Simple question really, Was Tess raped by Alec or did she give in to him? As the book gives no real indication, it hints that she was sleeping when he approached her but really would Alec have raped her and would Tess have let him do so?
Tess - Raped - Yes or No?
Simple question really, Was Tess raped by Alec or did she give in to him? As the book gives no real indication, it hints that she was sleeping when he approached her but really would Alec have raped her and would Tess have let him do so?
Absolutely Tess was raped. I think however, because of the moral atmosphere at the time, Tess would feel responsible for the incident because she consented to riding away from the fray on Alec's horse with him, when she felt she should have known better.
Women probably blamed themselves more often for rape at this time.
The book mildly suggests that this in karma because Tess' knightly ancestors more than likely raped a few peasant girls.
Yeah
It's kinda hard to answer this question, although she is raped in fact. Hardy described it so subtle, it seemed like if you dont pay attention, you would miss it. There has always been a controversy about it, because woman at that time had low position in a society and Tess might wanted to resist but she couldn't~~ So, I think it all depends on how you think, that I think Tess appears to Alec that she is very attractive.
Its my first post and I'll keep it short but straight. I think Tess is raped otherwise the subtitle of the novel wouldn't be "A pure woman". A pure and virtuous woman, according to christian religion, is a woman who keeps herself only for her husband. You may ask "Then, why did she become Alec's mistress?" I defend the point that she was obliged to and she never wanted to be -unlike Moll Flanders!!- Moll became a prostitute for her wish to become a gentlewoman, for something material. Anyway back to the point, Tess is raped and she is a pure woman as Thomas Hardy calls her.
This is my first post too, and I have just finished reading this book tonight. I think she was raped, although it is subtly put and hard to imagine Tess giving in to him after all her refusals of even a kiss or sitting by him on his horse. I'm sure that, had she had a choice, she would certainly have refused him!
I think she was, I'll check it out later to make sure but I think there's some part where Tess shows strong hesitation. But Hardy did not express her feelings explicitly.
"there are people in the world so hungry that God can not appear to them except in the form of bread"
Mahatma Gandhi
Originally Posted by BooksRMyWeaknes
ahh but after reading how much alec actually adores her do u think that he would have forced her to do something she didnt want to do?and s for hardy! he portrays tess as a strong moraled (sp) heroine so do you think that she would not have had the force to rebound of him!? personally i agree with the 1st poster i think!? that she concented but blamed herself after and plauged herself with guilty thoughts!
I think you have to consider that rape for men at the time wasn't as much of a crime as it is now, and to alec, perhaps it wasn't violent or wrong because in his own way he did love her. Its the same thought that husbands have the right to sex from their wives?
Tess was most definitely raped and that's why the title is "A pure woman faithfully presented". Hardy wanted it made clear that it didn't matter what a man imposed upon a woman, they could still be pure at heart. The rape scene is in chapter 11 at the end:
"Why it was that upon this beautiful feminine tissue, sensitive as gossamer, and practically blank as snow as yet, there should have been traced such a coarse pattern as it was doomed to receive; why so often the coarse appropriates the finer thus, the wrong man the woman, the wrong woman the man, many thousand years of analytical philosophy have failed to explain to our sense of order. One may, indeed, admit the possibility of a retribution lurking in the present catastrophe. Doubtless some of Tess d'Urberville's mailed ancestors rollicking home from a fray had dealt the same measure even more ruthlessly towards peasant girls of their time. But though to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children may be a morality good enough for divinities, it is scorned by average human nature; and it therefore does not mend the matter."
Today that might seem really obscure, but back then in Victorian society he was being really pornographic (or at least what they considered pornographic). It's easy to read over, but that IS the rape scene.
Wow, I've read the book couple months ago, but I must say that I didn't feel it that way.
I was pretty convinced that Tess, under pressure, somehow decided 'so let it be'.
Well, Hardy left it to us to judge perhaps... I must admit it's a bit perplexing...
I am not sure which is worse- being raped or being psychologically forced to do make love with such a treacherous man even if she didn't want to...either way it's tragic, maybe that's why the author leaves the answer to the reader...
I found it to be quite different ( i cannot think of a better word, my vocab has left me right now) that Tess is called a pure woman. I do not deny that she is raped and that the fault is really not her own but she is not, in a since, pure because of her history. She has lived a tragic life and has suffered many things that have affected her physically. In that sense she is not "in the flesh" pure but in "spirit" she is.
