TV Tropes Org

Forums

Deadlock Clock: 16th Aug '13 11:59 PM
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [25]
1

Needs Help: Questionable Consent get usage counts

Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
This trope is either Complaining, Soapboxing or YMMV material. Either way, it's unclear.

Most of the examples are personal interpretations or reactions to certain scenes, only a few are in-universe examples invoked by the characters which would make it Too Rare to Trope. Otherwise, it's a wild assumption about what writers intended to do in the show and only complaining about how a scene is presented as "unpleasant to some sensibilities".

Plus, the trope contends being about all forms of consent but most examples are about sexual situations. 90% of related pages also talk about sexual consent and the Playing With page is also mostly about "Dub Con is rape".

So what is this trope about really? Audience Reaction or in-show situations? Is it really sufficently common to trope? If it's an audience reaction, why isn't it dubbed as YMMV material as it should? Please chime in and tell me your impressions.

I personally think the trope needs either rehauling or being cut off altogether.

 2 Another Duck, Sat, 15th Jun '13 8:08:48 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
I think it would only be a trope if it's something that's deliberately used. That is, there's a lampshade, some commentary about it, or the work actually treating it as questionable one way or another. Just an Audience Reaction on the subject doesn't really do much.

But as long as the page remains, the A and B types need to be removed. The B version is just an Audience Reaction anyway, and the one example I recognise there, the Haruhi Suzumiya one, isn't treated as okay by the plot, which is even mentioned in the example.
Check out my fanfiction!
 3 Septimus Heap, Sat, 15th Jun '13 8:11:54 AM from Muggio Valley, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
This trope will need a restriction to In-Universe Examples Only. All the others are simply Fridge Logic.

 4 Madrugada, Sat, 15th Jun '13 9:53:32 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
Type B doesn't have to be an Audience Reaction. The author can make it quite clear that there's a question about the reality if the consent, either in the narration or by having one of the characters raise it. Both types need to be In-universe Only, though.

So the two types are

  • "Clearly consent was given, but was it freely given or was it coerced?" A Scarpia Ultimatum is a subtrope of this type: the consent is coerced via a threat to the life of a loved one (usually a lover).
  • "There is no clear consent given at all"; or "something that may have been consent, but may not have been, was given"; or "consent was implied or assumed".

edited 15th Jun '13 10:01:06 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 5 Another Duck, Sat, 15th Jun '13 11:19:45 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
[up]I don't see how that B definition falls under "the plot would have you think consent was granted", considering a character or narrator who brings doubt to it says the plot doesn't have you think one way without doubt. Narration and characters are part of the plot, so if they doubt the consent, the plot tells you it may not actually have been granted.

Now, the two types you listed after I could accept.
Check out my fanfiction!
Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
[up][up] The two types you've given are much clearer and I think they describe the trope much better. However, I thuroughly agree that this trope should be In-Universe Examples Only.

On the other hand, why is it that most examples cover mostly rape and nothing else? Is this to be specifically about sexual consent or is it about ALL forms of consent, including non-sexual ones?

(sidenote: God, when are we going to quit qualifying anything heterosexual as rape?)

 7 Septimus Heap, Sat, 15th Jun '13 11:48:09 AM from Muggio Valley, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
I assume it's because when we talk about consent, it's usually sexual consent.

 8 Madrugada, Sat, 15th Jun '13 1:06:31 PM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
If the author writes a scene that indicates one character assumed consent, or a character seemed to consent, but then later in the work another character questions whether consent was given (or freely given, or knowingly given) that's a type B. The question is clearly raised within the work as to whether consent was given at all.

That's a different question than "Consent was clearly given but was it freely given or was it coerced or forced?" and it generally does different things to the way the characters (and the readers) react.

edited 15th Jun '13 1:11:28 PM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 9 Larkmarn, Sat, 15th Jun '13 1:22:34 PM Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
I'm having a hard time distinguishing type A and type B from each other.

Either way, definitely should go to YMMV or restricted to in-universe-only. Fo sho.

 10 Madrugada, Sat, 15th Jun '13 1:51:50 PM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
Type A: She clearly said "Yes", but did she really have a choice?

