sort of a kink poll...

[ratcreature]

I've been reading a slash story in which a heated argument between the couple (who are also friends) results in punch being thrown, and then the one punched actually finds the aggression a turn on and it goes on to sex. Somehow this combination of sex and violence doesn't work for me at all, not even in fiction, where I'm not averse to combinations of sex and violence.

Like, I can go along fine if the aggression is against some kind of third party, and one character is turned on by the other being violent, or they are turned on mutually, say if they are both in a barfight or even slaughter others. I can also go along with non-con that involves violence with the victim not being turned on, but I as a reader like it. But if the violence is between the couple (and they are supposed to like each other), uncontrolled violence segueing into sex (rather than say rough sex that is mutually agreed upon) is squicky for me, more so if the violence is not mutual (the latter would be more fighting leading to fucking in some kind of hate sex, which I also don't like, but it is not as bad as one sided violence).

Most often this is shown from the POV of the character the aggression is turned upon rather than the violent character being turned on by the escalation, i.e. A hits B, usually after some provocation, then B somehow finds that aggression/violence (or sometimes the loss of control) hot, and sex follows. I have to admit that I find this particular combination of sex and violence to be surprising as a kink, and it always startles me, but I see this every now and then, and I'm wondering whether it is something that many people like in sex scenes.

So, a poll:

Poll #1787 fictional sex & violence, when are they like hazelnuts and chocolate?

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 130

View Respondents

Which combinations of sex & violence do you like in fiction?

View Answers

none
15 (11.5%)

violence against outsiders is a turn-on for the characters, and followed by sex between them
76 (58.5%)

consensual, planned violence between partners (e.g. agreed upon rough sex, with bruising or hitting)
102 (78.5%)

unplanned, but mutual violence against each other (with both being equally aggressive/violent) then leads to sex
89 (68.5%)

unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for B, and then leads to sex
34 (26.2%)

unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for A, and then leads to sex
15 (11.5%)

violence with non-con sex
32 (24.6%)

Comments

[auburn]

I tried to be honest so I ticked two items, but even those are very iffy for me; it very much depends on story context.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, it's that way for me too, even with scenarios I like in principle it depends on how they are handled. But some of these never work for me.

I think what baffles me is that I would have thought that the violent argument leading to sex would be a common squick, because of the violence against each other, but I very rarely see this warned against. And I've come across this semi-frequently. So I've been wondering how common it is to find this an attractive scenario, this being punched during an argument and then fucked thing.

[ilyena_sylph]

Okay, given that I was signed in with Megatron's journal when I first went to answer this, I think that says all that needs to be said.

Well, if you know Transformers, at least.

[ratcreature]

Heh. I'm not really familiar with the Transformers, but through fandom osmosis I vaguely recall him as one of the evil robots, right?

[katarik]

Note that the reason I did not click the 'unplanned, violent, one-sided aggression' buttons was not because I am necessarily squicked by it, or that it never gets me off, but because it only works with very *particular* couples, e.g. Starscream and Megatron. If I can believe that the pairing is already kinked that way, and that both parties are fully consenting even in weird and fucked-up ways, then I am okay. If I can't -- and it takes a lot to get me to believe that, because oh holy God, abuse is not fucking hot -- then I throw things at the wall.

*uses icon of unplanned, violent, one-sided aggression where it works, aka Megatron and Starscream*

[ratcreature]

I'm usually not into very twisted couples. My favorite characters are heroes almost without exception and while I sometimes read enemy pairings, that is usually only after there was some reformation on the enemy's part. Or complete non-con where the hero is hurt. So for these I find this kind of dynamic really jarring. I mean, I can see arguments devolve into punching with some with enough provocation, but then the next step won't be the one punched being turned on.

[gnatkip]

I tickied only some of them, but really, everything is relative and I can see all of them being hot in certain contexts. (WHEN WILL THEY INVENT THE HALF-TICKY?!) The first two, violence against outsiders and rough sex, I find hot unvarnished and without explanation; just plain hot. But for the others, yeah, I need more exploration of the characters' feelings and motivations.

