cap_ironman | Death of the Dream, NC-17, non-con

Entry tags:

Death of the Dream, NC-17, non-con

The discussion about Evil Steve reminded me of a fic I wrote a while ago and never posted to the comm.

Title: Death of the Dream
Author:

valtyr
Beta: None
Rating: NC-17
Wordcount: 2k
Contents/Warnings/Spoilers: Explicit rape.
Summary: Steve comes back from the dead. Tony's not as happy to see him as he thought he'd be.

Read on AO3. Not kidding about the rape.

If you wrote a dark/evil Steve, maybe link the story in the comments? Would be interesting to see people's takes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

First of all, that hurt. That extremely hurt and in a way, I can terribly see Steve turning out that way. He's insane but he's justifiably insane. There's good rationalization for everything he did, god knows that I would do the same thing if I was in his shoes.

I'm going to have to semi-agree that it doesn't quite hit Non-Con, but it's not exactly Dub-Con either. When I think of Non-Con, I feel of full on protest and fighting back, arms flailing, feet kicking and the mouths blazing. But, Tony is immediately gagged and well, it's Steve.

Captain America being Bad? Steve Rogers being evil. It's shocking enough that I can see Tony just not fighting as hard as he should because it's Steve (who is not dead, who is alive, and oh god, it's Steve and he's here and he'll fix things).

But I'm not going to say it's completely Dub-Con, either since Tony wasn't really accepting it. I must say, you certainly gotten the line blurred.

Anyway, is it bad I want to see more of this Steve? But that's probably the psychologist in me talking and I probably should stop now before I make this comment any longer. ^^;

Well, he does kick and struggle and make noise around the gag. I think it's pretty clear he's not consenting; dubcon is usually more when there are factors making true consent difficult or in doubt.

I'm glad you found the characterisation believable; it's certainly a tricky one to pull off. I doubt I'll write more to this, because it would be so very hard to deal with this subject well. Thanks for commenting.

*nods* I agree about what you say about Dub-con. I think I'm not quite sold on the fact it's Non-Con is because there was more emphasis on the sex, than what Tony was feeling during the sex.

Which isn't a bad thing! Really. The sex was hot and awesome. Maybe it's just me but it's sometimes hard to tell if what is going in a character's head when you're only given physical actions.

I mean, I'm wearing rose-tinted glasses and I can kind of see Tony (after the rape happen) accepting what happened and admitting to himself that he wanted it, even if he really didn't. ~~Wow, I'm getting a fic bunny about Tony suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Gotta go kill that.~~

Anyway, the characterization was perfect and believable. You gave us enough information that we could actually see it being possible for Steve to act that way.

I felt given he protested vigorously and thought about how he didn't want to enjoy it and cried during, it was pretty clear. I mean, he denied consent as best he could given he was gagged.

I can kind of see Tony (after the rape happen) accepting what happened and admitting to himself that he wanted it

Given Tony's issues, yes, I can see that, but that would be a comforting delusion on his part. He would very possibly convince himself Steve hadn't really raped him. He would be wrong.

Personally, I felt there could've been more but that's mostly because I actually do introspective in my writing. What you have given was actually a good sign of protest and proof that Tony did not want it. Since you're the writer, I'm not saying that you've done anything wrong (that you lacked anything, you didn't). I'm just voicing my personal opinion.

Right. Tony would be the sort to actually rationalize that he deserved it. It's a defense mechanism which could be coupled with my personal idea that Tony's a bit of masochist.

Sorry about sparking a discussion about non-con vs dub-con. It wasn't exactly intentional but I will admit, I am enjoying what everyone has to say about it.

Well, introspection has its place of course, but I generally try not to duplicate stuff too much; if a character is struggling and crying, I don't think I need to spend much time with the character dwelling on how they don't want it. I kind of assume the reader will be able to figure it out.

Tony has a lot invested in believing Steve is not broken, and he also has a tendency to take blame on himself, so I can quite see that he would convince himself he wanted it really and Steve was responding to that. It wouldn't be true, of course.

I guess it's good to have these things discussed; better this way round than commenters having to convince an author that her romantic seduction is a rape fic, as has happened on some occasions.

So Yeah.

