Tess - Raped - Yes or No?

[meg1231]

hmm that is a wonderful question which was discussed in an earlier discussion which i had, i think she was raped but if you read a little further there is a part where she says took advantage of her when she was .......vulnerable so considering the fact she was so scared and i guess asleep when Alec approached her maybe she knew what was going on but just felt very raw and vulnerable and therefore just let it happen....... i think thats kind of the mystery among that situation maybe rape is implied or maybe the author just want the readers to have their own impression of what happened to her............................................... my first post

[Dark Muse]

I have heard a lot about this book before reading it, and everyone always talks about Tess being raped, but I just cannot see it that way after reading about what happened.

From the start to the book Tess is shown to be a person who allows herself to be easily persuaded by other people, and with whom it does not take much effort to get her to forsake her own will for someone else's and to give into what other people want of her.

Based upon what is known about the kind of person Tess is and her own reflections after the incident occurred I believe that Tess allowed Alec to pressure her into consenting to his advances. She might not have per sea truly wanted to do it, but I do not believe that she actively protested against Alec or made any attempt to resist him, but she gave into what he wanted.

Alec was a cad and he did use his position to take advantage of Tess as well as used her own weakness against her, and Tess was naive and did not have a very strong personality, she was easily malleable, but I do not believe that Alec physically overpowered Tess and violently forced himself upon her.

While he did put Tess in a disadvantageous situation, pressuring someone into agreeing to do something which they may not want to do while is morally questionable I do not think constitutes "rape"

I do believe that Tess shares in part some responsibility for what happened for I believe that she could have by her own actions and behavior prevented herself from being placed in that position if she had on more than one occasion listened to and trusted her own judgement and stood more firmly behind her own convictions instead of so easily giving way to what others want.

[kelby_lake]

I believe that the specific incident in the woods was rape- however Alech had started the process of seduction even since she bit into the strawberry. the strawberries, the learning how to whistle and the rose are so blatantly erotic symbols that it would be stupid to assume that she has absolutely no idea. Tess gets her awakening but she is not ready to go all the way.

She is not 'pure' in the chaste sense but in an earthly sense. It would have been more shocking back then to have her actively consent and desire Alec- at least if it was a rape, she was an innocent taken advantage of.

[janesmith]

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.

Having read all of the posts I have to admit I wholeheartedly agree with you. The rape/seduction scene in The Chase is still one of the most ambiguous and hotly debated episodes in literature. I focused on Tess and some of Hardy's other late novels for my MA dissertation in order to expose and challenge late-Victorian biological discourses of female sexuality.
You are correct when you point out that contemporary readers would be outraged to think that a woman could be capable of sexual feeling. Therefore, unfortunately ,it would have been easier for them to accept the situation as rape rather than female sexual awakening.
Hardy's intention was to portary woman as a sexual being in her own right.

[kiki1982]

Yes, I have been on the fence since reading this book in 2008...

You can't really tell whether it was rape in the modern sense or not. I suppose in the 19th century it was considered rape because a woman was not supposed to consent to something like that unless she was a sad case... She was not supposed to know about that kind of stuff even.

However, Kelby Lake is right that Alec has long started the seduction process before Tess is even aware of it. I can still remember, and that I found really shocking, that after she has left when she was sent on that errand for her parents, that Alec said to himself that 'she [was] a crummy girl', meaning of low value... So, there already respect was lacking. Of course Tess's mother goes for it.

I don't know if Tess had an idea though... It would be in line with Naturalism if she had not. It would make the story even sadder and that kind of people often crop up in Naturalist stories because they walk in -to their own misfortune with their eyes wide open. It makes you as a reader feel that life is pointless. I had the impression that Tess's mother pretty much presented her on a silver plate in the hope that Alec would provide for them I think. However, whether Tess knew about that is the question. Girls back then were not so knowing when it came to that as girls are now. I mean, some of them didn't know what was going to happen on their wedding nght, and they gave their consent to marry, of all things! My mother (born in 1949) knew that babies came out of her mother's belly only because her mother told her. Her aunts found that vile and kept going on about the cabages. There were the wildest rumours about wedding nights. Some of them were so horrendous that it moved girls to drug themselves with chloroform and tell the groom the get on with it.

I have the impression that Tess reproaches her mother later for not telling her what Alec had in mind. Knowing that, she would have made it clear from the start. But, it was not to happen.

Thinking of that, she might have consented to a kiss and gone further than she wanted in that wood. Even if it was not really rape (she crying 'no' and he forcing her anyway) and she kind of went along with it not really knowing what was happening, she must have regretted it afterwards and so it is kind of rape as he didn't ask her permission to do so explicitly (as it is outside wedlock)...

It is all pretty difficult, but if the woman was supposed to be this naïve creature, then she was raped yes. Still, I feel sadder about it as Tess doesn't even seem to know what has happened to her until later...

[MUMUKSHA]

I have the impression that Tess reproaches her mother later for not telling her what Alec had in mind. Knowing that, she would have made it clear from the start. But, it was not to happen...It is all pretty difficult, but if the woman was supposed to be this naïve creature, then she was raped yes. Still, I feel sadder about it as Tess doesn't even seem to know what has happened to her until later...

Even I think what makes it so unfortunate and unfair is her innocence, or rather ignorance.

But I would prefer 'seduced' if I really had to choose to term it. And I believe what happened to Tess would remain as hideous and unfair even if it isn't called 'rape'.

I believe when returning back to her home with Alec she tells him about how she loaths herself for her weakness and much more because she does not really love him. Then she says: "My eyes were dazed by you for a little, and that was all." And she also added later "I didn't understand your meaning till it was too late."

I don't think any violence was involved so I would say 'seduced'. Then again it depends on the perspective. I consider violence or threat implicit as far as rape is considered.

Besides I don't think it really would make a difference how it is termed. Especially, I don't see how it has anything to do with Tess being a 'Pure Woman'. If being raped or seduced made a difference to Hardy he would have made it clear that she was raped. That would have settled the question. It wasn't too difficult making it clear in suggestion if he did not have the freedom to be explicit about it.

[kelby_lake]

Indeed Alec took advantage of her (symbolically the strawberries he feeds her are 'out of season'). However to deny that she was not at all flattered or never felt any physical attraction to him at all seems rather unbelievable. The 'cruelty of lust' does not need to apply solely to Alec's mistreatment of her but perhaps to Tess in her blindness to see Alec's actual intentions back then.

I think Hardy's initial intention for the scene might have been to have Alec as 'a mistake'- that Tess alowed herself to be seduced too early. However the readers of the time would have been less likely to sympathise with her so Hardy has to make it rape, eradicating Tess' blame. Her martyrdom adds to the reader's sense that she is in no way to blame.

But Hardy doesn't fully commit to the idea of having a pretty innocent girl be raped. Maybe because of his fixation on Tess' beauty and figure, he sets up a seduction, making Tess partly complicit in her misfortune. Therefore it is a very muddled area- Hardy cannot decide whether it is the rape of an innocent or the manipulation of sexual curiosity. Either choice would have made a powerful novel- were it actually a pure rape, Hardy would not need to overdo the martyrdom and the reader would sympathise with Tess entirely. Granted, it would make Angel's rejection of her incredibly cruel and Hardy may not have been able to redeem him.
If it was a manipulation, that would have been a truly feminist approach and a proper attack on double standards. It also means that Alec's character could have been developed more and there would be a genuine conflict, not simply a looming melodramatic villain. It then makes Angel a hypocrite but not cruel.

[MUMUKSHA]

I think Hardy's initial intention for the scene might have been to have Alec as 'a mistake'- that Tess alowed herself to be seduced too early. However the readers of the time would have been less likely to sympathise with her so Hardy has to make it rape, eradicating Tess' blame. Her martyrdom adds to the reader's sense that she is in no way to blame.

But Hardy doesn't fully commit to the idea of having a pretty innocent girl be raped. Maybe because of his fixation on Tess' beauty and figure, he sets up a seduction, making Tess partly complicit in her misfortune. Therefore it is a very muddled area- Hardy cannot decide whether it is the rape of an innocent or the manipulation of sexual curiosity.

I can't agree with this.

Granted, it would make Angel's rejection of her incredibly cruel and Hardy may not have been able to redeem him.

This, although, is a great point. At least for me this answers the question why Hardy didn't just make it clear she was raped. Thanks for pointing this out.

If it was a manipulation, that would have been a truly feminist approach and a proper attack on double standards. It also means that Alec's character could have been developed more and there would be a genuine conflict, not simply a looming melodramatic villain. It then makes Angel a hypocrite but not cruel.

The thing is I'm not really getting your point. It's like thinking aloud. I'm rather confused by the 'if', 'but' and 'however's.

[kelby_lake]

Basically, if it had been an ultimately consential seduction, albeit misguided, that would have been a gutsier attack at double standards. Hardy presents Tess as a sensual figure so why not commit fully to that? Alec's character could have been developed so he wasn't just a 2D villain and Angel would come off as hypocritical, denouncing Tess for what he did himself, but he wouldn't come off as cruel.

[bestwork]

wow controversial thread, a lot of people seem to have gotten in trouble for commenting on this one..

I've got an alternative reality question for you hardy fans, relates to 'The Return of the Native' (and yes I know this is the Tess forum); What about Susan Nonsuch murdering Eustacia? Anyone ever read it that way?

I bring it up because I'm a filmmaker, I've shot an American adaptation of Return and I guess I'd like to get some feedback on it before I start to shop it around.. maybe this isn't the forum, but if not here, then I don't know where..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1n1PSkj58

I'm curious if anyone finds it recognizably ROTN from the trailer..

[kelby_lake]

Basically, if it had been an ultimately consential seduction, albeit misguided, that would have been a gutsier attack at double standards. Hardy presents Tess as a sensual figure so why not commit fully to that? Alec's character could have been developed so he wasn't just a 2D villain and Angel would come off as hypocritical, denouncing Tess for what he did himself, but he wouldn't come off as cruel.

In 19th century England, the idea that a woman could be 'pure'/'innocent' but not a virgin, or even just have feelings of lust, was inconceivable. It's unclear whether Hardy could have written an ultimately consential scene but chose not to, or whether he didn't believe that consent would still make Tess innocent.

[sfieldrdr]

I struggled to figure this out, as it is pretty ambiguous. But, I believe she was raped. In a subsequent chapter it's stated that 'screams were heard coming from the Chase'. So, although not stated explicity I believe that, once woken by Alec kissing her she did struggle and scream. She stayed at the estate for weeks afterward and, I believe, continued to have sex with him. Why? Only thought is that she already was violated, was afraid to leave and to not be able to keep helping family.

Interesting note: Just finished watching 'Tess', 1979 Roman Polanski film. In this movie she is decidedly not raped. Alec kisses her in the Chase, she's awake, tries to push him away at first but then very much allows herself to be kissed - actually, contributing to it. In film she is shown staying on at estate and is given fancy clothes, goes in rowboat with him and seems very much his mistress. Funny that this take on the 'rape' was presented this way in movie. Only thing I can deduce is that screenplay was written by Polanski (with two others). Perhaps, being Polanski, his view on what constitutes rape, and what 'no' means is different from yours or mine.

[cafolini]

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

Can't speak morality without exposing the legal framework.

[kev67]

I read a book a while ago called 'I Never Called It Rape'. It was a write up of a survey carried out back in the 80s in America, sponsored by the Ms, which I think is a magazine. It was about date and acquaintance rape. It contained some shocking statistics. It said about 1 in 4 women had been a victim of rape or attempted rape, and that 70-80% of these were acquaintance rapes. When the women in the survey were being interviewed, the researcher did not use the word rape, but if the women described an incident that fitted the criteria, it was recorded as one. I read it because I often wondered why frequently there seemed to so little evidence of a struggle, as I could not imagine submitting to anything like that without a fight.

It seems that unless the victim can show a bruised face, bruised thighs and skin under her fingernails, her chances of being believed are not high, especially not in a law court. However, most victims probably do not have this sort of evidence. They are often lovely young girls, like Tess. They may feel unhappy about a situation that is developing, but they don't want to offend the man - because they're nice girls. She is often not prepared for coping with an assault (like Tess). She may not know how to defend herself against a man who may be much larger than her. She may be frightened of being hurt. Often the rapist has been very cynical. He has often planned the assault. He often takes her somewhere where she cannot be heard. Often the rapist drives her home afterwards, like Alec d'Urberville does.

Tess was asleep when Alec found her again, so hardly in a state to consent. Alec d'Urberville knew Tess did not want to have sex with him. If she did not fight him off in her half-asleep state, it was still non-consensual. It seems to me that Hardy wrote a pretty realistic depiction of an acquaintance rape.

[kev67]

I am wondering whether it was rape now. Tess seemed to imply it wasn't in her letter to Angel. Still, the book said that Angel found her asleep. Did she consent? Was she just too exhausted to resist? No doubt she would not have consented if she had been fully awake and feeling strong, but Alec is incredibly persistent. I think I would still consider it rape, although one with no chance of a conviction.