The scenario you described, "the one punched actually finds the aggression a turn on and it goes on to sex," would almost certainly trigger me if I came upon it unwarned. Especially if the route to sex was just that direct and unexamined. But on the other hand if it talked about the dynamics of partner abuse, about the surprise and sorrow and guilt and rage and inevitability and how all of that is tied up WITH sex... Well. That sounds like a story I should write, actually! ;)

[ratcreature]

It wasn't in any kind framed as abusive or further examined. And I've very rarely seen this warned against. To me it seems the authors who like this somehow don't even realize how dodgy this is for other readers or something. It's like the slash version of the het thing where a woman slaps a man, and then the guy things how spirited and fiery her temper is and how hot that is, only with the violence amped up a bit towards punching rather than slapping.

[lotesse]

Hrm. I tend to like violence as part of a hurt/comfort scenario - words or actions undertaken in a heated moment leads to hurt feelings or other Bad Things, the resultant shock of which brings the characters closer together in the end. Sexnviolence-y only in a metatextual sense, where the violence definitely adds an edge to the eventual sex, but not in a sense where the characters in-verse would see the sex as being connected to the violence. If that makes sense.

I did not check a ticky, because none of them were quite right. Unplanned violence yes, characters directly and consciously finding it sexy no. But me finding it (at least narratively) sexy? Pretty much yeah.

[ratcreature]

Huh, I didn't consider the h/c aspects. I think because that is usually not my thing. I mean, I like characters getting hurt (not as interested in the comfort part), but I don't like the violence to originate within the partnership. For me that comes too close to my partner betrayal squick. But violence against characters in general being attractive to me as the reader wasn't really within the scope of the poll.

[zing_och]

The only things I didn't tick were the one-sided violence ones. Even in a fantasy, that just doesn't turn me on. Though now that I think about it, there are stories like that I like - it's just been a very long time since I came across them. I started out in enemyslash, and it's rather common there. I didn't have a problem with it.

I think my reaction now is different because now I mostly read SGA and other buddyslash things, and there it's too close to domestic abuse to be comfortable.

[ratcreature]

I don't read much enemyslash, but I can see the scenario being less jarring there. In the ones I come across it sometimes seems as if the author doesn't really see it as violence at all. Like I mentioned above, the punching seems to be the slash version of the slapping you see sometimes happen in het romance, where some enraged woman slaps a guy who is then (often somewhat condescendingly) turned on by how temperamental and spirited she is, rather than feeling threatened by the violence.

[shadowvalkyrie]

All-out non-con usually squicks me, no matter which side it's written from. Dub-con, on the other hand can be really, really hot, if written well, and the eventual enjoyment of both parties is not in question. (I will read stories with non-con, or unhappy-ending dub-con, but I won't read them as porn.)

Well, let me go though all your categories, bit by bit. But first I need to say, it really depends on the fandom and pairing. Some stuff works with some characters, but seems horribly off with others. I'll therefore mention examples once in a while, hoping you'll recognise most of them.

My favourite kind of sex+violence is when both parties fight each other with mutual ardour and both end up turned on. (Spontaneous works better for me than planned, except if by planning you mean something subconscious, conscious-but-unspoken, or just a general aiming for escalation. I just can't see anyone sit together over breakfast going, "Hey, how about beating each other up some?")
I think that's because I'm very much into manly-men, and best-friends-turned-lovers, as well as enemies-turned-lovers pairings. TOS!Kirk/Spock would be a good example: they fight a lot on-screen, but are clearly fond of each other anyway, and especially in Amok Time, the sex connection is canon. It also works for quite some fantasy and urban fantasy books. (Have you read Stephan Grundy's Germanic mythology fanfic novels? Hagen and Siegfried would be a good example. Gilgamesh and Enkidu from his Gilgamesh retelling lean that way a bit as well. (Also, the latter are canon, and the former are canon as unrequited, because Grundy is awesome.))

As for characters fighting a third party and getting turned on, I've rarely seen that. It requires a certain sadistic twist of mind few authors are willing to give their characters. (Mutual-violence-turned-sex doesn't usually come off as quite so sadistic, rather as emotionally cathartic.) I have few pairings that works with. Most DCU pairings are game, though (not least because they do spend all their free time fighting), if uncomfortably, because they're supposed to be heroes. And, oddly, Legolas and Gimli from Lord of the Rings, because, well, Helm's Deep. Other fandoms have at most one character I'd want to ship that way. (Kitiara from Dragonlance would be one.)

unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for B, and then leads to sex
and
unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for A, and then leads to sex may seem equally problematic at first sight, but I can actually find the former hot without qualms, while the latter invariably reads as non-con, and is therefore uncomfortable to me. (Of course that can be hot, too, but only in ways that hurt my soul. Thank you, Diana Gabaldon. I've read Outlander thrice now and still can't decide how I feel about that particular scene.)
Possibly the difference is due to the fact that there's no actual victim in the first kind of story, which somehow makes this okay.

