Ah this question. I have *opinions*, so fair warning. I like this definition, but I've heard compelling arguments for other takes.
Firstly there is no dub-con in reality. Because we don't have telepathy, someone's "yes" or "no" (or equivalent consent communication) is the only indicator we have of whether they want to have sex. Thus no means no.
In fiction we have this wonderful thing where point of view gives us access to a character's internal world. In fiction a character can say "no", but their inner dialogue thoughts be "I said no, but I wanted it anyway/I'm glad it happened/hell yes, do it again."
To the other person participating in sex with someone who's said "no" they are perpetrating non-con. We the audience know better because we have access to POV character's head.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Dubcon versus noncon
(Anonymous) 2016-02-19 06:55 am (UTC)(link)Firstly there is no dub-con in reality. Because we don't have telepathy, someone's "yes" or "no" (or equivalent consent communication) is the only indicator we have of whether they want to have sex. Thus no means no.
In fiction we have this wonderful thing where point of view gives us access to a character's internal world. In fiction a character can say "no", but their inner dialogue thoughts be "I said no, but I wanted it anyway/I'm glad it happened/hell yes, do it again."
To the other person participating in sex with someone who's said "no" they are perpetrating non-con. We the audience know better because we have access to POV character's head.