I find this thread fascinating for what it reveals about the kind of ideological assumptions I have been trying to explain in the ‘Language and Control’ thread. No doubt some of you will see that as consistent with an attempt to apply my own agenda to a text but suspend your judgment for a moment. I don’t think she was raped at all. Perhaps ‘seduced’ would be a better word to use. Before you all scream at me, that doesn’t necessarily make Alex any less morally reprehensible.
In chapter 15, ‘Maiden No More’, Hardy writes of Tess’s involvement with Alex:
“But for the world's opinion those experiences would have been simply a liberal education.”
What exactly does he mean by that?
No one so far seems to have considered the possibly that Tess is a sexual being with sexual desires of her own. Is this perhaps because women are not supposed to have sexual desire, at least not in the same way as men? Without wishing to offend or make anyone blush, I will say that I have known perfectly ‘decent’ women who enjoy sex as a purely physical, recreational activity – no different, in essence, from a game of tennis. Such women are usually labelled as little ‘better’ than prostitutes, which I think is hugely unfair and, I believe, a view largely to the benefit of men. Nor has anyone really questioned what a ‘pure’ woman is and why the word is applied in the first place. Please disagree with me if you think I’m wrong but aren’t most of you assuming that female purity involves chastity? Why? Why is it more acceptable for a man not to be a virgin on his wedding night than a woman? What would the word ‘pure’ mean if applied to a man? Would Tess be less virtuous if she enjoyed sex? In the eyes of many people, I think that she would. Why is this?
In my view, the uncertainty over whether or not she was raped is the result of ideas about female sexuality that are so deeply embedded that we take them as given. She is presumably not tempted by Alex simply because he could provide her with material security. She does actually find him sexually attractive. Why should she not enjoy expressing her sexuality by having sex with a man she finds attractive? Is it because that would offend our sense of what is proper behaviour for a woman? Isn’t female purity a concept that is used to control female sexual behaviour? Many men seem to like overt sexuality in their mistresses but not in their wives.
That’s enough for now. I expect a few slings and arrows aimed in my direction but I would like to read what women in particular think.
I don't think there is any ambiguity as I read it: she was raped. She was asleep and he took advantage of her. The situation is doubly complex because Hardy has Tess dependant on Alec and she did have moments that could be construed as sexally attacted to him. But she's also at times repulsed by him too. Hardy is after a very complex situation from which he wants to show how fatalism is integrated into what makes us human beings (I don't know if I've said that well enough, hopefully you understand.) Social injustice is there but a minor theme with Hardy; his central theme is almost always universal/God's injustice to us lttle human beings.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"That day I shall always recollect with grief; with reverence also, for the gods so willed it." - Virgil, The Aeneid (V, 49)
Distracted from distraction by distraction
I am currently doing an essay on Tess myself, along the lines of "Purity". (Happen to be stuck, though.)
I find the aspect of silence interesting in this. Tess didn't verbaly refuse Alec's attention. And she was sleeping in key places of the novel when she is viewed, such as Stonehenge. Also, Hardy completely cut out her narrative to Angel. (Angel's such a bastard...grr...)
By the way, DammitPoet, the English were Protestant.
I don't think that it matters too much what happened after the event of the night at The Chase.
What actually happened after Alec fell on to Tess and kissed her? Did she resist?
"Raped or not"? Base on the description of the event in the book, this question is impossible to answer, at least legally anyway. The fact that he fell on top of her and kissed her without consent (because she was sleeping) can only amount to a lighter sexual offense ('rape' has to involve actual ...you know). She must have woken up after this; and how did she react to his further actions? Did she contribute to the event? We don't even know that. It is too unclear. Perhaps Hardy meant for this grey area to be.
If the question had been: Is Tess pure? Then this would be an argument; and I would undoubtedly be in Tess' favour. But the word "rape" has a legal definition, even at the time, I believe. And the moral behind this law is precisely to avoid grey areas like this, in order to punish the rapist in much worse cases. So, legally speaking (and thus morally speaking...kind of), rape: no.
Please don't get mad at me for slowly turning into a bloodsucking lawyer
Last edited by tn2743; 04-11-2006 at 02:40 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks