somebody else rich. But now I’m hungry and homeless. A man offers me a job which will keep me from starving and/or freezing on the streets.

OK, ‘reluctance’ comes in, certainly, but is there any element of non-consent at play here? [To be clear, Employerman did not contribute to my poverty.] The guy has me over a barrel - if I don’t accept his offer of a job I think is beneath me, If I don’t do something I don’t feel comfortable about, I will starve, which is pretty substantial leverage in one sense. I know what Marx would think, but Marx lived in his own abstract little fantasy world.

I’ll take it a step further. Let’s say I regard the job in question as literally immoral. Let’s say I’m a climate change believer and the job is that of a roughneck on an oil rig. Alternatively, let’s say I’m Jewish or Muslim and the job involves tending a farmer’s pigs. Whatever. It’s legal, but in my eyes sinful. Yet without it, I starve. Is his offer to pay me to do something I find both distasteful and absolutely wrong thereby coercive?

Thoughts would be appreciated.

PS - Simon, please let us know when your story goes up.

 

[KeithD]

I’ve been thinking about this, on a philosophical basis. Let me go back to my employment analogy. Before I start, let’s not anybody start screaming about stereotypes and street people being victims. I’m talking hypothetically.

So, scenario: It’s not that I’m lazy or sick. I’ve been offered work and turned it down, feeling that labour is beneath me, that I don’t want to waste my sweat to make somebody else rich. But now I’m hungry and homeless. A man offers me a job which will keep me from starving and/or freezing on the streets.

OK, ‘reluctance’ comes in, certainly, but is there any element of non-consent at play here? [To be clear, Employerman did not contribute to my poverty.] The guy has me over a barrel - if I don’t accept his offer of a job I think is beneath me, If I don’t do something I don’t feel comfortable about, I will starve, which is pretty substantial leverage in one sense. I know what Marx would think, but Marx lived in his own abstract little fantasy world.

I’ll take it a step further. Let’s say I regard the job in question as literally immoral. Let’s say I’m a climate change believer and the job is that of a roughneck on an oil rig. Alternatively, let’s say I’m Jewish or Muslim and the job involves tending a farmer’s pigs. Whatever. It’s legal, but in my eyes sinful. Yet without it, I starve. Is his offer to pay me to do something I find both distasteful and absolutely wrong thereby coercive?

Thoughts would be appreciated.

PS - Simon, please let us know when your story goes up.

If you consented, no, nonconsent--by definition--didn't happen. There may be a lot of reasons why it's wrong that you have to do it to survive or whatever, but "nonconsent" isn't one of them--if you consented and did it. My opinion, but one that sticks to the definition of the term, I think, and doesn't give a false, "it's all someone else's responsibility" out on responsibility for a consent/nonconsent decision.

 

[SimonDoom]

I’ve been thinking about this, on a philosophical basis. Let me go back to my employment analogy. Before I start, let’s not anybody start screaming about stereotypes and street people being victims. I’m talking hypothetically.

So, scenario: It’s not that I’m lazy or sick. I’ve been offered work and turned it down, feeling that labour is beneath me, that I don’t want to waste my sweat to make somebody else rich. But now I’m hungry and homeless. A man offers me a job which will keep me from starving and/or freezing on the streets.

OK, ‘reluctance’ comes in, certainly, but is there any element of non-consent at play here? [To be clear, Employerman did not contribute to my poverty.] The guy has me over a barrel - if I don’t accept his offer of a job I think is beneath me, If I don’t do something I don’t feel comfortable about, I will starve, which is pretty substantial leverage in one sense. I know what Marx would think, but Marx lived in his own abstract little fantasy world.

I’ll take it a step further. Let’s say I regard the job in question as literally immoral. Let’s say I’m a climate change believer and the job is that of a roughneck on an oil rig. Alternatively, let’s say I’m Jewish or Muslim and the job involves tending a farmer’s pigs. Whatever. It’s legal, but in my eyes sinful. Yet without it, I starve. Is his offer to pay me to do something I find both distasteful and absolutely wrong thereby coercive?

Thoughts would be appreciated.

PS - Simon, please let us know when your story goes up.

It's been pending since yesterday, so I assume it will be up in 1-3 days. It hasn't been approved yet. My stories take on average 3-4 days from submission to publication.

Concerning the question here: I think it boils down to, Are there circumstances in which the duress faced by Person A is so dire (even if, for sake of the hypo, not caused by Person B), that when B makes a sexual proposition in exchange of Person A's relief that Person A does not really "consent"?