[ratcreature]

I see the turn on through violence against others quite often. I mean, usually it is not made quite as blatant (that they torture others directly as part of a sex scene), but the characters being keyed up after a fight, having won, and then celebrating with sex is really quite common. Also one character admiring how well another can fight, and being turned on by how good they are at violence happens a lot. And I can see that with many couples, even if they are not sadistic. John/Aeryn in Farscape are a good example.

[astridv]

Huh. It's weird, I don't much care for violent sex in fanfic (actual I prefer my fic entirely sans sex scenes, same goes for canon) but the only sex scene I've ever seen on tv that didn't make me want to fast-forward was the one in Buffy where she and Spike got into an, um, argument, and brought the house down with them.

That was hot.

[ratcreature]

For pairings like Buffy/Spike the mutual violence option makes sense. It's not really my thing, but I can see it in these "antagonism turned into attraction" scenarios. But with most other pairings I find the step from violence to sex jarring, unless the violence something like sparring and not really meant as more than exercise or something. But if an argument escalated into the physical even leaving out any domestic abuse vibes (I don't think most authors writing this really make that connection), that's just not a turn on for me.

When both are matched in their violence it is closer to what I can appreciate (i.e. violence as a turn on because of its physical presence, showing prowess I guess, like say fighting with someone else), but I don't really like it one partner turns against the other.

[glockgal]

One situation what was missing:
unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for A and B, and then leads to sex

Basically, on character is violent but they both get turned on.

My caveat being that I am not a broad consumer of these types scenes; it naturally has to be combined with good writing/good characterization/good plot, etc. But yeah - if anything's written effectively and well, I'll probably accept and enjoy it. :)

[glockgal]

Basically, on character is violent but they both get turned on.

*one character

[caiusmajor]

I ticked them all, but it really does depend very much on context and characterization.

[ratcreature]

What do you find appealing about the one-sided violent scenarios that I find so puzzling? For which characters does this work for you?

[mortigi_tempo]

Violence as a mutual turn-on appeals to me. Not necessarily planned, but in some way consensual - that is, if one partner just refuses to fight back and the other partner continues the beating or whatever anyway, that's not cool to me. However, I feel that physical fighting is a good way to relieve tension, and when mutually agreed upon can be beneficial to a relationship.

Plus there's something about rough, cathartic, adrenaline-fueled, just-sparred sex that really really appeals to me. Personally, though, there has to be an element of mutuality to it all the way through for it to be appealing - fighting is very personal, close-quarters, sweaty bodies and struggling and power play. Physical fighting between couples without the whole mutual willingness thing feels an awful lot like nonconsensual sex to me, which I can't say is much of a turn on.

[ratcreature]

I can like non-con, but then it has to be framed as non-con. I get the impression that the authors who write this kind of one-sided violence as prelude to sex often don't even realize the dodgy associations, because usually the physical part is not very extreme. Like the het thing with the woman slapping the man, and it's somehow supposed to be "temperamental".

[carmilla]

I got a bit stuck on the 'unplanned, mutual violence' one. On the face of it, it sounds like something that would turn me off, but I ticked it in the end because I can think of a couple of different times when it's worked for me. I liked the gunfight-into-sex scene in Mr and Mrs Smith, and while I didn't exactly like the violent Buffy/Spike scenes in BtVS, I thought they were quite hot.

As a general rule, though, characters having a violent fight because they're genuinely angry with each other and then having sex is going to turn me off because it's so unhealthy. That kind of scenario works much better for me if the two characters involved fight a lot in their daily lives (like Buffy or any of the Batclan, say, who have heavy-hitting spars that sometimes include weapons pretty much every day), because then the fight in question can be a normal occurence and not motivated by anger.

