fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3894 ]

[ SECRET POST #3894 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3894 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Santa Clarita Diet]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Pennywise, from Stephen King's It]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Intelligence, Mary Spalding/Jimmy Reardon]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Danny Rand in Iron Fist/The Defenders]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

06. https://i.imgur.com/VFDAR1E.png

I have no clue whatsoever where the line is between the two, and I suspect it would be different for everyone.

The line's always been pretty straightforward: Dubcon is for things like sex pollen or drunk but enthusiastic. Anything "dubious."

Noncon is straight-up rape with language that makes people not feel so bad about it.

Bullshit, there are million different flavors of consent kink, and everyone's definition of "dubious" is gonna be different.

Drunk but enthusiastic is not dubious in any way, practically everyone who drinks and has sex has done both at the same time at some point in their life.

Yeah, try telling that to the "You CAN'T GIVE INFORMED CONSENT IF YOU'RE IN ANY WAY COMPROMISED!!" crowd.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-03 08:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-06 13:09 (UTC) - Expand

I think the line can be simply described:

Dub-con: someone wants it but also doesn't want it. There's always a level of confusion and inner conflict about it.

Ex: a closeted gay person who has a coerced gay encounter who wanted that encounter all along but couldn't or wouldn't admit they did out of shame.

Non-con: someone does not want it at all. There's no confusion about this.

Ex: a straight person who has a coerced gay encounter.

Sex pollen that lowers inhibitions and amplifies feelings and pushes someone to act on their already-present attractions: dubcon

Sex pollen that makes someone act on an attraction they did not have and do not want and feels out of control of their body: noncon

Nah, still bullshit, but A+ effort at trying to slip some sexual orientation wank in there.

That wasn't my intent, it was just an example, but I don't feel you're open to listening to others' attempts an explaining the difference they see, so I'll limit my effort to that

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-01 22:58 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-01 23:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-01 23:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-01 23:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-01 23:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-02 05:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-02 06:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-02 00:39 (UTC) - Expand

That has some... unfortunate implications, anon. I get what you're trying to say, but this is not a good example.

I have always separated them by the violence.

In non-con the rapist clearly doesn't care if the victim wants it or not and just goes at it. Or in some cases they might assume they have a consent so they can have sex whenever they want (marital rape for instance). Or their partner changed their mind about the sex, but they decide that take-backs aren't allowed.

Basically the victim is not allowed or doesn't even get the chance to say no to sex.

In dub-con the rapist wants the victim to submit, but aren't picky about how willingly that happens. This is things like "I have your loved one and if you want them to live you will sleep with me". Or someone is not ready have sex yet, but their boyfriend/girlfriend threatens to dump them if they don't. Or someone sold into sex slavery going along with it because at least this way they have a chance to avoid sexual violence. Or mate-or-die situations. Basically, the victim can say no, but there will be repercussions, usually bad enough (in the victim's mind) that they'd rather submit to sex.

A version is when the victim is under an influence (drunk, high, sex-pollen'd) and appears to be wanting sex but in their right mind would not. The rapist might not be forcing the victim into anything but they're taking advantage of an abnormal situation. Usually they're well aware that this is the only way they could ever get into bed with the victim.

Yeah, I mostly avoid noncon, and I guess I've been pretty lucky because I can't remember ever reading anything labeled dubcon that was actually noncon.

You have been pretty lucky. I wouldn't say I've read a TON of noncon fics labeled as dubcon, but I've definitely read a good twenty-five or thirty at least, over the years.

I blame the wank over how the categorizations are inherently problematic, because all of it is just non-con, and non-con is just a word people use so they don't have to admit to themselves what they're "romanticizing" in their fics.

You're right that all of it is noncon, but I think "dub con" is the label people use to make themselves feel better about reading what would categorically be rape IRL.

THAT SAID I don't think they have anything to feel bad about. But they do, so they call it "dub con."

They're both rape IRL, obviously. Nobody is saying it's not rape if it were IRL. I don't know where you're getting that from.

They're different kinks in fiction which is what we're talking about.

Snuff and gore are different kinks in fiction because they focus on different things. Snuff is about death. Gore is about physical mutilation. Both are literally murder if IRL but they are different in focus in fictional kink. Dubcon and noncon are both rape if IRL but are different in focus in fictional kink. It's not "because they feel bad" it's because it's different categories of story, just like gore is not snuff.

It's really not hard to understand if you want to.

I always thought the term non-con was so you could warn people about the content without accidentally triggering them.

Lets face it, "Harry rapes Draco" is more likely to bother a survivor than "Harry/Draco noncon"

And generally dubcon tends to be used for situations where there was in-universe consent and because of the nature of fiction it's consensual, but IRL it wouldn't be. Like two characters getting drunk and finally getting up the courage to have amazing sex with no barfing or passing out. It recognizes that IRL drunk people can't fully consent and drunk sex is a terrible idea for that reason.

You could have IRL dubcon if you worked out something like telling your partner you wanted to get drunk and then have them fuck you. You're giving consent, but you can't give continued consent once you're drunk so the potential for something going wrong is higher.

Most survivors aren't actually triggered by the word rape.

It's useful because it gives a survivor an idea of how to expect the rape to be framed so they can more easily avoid things that skirt uncomfortably close to their own experience (or find something that skirts close to their own experience if they find reading something that reflects it cathartic) if they want or need to. Not because it avoids using one specific word.

Huh, interesting. I'm a CSA survivor and I was absolutely triggered by the P words to describe fandom things (I did a secret about working hard to desensitize myself) and I know several other people who experienced the same thing. So I kind of assumed reading "Harry Potter is a rapist" would be just as distressing as "Harry Potter is a p*"

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-02 17:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-09-02 19:41 (UTC) - Expand

Um, no, about 95% of the the dubcon I read would not be rape in real life. In fact, that's usually what distinguishes it from noncon for me.

The dubcon I read is stuff like, they go from fighting to fucking without stopping in the middle to say, "Are you sure you want this?" It's dubious because they were fighting before, and they never explicitly say in words "Yes, let's fuck." But it's not rape, because both of the character are extremely physically enthusiastic and very clearly intent on fucking each other.

In the majority of the dubcon I read, "dubcon" is basically used to say, "Everything here is consensual, but in real life it would be ill-advised to have sex this way, because explicit consent is important."

Would be interesting to know how OP defines dubcon and noncon.

I agree with you! And I saw someone getting angry about the term dub con even existing which I found annoying because (to me, at least) dub con and non con are very different. I always saw dub con as like... Being persuaded to have sex or going through something like a heat, whereas non con was more violent and forced. One can squick more than the other (for me, I cannot stomach dub con).

I'm the opposite. I love some dubcon tropes a lot and just really love the idea of having no choice but to enjoy sex and want it. But someone not actually wanting it is a squick.

I completely agree. Personally, noncon makes me feel sick and angry and sad whenever I accidentally read it. But dubcon is a completely different thing, and I often enjoy it.

For me, the main distinguishing factor between dubcon and noncon is that with dubcon nobody feels violated. The majority of the time, the dubcon I've read also wouldn't be rape in real life. It might not be the safest, healthiest, and most ideal approach to sex, but it wouldn't be rape. Though I have read a few dubcon fics where I would characterize things as sexually abusive in some way, even if both characters consent and enjoy the sex.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only