That was totally how it came off. Which Is Not Surprising Considering Those Two.

...you know, the part where he didn't want it, and thought about not wanting it, and cried, and protested and struggled. While he was being raped.

I think it's this line: "Then the fast rush in and Tony wanted to arch and writhe"

So like, maybe part of it was rape and part of it wasn't.

Tony said no (well, he kicked, shook his head and made protesting noises). He didn't want to have sex. If he said no and didn't and didn't want to have sex (even if he said no and did want to have sex), it's rape.

(Exception: when there are other, mutually agreed upon safe words previously set up for a role-playing kink scenario, which was clearly not the case in this fic).

Steve knew that Tony said no, and still had sex with him. Therefore, in this fic, Steve = a rapist.

The fact that a rapist can sometimes force a pleasurable physical response out of a rape victim, especially in male victims, does not make it any less rape.

At least that's the way it works in Canada's legal code.

Okay, the way I read it was, Steve definitely did rape Tony, but parts of it wasn't rape, such as the ending.

Probably what happened with Rhett and Scarlett.

My reading that Tony was so deeply traumatised (by having his brain melted/reassembled and having all his friends 100% abandon him and having his best friend come back evil and having said now evil best friend rape him and forcing an unwanted and humiliating physical response out of him) that he pretty much went into shock.

Which I believe was the authorial intent.

YMMV.

I think that's exactly the reason why I'm not completely convinced it was adamant protestation against sex, Tony being in Shock threw me for a loop. (And the rose-tinted glasses, I think my brain didn't want to equate Steve being capable of Rape and therefore Tony must (consciously, subconsciously) want it.)

But now that you brought it up (Tony's mindset and what's he has been through before waking up), I can sort of see the evidence pointing toward actual Rape.

Also, I'm probably thinking more of what Tony would do after the act (see previous comment) that's "clouding" my judgement here.

I think, for me, dub con is more something the lines of:
1) Drunk sex where it's unclear that consent can be given.
2) Identity porn stuff. As in not knowing the real identity of the person you're having sex with (though in some states that's also legally rape).
3) One or both parties saying yes, even though they're pretty sure they don't want to have sex.

Dubious consent is unclear consent.

In this case, the consent was very clearly not given. Consent was, in fact, very clearly denied. Repeatedly. That makes it non-con.

The whole point of the story, as I understand it (in that it was brought up as part of discussion of Steve Being Evil), was that Steve had lost his connection to his own moral compass and turned evil. Being evil, he was very capable of rape.

Besides which, even if Tony did want it (even if he was married to Steve for ten years and they'd been engaged in mutually-pleasurable, consenting sex half an hour before), if he said "No," it's still rape.

It took various anti-oppression movements (largely feminist and gay rights-related) hundreds of years to get that legal definition.

It took various anti-oppression movements (largely feminist and gay rights-related) hundreds of years to get that legal definition.

*engraves this on our rings, and cries*

So, where would you like your internets delivered? (hugs)

Wherever is convenient is fine.

But, dude, I'm running out of ways to say "'No' means 'no'" here.

Steve raped Tony. Tony found parts of it physical pleasurable, and he does think about how he wished he didn't.

At the end, Tony is shocky and traumatized, and not really acting rationally.

Gone With the Wind... well, it was written in a different time about a different time, but the book scene seems pretty damn rapey to me, from my modern perspective.

Amen. And NZ too.

Will you marry me?

You could move to Canada... no wait, our government's kind of horrid right now (though we do have same sex marriage)... I could move to New Zealand. I've always been very fond of New Zealand.

I will!

New Zealand is awesome, but unfortunately we have a revolting administration right now too. D: They can't take away our same sex marriage though, and their term will be up in a year. *prepares to campaign HARD for the other guys*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Death of the Dream, NC-17, non-con

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

It was sex he didn't know he wanted?

Well, yeah, except for...

Re: Well, yeah, except for...

Isn't being partly raped like being almost pregnant?

Re: Isn't being partly raped like being almost pregnant?

I have neither seen nor read <em>Gone with the Wind</em>

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Isn't being partly raped like being almost pregnant?

Re: Isn't being partly raped like being almost pregnant?

Oh, good, rings!

Re: Oh, good, rings!