As to character A hitting character B in anger and character B getting turned on - I'm with you there. Squick city, as far as I'm concerned.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, sex after sparring for example feels completely different than sex after an argument that escalated into violence.

[bironic]

unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for B, and then leads to sex

I can't off the top of my head imagine a scenario in which someone would want to have sex immediately upon being the victim of unexpected violence... Unless the character is established earlier as getting off on that in some way.

unplanned, violent aggression (e.g. during an escalating argument) of character A against their partner B is a turn-on for A, and then leads to sex

I would say I would possibly like this if the sex does not happen immediately (unless it is non-con), but rather A works through his/her unexpected discovery that s/he is a sadist and/or discusses known issues of sadism with B.

[erinptah]

One of my favorite characters is a closet masochist, so he would definitely find that first situation hot. In his own screwed-up way.

I'm with you on the second one (I didn't tick that box). Having it instantly go to sex can work if both the aggressor and the victim are enjoying it in some way (the violent!A/turned-on!B dynamic underlies a lot of rape fantasy). But if the aggressor is also turned on and the victim isn't "getting anything" out of the setup...yeah, not so much.

[melannen]

I clicked the "unplanned, mutual violence", but -- not always, and I think not in the particular situation you're talking about. The one thing that gets me above all in pairings is relationships where the power dynamics are tense and played out onscreen - often that's by way of the two characters competing against each other; and for some characters, verbal sparring spilling over to physical sparring spilling into actual sex works *really* well for me. But there's a difference between two people roughhousing in a spirit of friendly competition (even if it gets a bit more intense than expected) and a scene where one character really is trying to hurt the other and it gets subsumed into sex.

I can sometimes find the second scenario hot, but only in the same way I find non-con hot, and only if the author *acknowledges* that it's a fucked-up relationship. If they try to play it off as normal relationship dynamics - no.

I'm okay with either character finding violence against each other a turn-on, in the Spock-chokes-Kirk sort of situation, but if you want me to buy them as being good for each other, I want them to resolve the conflict, and then talk about how they've found a new kink, and try it again in a safe-sane-consensual framework. Not go right from trying to kill each other to sex.

[melannen]

Oh - and in a story that *does* have the dark, screwed-up sort of violence leading to sex in it, I will give a warning (in my own fic, or in recs) for "sexualized violence". Because even if I'm in the mood to read it, I want to know going in. I agree with you that it deserves a warning.

[puella_nerdii]

Here from metafandom -- to be honest, the best way to get me to like a pairing is to put violence in there somewhere, in a good deal of the contexts you've mentioned. The only one I don't enjoy is the second-to-last option, and I don't know if I can quite articulate why that doesn't work for me whereas noncon can (in certain circumstances), but I think I prefer the noncon/violence combination when it's clear that both are not so much about desire as they are about the control and display of power, and not presenting the second-to-last scenario as at the very least dubcon suggests to me that the fic in question wouldn't be problematizing the violence or treating it as what it is. And while I don't think all of the sex-and-violence combinations that you mention have to be problematized, I'll get VERY disturbed if I read a fic that incorporates violence with the sex and presents it as okay in the cases where the violence isn't mutually desired.

[ratcreature]

I think I find it most jarring if it is a minor sort of offhand element, and the author seems to think the violence is not a big deal, because it is not extreme violence, like in the het "woman slaps man when she's outraged, he finds it cute/temperamental/whatever" scenario I mentioned in comments above.

[rahirah]

It really depends upon the characters whether or not unplanned mutual violence seguing into sex works for me. For a pairing like BtVS's Buffy/Spike, yes, it can be smokin' hot. For...well, any pairing which doesn't involve superhuman ex-mortal enemies who have been established in canon as being turned on by violence, not so much.

[ratcreature]

Yes, for those characters mutual violence works for me as well. With others I prefer things like friendly sparring to lead to sex to get the physical aspect and aggression being a turn on in the story.

[apiphile]

Pretty much as long as there's some inkling of consent between the characters - they know each other well enough, there's been some vague discussion, etc., etc., I'm down with any degree of violence. The only thing that matters is that they're happy about it/willing for it to happen.

I'm vehemently against noncon-as-sexy. I made a blog-post off-LJ some time ago explaining the difference between being paralysed with fear and therefore not stopping a sexual assault, and the whole submission-from-a-point-of-equality thing I'd been banging on about for months. Hrm. Yeah, it's definitely a matter of consent and desire on both sides which legitimising anything. I mean, I've written characters where the line between consent and non-consent is completely fucked-up, but they are presented as hugely screwed-up and their view is held as being deeply wrong and unhealthy by all the other characters in said stories.

On the whole as long as it's consensual or the above caveats have been met, I'm actually more in favour of violence with sex than sex without violence. Personal foible.

[ratcreature]

Non-con can work as kink for me similarly to how slavefic works. In a way consensual D/s in fiction is a kink once removed, while slavefic is the character living the fantasy directly, which of course has nothing to do with the reality of slavery. I think there are two basic modes of writing either of those (and probably a number of other kinks), i.e. you can write a realistic take on the horrors and trauma of slavery and rape, or you can write it in a fantasy mode, even though it still is the horror scenario for the characters, rather than them playing or giving consent.

[kennahijja]

found via metafandom...

Hm, what we call 'hatesex' in in the Harry Potter fandom is one of my most deep-seated kinks, so I ticked off most of the ticky boxes... but then non-con is another one of my most deep-seated kinks too.

The one that makes me leery is the 'violence against outsiders' bit, but perhaps because I find it hard to picture. Hurting others as an intro into sex would be a pretty distinct turn-off... Post-battle/celebrating survival sex maybe not so much.

Anyway, with all the example mentioned, it really depends mostly on the story itself.

[undomielregina]

I see the violence against outsiders thing working really well when it gets played as one character admiring the other's competence in a situation where competence includes the ability to fight effectively. I see this a lot in comics fandom, where combat prowess is really important. Comics fandom also has characters who are basically berserkers and for whom it makes sense to get turned on explicitly by fighting -- Wolverine is the best example, but Batman has a bit of this in his character too.

[undomielregina]

here from metafandom

I tickied everything but the uni-directional violence within the pairing. I enjoy reading about pretty much every consensual kink under the sun, so that one's easy. I like the "violence against outsiders" trope if it's a warrior culture where prowess in battle is appreciated. A lot of fandoms are like that, though, including ones set in the modern military or certain takes on law enforcement (ie: yes in The Sentinel, no in Bones).

Unplanned mutual violence works better if they haven't hurt each other badly (or preferably much at all). A lot of the examples other people have cited are like this, especially Mr & Mrs Smith and the Buffy/Spike relationship.

The violence with non-con is a half ticky for me, since it only works in one context. I read a lot of kink, and extra violence -- violence beyond that inherent in the fact that the scenario is non-consensual -- in a non-con fic pretty much has to be part of non-consensual slavery for me to like it.

I don't like unplanned, one-sided violence. I saw this a lot in BDSM fics at one point and it's developed into a huge squick for me. It was really common for the designated dominant to do something hideous and abusive and for the designated sub to figure out that he was into BDSM because he liked it. At this point, the whole idea squicks me pretty unreservedly.

[ratcreature]

Yes. Warrior culture trope. That's a good take what I find appealing in the violence against outsiders (of course the glorification of that kind of thing in fiction has its on problems, but it definitely works for me) more than the darker serial killer voyeurism you also sometimes get.

The one-sided violence in BDSM fic I've encountered often that now is a squick for me is this kind of weird thing, where the dominant somehow does RL behavior modification for the subs "own good" (e.g. Skinner trying to stop Mulder from running off suddenly to chase an alien sighting or something like that).

[(Anonymous)]

I like all of the above, except for in real life, of course. I guess I am just easy like that ;)

[ratcreature]

Yes, most of the fictional scenarios I like I wouldn't want to encounter in RL. Not that this is unique to porn, it goes for apocalypses and alien invasions too... *G*

[erinna]

I'm all about the violence, and powerplay and mindfuck and unequal relationships within fiction. The more twisted and squirmy the better.

I also love fluff.

[ratcreature]

If it is explicitly written as kink I like a lot of these too. Though I dislike things that could read as unfaithful or betrayal of each other (not just cheating, but also partners not being equally invested and comitted and such things).

[vangirl]

Hopping in from metafandom but I find it interesting that the last option has more checks than the second to last option. I did check everything but the second to last option as well too, so even actual non-con doesn't skiv me as bad as "Character A is violent and then they have sex cause Character A liked it."