Type B: Did she say "Yes" or something that a reasonable person would take to mean "Yes", at all?
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 11 Another Duck, Sat, 15th Jun '13 2:12:44 PM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
Outside sexual stuff, would it also apply to, say, contracts someone's forced to sign? Goes from situations where someone can technically refuse, but due to circumstances (economical, social, etc.) it's basically between pest or twice the cholera, and up to one I've see where a guy basically had his thumb pricked and then forced on a contract to create a bloody print that's good enough of a signature to sell his soul (was some B-action/horror I don't remember much of).
Check out my fanfiction!
 12 kiukiuclk, Sat, 15th Jun '13 6:32:18 PM from 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693 Relationship Status: My TiMER is ticking
Banishing this to YMMV is probably the easiest solution. As the OP said, In-Universe Examples Only probably makes it Too Rare to Trope

I like the idea of extending it to contract, but with those, it's usually either obvious someone was coerced or there was a deliberate attempt by the writers to deceive the audience. With sexual stuff, it often seems to be a case of Getting Crap Past the Radar, which you don't really get with contracts. With contracts your more likely to get Read The Fine Print.

Cutting wouldn't be a major loss, but sending it to YMMV is probably the best solution.

 13 Another Duck, Sun, 16th Jun '13 12:40:32 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
My point with the above was rather when it goes from questionable to straight out coercion, which isn't really questionable.

One specific case I think should either be removed, or labelled aversion or subversion is when it may be seen as questionable, but later on the character who gave the consent confirms it while not under pressure and completely in control.
Check out my fanfiction!
 14 Septimus Heap, Sun, 16th Jun '13 1:15:37 AM from Muggio Valley, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
How many In-Universe examples are there, anyway?

 15 Another Duck, Sun, 16th Jun '13 4:25:57 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
There are a few, and probably a few more where it's not stated whether it's brought up In-Universe or not.

There's also bits of other tropes coming into play, such as various forms of manipulation, lying, or the effects of the consent.

If you're manipulated, it's still a free choice, and it's clear the consent was given. The basis of the choice may have been false, but it generally doesn't remove the free choice aspect. It doesn't exclude it, but it's not this trope on its own.

Lying about what you give consent to is much the same. It may be that what you gave consent to isn't what you're actually subjected to. But that's still clear the consent is violated. It's doing something to someone that person isn't aware of, plain and simple.

Both of those often make the character who consented feel tricked, which doesn't make it questionable. It makes it invalid.

The effect of the consent, while it may be interesting, isn't part of the trope.
Check out my fanfiction!
Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
[up] Very good points.

I vote for a rehauling of the trope according to what's been said thus far, cutting off examples for In-Universe examples only and shove the whole trope into YMMV material.

Does anyone agree?

 17 Septimus Heap, Mon, 17th Jun '13 9:20:23 AM from Muggio Valley, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
"cutting off examples for In-Universe examples only and shove the whole trope into YMMV material. "

That's two mutually exclusive options. I am fine with the former (assuming you mean "make In-Universe Examples Only"), kind-of leery at the latter.

Also, if we go for "In-Universe Examples Only", we'll need someone to make the distinguishing.

 18 Alrune, Sat, 6th Jul '13 3:54:05 PM from Your Bed
Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
Well, if we're gonna make it In Univer Examples Only, it will have to be either clearly spoken out by the one "forcing" the consent (as in "do this unless you prefer bad thing X happen to Y") or pointed by a witness. It will not be an audienc reaction or a personal assessment of a situation.

YMMV will be made if we want to make it an Audience Reaction trope.

 19 Noaqiyeum, Mon, 8th Jul '13 10:13:40 AM from across the gulf of space Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
the it-thingy
I think calling this Too Rare to Trope might be an hasty verdict, especially if we aren't limiting it to sexual circumstances. I can think of two such in-universe, Type A examples off the top of my head (one from Girl Genius, the other from G. K. Chesterton).
DRYH
OEOE
NSUA
TTRD
Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
Then let's make it to In-Universe Examples Only. Does everyone agree?

I think "type A" is redundant either to Blackmail or to Sexual Extortion, depending on whether its limited to sexual contexts or not.

 22 Another Duck, Sat, 13th Jul '13 10:00:20 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
I don't think it's a trope outside In-Universe Examples Only. Just a bunch of hacks dissecting and reassembling a work to create the opinion they were looking for.
Check out my fanfiction!
 23 Noaqiyeum, Sat, 13th Jul '13 11:45:04 AM from across the gulf of space Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
the it-thingy
[up][up] I wasn't aware that those pages exist. The two situations I'm thinking of are both non-sexual extortion, however, and not blackmail, so they wouldn't fit into either. And I think if a work specifically raises the question of whether or not a deed was done willingly and what consequences it has ethically, it is an important theme to take note of.

edited 13th Jul '13 11:47:32 AM by Noaqiyeum

DRYH
OEOE
NSUA
TTRD
 24 Willbyr, Tue, 13th Aug '13 3:53:01 AM from North Little Rock, AR Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
With Mod Hat On
Clock is set.
 25 Willbyr, Sat, 17th Aug '13 5:49:56 PM from North Little Rock, AR Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
With Mod Hat On
Clock's up; locking for inactivity.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 25
1


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy