The Nature of Consent
Trigger warnings for frank discussion of rape, non-explicit.
(Disclaimer: Leca the Sex Nerd does not have degrees in these topics. All journal entries are written based off personal experience, opinion, and occasional research. This journal is not to be taken as sexual education.)
After a few discussions on the idea of 'dubious consent' or 'dubcon' in fanfiction or roleplay, I felt a need to talk about the nature of consent itself. Since it is a topic that in real life is often contested - see any sexual assault trial ever - it's not surprising that sometimes there are disagreements over it in fiction as well. However, when this popular fandom trope is examined a little closer, it seems that the label is being applied in some rather unsettling ways.
The issue here, in my mind, is the fact that consent is an act. It is a concious choice, the act of giving permission for a sexual activity or encounter to happen. For consent to occur, of course, one has to have that choice in the first place; threats of violence and compromised mental states are just a couple of things that can make true consent impossible. However, given that one is capable of giving consent, it is entirely up to each individual to give or withdraw consent.
In some situations, that might not need to be something that is verbally stated. Within a relationship, blanket consent might be agreed upon - the idea that it is okay to assume that sexual contact is accepted until otherwise stated. Consent between two people eagerly making out might be assumed until it is verbally or physically withdrawn by saying 'no' or pushing the other party away.
That withdrawal of consent or refusal to consent is the moment at which activity becomes 'non-consensual'.
Looking back at fandom and the idea of dub-con, the question is... what is the difference between 'dub-con' and 'non-con'? Is there really room for a third category here? So we look to the types of stories and situations being labeled, to see just what happens in them to make the author feel that they do not fall into either the category of consensual or nonconsensual sexual narratives.
The most popular answer? The person who is not consenting 'secretly wants it' but can't admit it.
Let's stop to think about that for a moment. Setting aside that it is the favorite excuse of rapists everywhere, let's consider whether the act of giving consent has anything at all to do with a person's true feelings.
For example, let's use the example of a couple who has different tastes in sexual acts. One partner prefers oral sex or handjobs to any kind of penetrative play, while the other finds those things unsatisfactory. The two come to an agreement between them that they take turns choosing the acts that make up their love life.
Each partner's 'true feelings' might be that they don't really feel like doing a specific sex act. In fact, they might really rather go read a book than spend a half hour tonguing their partner's genitals. However, assuming that they both agree to the situation and give consent it isn't considered a non-consensual sexual situation. Because the conscious choice made is to engage in the sexual activity.
Another example might be two strangers who meet and hook up, all in one day. The true feelings of one or both parties involved might be that they shouldn't be doing it, that they will feel guilty about it later, that they should give more consideration to the risks of such an act. However, as long as both parties choose to engage in the sexual activity anyway, the act is consensual, despite any negative emotions involved.
Now on to that fanfiction.
Both partners really want to have sex with each other. Maybe they're really in love or maybe they just really think each other are the hottest thing on the planet. Either way, one party eagerly admits to this wish for sex and makes an advance.
However, the other party, whether because of being a Repressed Shounen Hero, ™ or because the two parties actually have a very negative relationship, or because it's inappropriate in some way, says 'no'.
This indicates a lack of consent, unless the situation is one in which pre-arranged consent is agreed upon for the purpose of rape fantasy or other play.
By definition, this lack of consent takes the piece of fiction out of the realm of consensual and into the realm of 'non-con'. One party is forcing sex upon the other party despite lack of consent. This isn't to say that such fiction doesn't have a purpose, can't be enjoyable, or shouldn't be written. However, labeling it as anything other than non-consensual is not only inaccurate, but disrespectful to real rape victims.
Why is it disrespectful?
Because it supports the idea that despite making a conscious choice not to consent to a sexual activity, having any enjoyment of that activity or affection for the person perpetrating the crime creates responsibility of the victim for the act. It takes the idea that everyone has a right to freely choose - based on whatever priorities they have - their sexual encounters, and argues that instead, anyone who 'knows how someone else really feels' has a right to force sex upon them.
It, essentially, argues that 'in this case, it's okay' by saying that the situation isn't 'really rape' or 'really non-con'.
And that, my friends, isn't okay.
That isn't, by the way, to say that there aren't ever situations that could be considered dub-con. There are plenty of incidents in real life where consent is hard to ascertain for all parties involved, such as when one party is too frightened to argue or fight back despite not wanting to have sex, and the other doesn't understand their non-verbal cues. Or when alcohol is involved in a situation, and whether someone was 'too drunk to consent' isn't necessarily clear. Those types of situations fall pretty clearly into the category of 'dubious consent' and should be marked as such.