I can take a character discovering they're a masochist during a fight and wants to have violent sex because of it but there's something unnerving about a character discovering they're a sadist and wants to have sex for the same reasoning. I wish I could explain why that bothers me more than something that is essentially rape, but it just does.

[ratcreature]

Now that I think about it, the scenario could actually work for me if plot was explicitly about the character discovering his sadism, though I think I'd still prefer it not go to sex immediately after punching his partner in the face and realizing he enjoys how the split lip looks on him or something. It would bother me less thant he character being turned on by winning the fight, or finally shutting the other up or something like that, about violence as power in a relationship, rather than inflicting physical pain.

[(Anonymous)]

I've shipped a lot of enemy pairings so I'm familiar with a bunch of these and at least not mind them. That said, mutual violence makes me definitely less queasy than one-sided one. And I tend to prefer it more if it's the kind of thing that let's say character B is willing to go through in order to reach character A (let's say B is a villain and A doesn't believe that B is reformed; or B is a hero trying to sacrifice himself) rather than something that the characters get turned on.

On the violence against others, that does sound squicky to me just written like that, but then I thought of two instances, the afore mentioned where A for example disposes of third parties with a lot of precision and grace (effective, rather than violent/sadistic) and B is impressed. The other one being that maybe A is a very closed of character who suddenly lashes out and becomes very protective when third party tries to do something to A and in a way A's loss of composure/lapse into uncharacteristic violence is seen as proof that stoic/moral character does have deeper feelings.

If the violence is one sided then I think it makes a lot of difference whether the two are already in a relationship or not. If they already are, theen it ramps the squick factor up a lot.

I wonder if there's a special subset for violence conducted in undercover or The Aliens Made Them Do It situations. I've mostly noticed that in canon actually. Like Michael unexpectantly having to hit Fiona in Burn Notice (of course he got lots of negative repercussions from it, not arousal) or on Criminal Minds when A has to put down B in front of a serial killer in order to gain the serial killer's trust (like in the case of Hotch having to be violent against Reid in LDSK while they were both at gunpoint from a sniper; an episode which inspired seas of fanfic).

[ratcreature]

I find the violence against outsiders more attractive if it is effective and needed (like post battle sex and the like) than if it is sadistic and they inflict violence on others for the purpose of sex (disturbing serial killer couple voyeurism or Death Eaters torturing muggles during orgies or scenarios like that). I am mostly into hero characters rather than villains, so my mind went to the first place, not the so much the second when I thought of options.

[affablyevil.livejournal.com]

Here via metafandom. I find it very interesting that you posted this, because one of my favorite stories actually involved a scenario similar to this: Character A picks a fight with Character B, provoking B into beating him for the purpose of punishment and A has a sexual reaction to it (B is baffled at first but then catches on). The author stresses in the header notes that in real life situations, d/s should be talked about and its terms should be agreed upon in advance, that the characters in the story are not practicing it properly.

As with all kinks, ymmv. I think for what I enjoy personally it highly highly depends on the characters and context in question; their histories, inclinations, etc. etc. And with regards to the material I don't find appealing well — I do think that fiction is the place where we ought to air out our dirty laundry, so the speak.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, if A goads B into hitting them because they are into this as a sex scenario and are aware of it, that is messed up (I have read such scenarios also), but it doesn't jar me nearly as much. I think the scenarios that throw me out of stories most are the ones where it is only a small element, not much highlighted as a kink, but it just happens, and the character who is hit often does not find being hit a turn on so much as that the other character who lost his temper is forceful, or looses control when they are reserved otherwise, like in the het movie slap during arguments I mentioned several times above. And the whole thing is treated very offhand.

I don't mind if people find this a turn on either, messed up or not. I mean, I'm a fan of slavefic and of sexual humiliation for example, I just wish there was some common label for it.

[cimorene]

In my experience, people usually mean "work for me" in a fanfiction context as "come off as believable", and in that case, it utterly depends on the characters. If I find the behavior believable for the characters, I happily keep reading even if as is the case I find that unsexy. I was actually reading a story that used this device this week in Kirk/McCoy and found it startling and memorable (but amusing and basically believable even for TOS Kirk, who is older, more moderate, and less aggressive than Reboot Kirk).

[ratcreature]

Yeah, it is very context dependent.