I think the answer is yes -- it's not really consent. It may not be coercion on the part of B in the same sense as the use or threat of force, or taking advantage of a situation that B creates. But, still, can Person A in truly dire circumstances be said to be consenting?

If B said to a person dying of thirst in a desert "Sign a deed that gives me all your property and I'll give you this glass of water" there's no court in the US that would enforce that deed.

I think in the erotic context, in particular, it would be so close to nonconsent that it would belong in that category. That's why "reluctance" is included with "nonconsent."

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Keith, I find myself in agreement with your basic thesis. Still, going to Simon’s example, yes, I will consent to sign over everything I own for that canteen of water. I consented but the option was dying. Is my ‘consent‘ any more valid than a ‘confession’ under torture?

Simon, I tried to keep sex out of it, for that can be complicating, but OK. I’m the stranded cheerleader. Buddy says he’ll only save me in return for sex. Let’s turn that slightly. He’s cute and I’m horny. Precisely the same circumstances, precisely the same demand from him in precisely the same tone, but my personal horny blonde acceptance makes his demand non-coercive somehow... That makes the key thing nothing more than my personal inclination, which leads back to my original example of a job offer being ‘coercive’ because I think work is beneath me.

Not trying to argue guys, truly, but it’s an interesting challenge.

 

[KeithD]

Keith, I find myself in agreement with your basic thesis. Still, going to Simon’s example, yes, I will consent to sign over everything I own for that canteen of water. I consented but the option was dying. Is my ‘consent‘ any more valid than a ‘confession’ under torture?

Consent is consent. Not divisible. The situation, though, has a sliding scale of validity and conditionality to it. It isn't the consent that's valid or not. It's the situation. If someone needs to get "consent but don't mean it" involved as an absolution of responsibility for not saying "no," I think they are just trying not to accept any responsibility for their own actions.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Consent is consent. Not divisible. The situation, though, has a sliding scale of validity and conditionality to it. It isn't the consent that's valid or not. It's the situation. If someone needs to get "consent but don't mean it" involved as an absolution of responsibility for not saying "no," I think they are just trying not to accept any responsibility for their own actions.

Well said.

I've been reading this thread and thinking, "Hey fellas, any of you know any sex workers?"

 

[SimonDoom]

Consent is consent. Not divisible. The situation, though, has a sliding scale of validity and conditionality to it. It isn't the consent that's valid or not. It's the situation. If someone needs to get "consent but don't mean it" involved as an absolution of responsibility for not saying "no," I think they are just trying not to accept any responsibility for their own actions.

Hmmm. I don't see it quite that way.

If a mugger tells me "Your money or your life" and I give my money, that's not consent. It's under duress. Granted, the duress is created by the mugger, rather than by other people, or the natural environment, or weather, or whatever.

So from the standpoint of the person asking for the bargain it may seem different.

But from the standpoint of the person doing the agreeing, what's the difference what the source of duress is? If choice A is to die, and choice B is to agree to something asked by another person, does it make a difference to ME what the cause of my potential death is? Do I care? I don't see how or why. From my standpoint, the choice I make is no more consensual in the one case than in the other.

So, getting back to erotica, if the story is told from the person who agrees to the crazy erotic thing, whatever it is, I'm not sure it makes a difference. I can imagine the story having exactly the same feeling of a nonconsent story.

Let me put it this way: if I narrate a story about crawling across a desert dying of thirst and I have to have sex with person A to get a glass of water, I'll put the story in nonconsent rather than erotic couplings.

 

[KeithD]

Hmmm. I don't see it quite that way.

If a mugger tells me "Your money or your life" and I give my money, that's not consent. It's under duress. Granted, the duress is created by the mugger, rather than by other people, or the natural environment, or weather, or whatever.

Yes, it's consent to turning the money over if you do it. That doesn't denote approval. You do it, it's consent to doing it--no agreement to it being what you want or legitimate. You say no, it's nonconsent.

You are trying to negate the meaning of the word "consent" and make the word "consent" do work it isn't there to do--and, in that, tossing out the meaning of the word/action altogether.

But how did this thread get to this point? "Consent" on Literotica is what Laurel says it is in each instance. No more, no less.

 

[AlinaX]

A lot of this reminds me about discussions of consent ("I agree to this") vs enthusiastic consent ("I agree to this and it's what I want"). Some people argue that sex without enthusiastic consent is equivalent to rape, but this turns a lot of sex work into rape and invalidates the free will of sex workers.