(Disclaimer: Leca the Sex Nerd does not have degrees in these topics. All journal entries are written based off personal experience, opinion, and occasional research. This journal is not to be taken as sexual education.)
After a few discussions on the idea of 'dubious consent' or 'dubcon' in fanfiction or roleplay, I felt a need to talk about the nature of consent itself. Since it is a topic that in real life is often contested - see any sexual assault trial ever - it's not surprising that sometimes there are disagreements over it in fiction as well. However, when this popular fandom trope is examined a little closer, it seems that the label is being applied in some rather unsettling ways.
The issue here, in my mind, is the fact that consent is an act. It is a concious choice, the act of giving permission for a sexual activity or encounter to happen. For consent to occur, of course, one has to have that choice in the first place; threats of violence and compromised mental states are just a couple of things that can make true consent impossible. However, given that one is capable of giving consent, it is entirely up to each individual to give or withdraw consent.
In some situations, that might not need to be something that is verbally stated. Within a relationship, blanket consent might be agreed upon - the idea that it is okay to assume that sexual contact is accepted until otherwise stated. Consent between two people eagerly making out might be assumed until it is verbally or physically withdrawn by saying 'no' or pushing the other party away.
That withdrawal of consent or refusal to consent is the moment at which activity becomes 'non-consensual'.
Looking back at fandom and the idea of dub-con, the question is... what is the difference between 'dub-con' and 'non-con'? Is there really room for a third category here? So we look to the types of stories and situations being labeled, to see just what happens in them to make the author feel that they do not fall into either the category of consensual or nonconsensual sexual narratives.
The most popular answer? The person who is not consenting 'secretly wants it' but can't admit it.
Let's stop to think about that for a moment. Setting aside that it is the favorite excuse of rapists everywhere, let's consider whether the act of giving consent has anything at all to do with a person's true feelings.
For example, let's use the example of a couple who has different tastes in sexual acts. One partner prefers oral sex or handjobs to any kind of penetrative play, while the other finds those things unsatisfactory. The two come to an agreement between them that they take turns choosing the acts that make up their love life.
Each partner's 'true feelings' might be that they don't really feel like doing a specific sex act. In fact, they might really rather go read a book than spend a half hour tonguing their partner's genitals. However, assuming that they both agree to the situation and give consent it isn't considered a non-consensual sexual situation. Because the conscious choice made is to engage in the sexual activity.
Another example might be two strangers who meet and hook up, all in one day. The true feelings of one or both parties involved might be that they shouldn't be doing it, that they will feel guilty about it later, that they should give more consideration to the risks of such an act. However, as long as both parties choose to engage in the sexual activity anyway, the act is consensual, despite any negative emotions involved.
Now on to that fanfiction.
Both partners really want to have sex with each other. Maybe they're really in love or maybe they just really think each other are the hottest thing on the planet. Either way, one party eagerly admits to this wish for sex and makes an advance.
However, the other party, whether because of being a Repressed Shounen Hero, ™ or because the two parties actually have a very negative relationship, or because it's inappropriate in some way, says 'no'.
This indicates a lack of consent, unless the situation is one in which pre-arranged consent is agreed upon for the purpose of rape fantasy or other play.
By definition, this lack of consent takes the piece of fiction out of the realm of consensual and into the realm of 'non-con'. One party is forcing sex upon the other party despite lack of consent. This isn't to say that such fiction doesn't have a purpose, can't be enjoyable, or shouldn't be written. However, labeling it as anything other than non-consensual is not only inaccurate, but disrespectful to real rape victims.
Why is it disrespectful?
Because it supports the idea that despite making a conscious choice not to consent to a sexual activity, having any enjoyment of that activity or affection for the person perpetrating the crime creates responsibility of the victim for the act. It takes the idea that everyone has a right to freely choose - based on whatever priorities they have - their sexual encounters, and argues that instead, anyone who 'knows how someone else really feels' has a right to force sex upon them.
It, essentially, argues that 'in this case, it's okay' by saying that the situation isn't 'really rape' or 'really non-con'.
And that, my friends, isn't okay.
That isn't, by the way, to say that there aren't ever situations that could be considered dub-con. There are plenty of incidents in real life where consent is hard to ascertain for all parties involved, such as when one party is too frightened to argue or fight back despite not wanting to have sex, and the other doesn't understand their non-verbal cues. Or when alcohol is involved in a situation, and whether someone was 'too drunk to consent' isn't necessarily clear. Those types of situations fall pretty clearly into the category of 'dubious consent' and should be marked as such.