Dub-Con (i.e. Dubious Consent) in romance

Recently, Sue Brown shared an article to her Facebook page, and it's caused a tad of a stir (at least on the thread), a stir I must admit, I contributed to. (Who, me, weigh in on something with a strong opinion? Nah..... *giggle-snort*).

The article, penned by Ashlyn Forge, entitled, "Raping gay men is okay...if it's for the titillation of straight women" isn't nearly as inflammatory as as the title suggests. Forge is simply commenting on the rise in popularity of non-con and dub-con (non-consensual and dubiously-consensual) sex in gay romance. (Anyone who's ever read a "bodice ripper" knows that the idea of dub-con is a) nothing new, and b) hardly confined to m/m and has long held a special place in romance.)  The question of the popularity of the tropes have become so popular is a good one, one for which I have no solid answer.

But first, I must confess that I enjoy dubious consent--when it's on the page. Just as in real-life, I would never condone someone running off with a guy they'd just met (as in Heidi Cullinan's Special Delivery, one of my favorite books, *ever*), in real life No means NO. Period. End stop. No room to negotiate. Smile, nod, and move on, and no, it doesn't matter how he or she is dressed, no woman (or man) needs someone else to "liberate them" (as per Robin Thicke's "epic" tune, "Blurred lines"--epic if for no other reason than the sheer number of parodies it inspired in so short a time).

But in fantasy (which is what romance is), dubious consent is romantic. Really. It is. And it's nothing new (may I turn your attention back to the classic story Beauty and the Beast? Beauty was in no way enamored of the Beast until she got to know him, and she certainly was not a guest in his house by choice.)  How many (particularly those old bodice rippers) start with a beautiful heroine being kidnapped by pirates or brigands, only to find herself falling madly in love with the captain or leader of the band of highwaymen? Women, while in real life would never want to be kidnapped, often find the idea of being whisked away by a strong, handsome--and remarkably kind, despite his "profession"--man intoxicating. And why not? We read romance to escape our dull, often hectic lives.

So yeah, I'm a total fan of dub-con.

Non-con is a different matter. I totally understand that it's appealing to some people, for pretty much the same reason dub-con is, but personally, I know my limits and what I can and can't read. There's a reason I won't touch the Flesh Cartel series--and the fact that it takes place in the here and now and deals with a real issue--modern slave trafficking--doesn't help my ability to stomach it. (That's not a judgement on the series, that's just me being honest my personal limits). I don't like the idea of men (or women) being "broken" (although I did happen to see a blurb for the final installment of The Flesh Cartel and I'm pretty sure I like where it ultimately seemed to go).

So, here's he question (and the point that became debated on Sue's FB post). Is dub-con (as a trope in romance) rape? When the master in some alternate universe (or some alternate arrangement of this one) seduces his/her slave, is it rape? (Because even if the slave consents, there's little about that kind of Master/slave "relationship" that's consensual--it's a whole different kettle of fish than contemporary consensual slavery in the BDSM culture). Is it rape when the Alpha Wolf claims his/her mate, an otherwise unsuspecting human or subordinate shifter? Or when the pirate kidnaps the governor's son/daughter?

I think we can all agree that rape is bad. But is dub-con bad? Does it encourage "rape culture"--or is it simply a healthy outlet for both the author and the reader's darker sexual fantasies? Helen Pattskyn, Fantasy Artist, Gay Romance Author