Tess - Raped - Yes or No?

I would say that Hardy voluntarily laid the emphasis on ambiguity. Even the title of the chapter: The Seduction or Rape stresses ambiguity. Hardy wanted for the reader to make his own opinion. Moreover, he wasn't a manichean author. All his characters are stained by flaws, but also have some good in them. Somehow, even Alec can't be judged as an all evil character (though I DO hate him, but I try to put reason ahead for once :p ). The night where the turning point happened, he had just rescued Tess from the other girls, after the feast.
But, on the other hand, the name of the wood, the Chase is really symbolical. Alec is pursuing Tess and gives her no rest. He misleads her and is her downfall. Tess was asleep and very tired, even if she protested she may not have had enough strength to stop him. Not to mention she knew nothing of men and had told Alec several times that she didn't love him.
Yet, later in the novel, Tess aludes to it as a weakness of her own.

The fact that nothing is shown of the scene in the book really shows the grey vision of Hardy (or so I believe). Anyway, Tess is the embodiement of innocence and martyrdom all along the novel. This can't be contested. I think she was both raped and seduced, perhaps a bit more raped than truly seduced because Tess is also the kind of character who will always feel guilty about things she isn't responsible for.

This might help: Rape or Seduction?

Well I think she was raped. But for the love of god don't say anything so definitive in your essays or exams.
Hardy is very protective of Tess which makes her into a victim. It also makes her into an annoying idiot, but again; personal opinion.
There are a few things that Americans may not be aware of in terms of historical context:

The Industial Revolution creeping into the rural areas: resulting in the birth of 'new money'. Alec is new money and therefore despised by Hardy.

The agnostic tendancies of the educated classes in Victorian England. So 'fate' takes the place of 'God' in the common vancular. Hardy was educated so his ideas of God are none too favourable. He thought such ideas of Christain purity were stupid etc, that is why even if Tess had consented, she would still be eligible for the 'pure' description.

Victiorians did not talk about sex. Tess might have known the basics, what with being from the country, but the whole abc's of the matter were definatly not revealled to her.

There's an old saying: Lie back and think of England. Intention and perception are two differnt things.

Though I still think she was raped.

I agree with some of the early comments, and tend to think Tess unwillingly gives in to the 'rape' (if we can still call it so). she certainly would have not preferred it happening, but given the situation (both physical: she is alone with Alec in some unknown place, and is unable to go to anywhere amidst the fogs; and material: she feels responsible for the death of the horse, therefore feels oblidged to go along with her parents' advice to appeal to rich kins), she might have given in despite the pains.

The first time was rape-definitely, but after that preliminary loss of innocence Tess feels compelled to give herself to Alec who kind of possesses her.

I have been trying to convince myself that Tess was in a literal sense raped, but somehow I cannot get that impression whilst reading the book. Hardy does make it very difficult to give a definitive judgement, but he is surely not so straightforward in his narrative.

If she was raped, why does Hardy calls Alec in later chapters “her old lover”? The word lover does not make any sense in the context of rape, but it makes a lot of sense if Tess unwillingly consented to the act.

Why would Angel abandon Tess if she told him she was actually raped? Clearly, his “slavery” to conventions and customs would not be so extreme. I believe he would have understood Tess more, and end up loving her more than before. Though Clare was actually an unbeliever, he based his perception of ‘purity’ on Christian morals,and rape does not take away the spiritual purity from a woman. He is in fact a product of his social background. Angel also tells Tess that she was more sinned against; in other words, he does acknowledge that Tess actually sinned, and thus in her innocence she consented to the act.

Tess also acknowledges that it was her weakness, and believes this to the end. This does not make her less pure, because Hardy’s perception of purity is much different from the Christian view. Tess did not know what was really happening, so in a sense she was abused of her innocence. On a number of occasions, she refused Alec, but in the situation, she was unable to do so. Thus, she retains her purity in Hardy’s view, because like an innocent child corrupted by adults, she has been corrupted and robbed of her virginity.

Yes, I think she was. There's some point in the book in which she was feeling uncomfortable talking to Angel Clare (I can't stop laughing when I first read HIS name.) upon Angel seeing her big belly.

In Hardy's own voice:”Let me repeat that a novel is an impression, not an argument; and the matter must rest.” (The New Review,1890). Irwing Howe in 1966 wrote:”For Tess he stakes everything on his sensuous apprehension of a young woman's life, a girl, who is at once a simple milkmaid and an archetype of feminine strength.”
Hardy's image of Tess is ambivalent in character, contradictory, ephemeral of emotional meanings. To desire an in focus image, a yes or no answer to whether Tess was raped, is to impose on Hardy's novel our own predilections for certainty. In my opinion a mistake.
The answer to the question is Yes AND No.

I think the idea of what rape is, was different back then... though I agree, I do think Alec forced himself on her completely, maybe not so much in a physical sense so much as in a mental sense... but Hardy is ambiguous because he wants to let the readers decide about Tess I think...

If what happened to Tess happened now, I believe the term we would use is "date rape." She may have started out sorta/maybe/kinda wanting it, but realizing at some point that this wasn't what she wanted, tried to make him stop, then realized she couldn't. Also, Tess was an undereducated country girl with dim prospects. She was also a mere seventeen, extremely naive, and very unworldly. Alec, on the other hand, was a nouveau riche cad who became sexually obsessed with her. I think what happened to her is not what we 21st century folks think of as rape. I very much doubt that he violently threw her down and penetrated her. Instead, after weeks of constantly wearing her down her defenses, he takes advantage of the situation (foggy night, her sleepiness and naivete, etc) and manages to "slip it in" (yes, I know that's vulgar, but so is his behavior). It is not something she really wants because while she might have been sexually curious at first, it is very doubtful whether or not she fully realizes what she might be getting into in sleeping with him. His position of authority and experience over her is very much like the kinds of situations we see nowadays with young male (or female) teachers seducing their teenage students. Certainly, the young victim might have "consented" but the reason it is considered rape is that the victim is too naive, too powerless to benefit from the situation and their innocence is exploited. Alec is an a**hole, but to me, the bigger a**hole will always be Angel, who is such a despicable hypocrite. I find I have to agree slightly with a poster who describes Tess as an "annoying idiot." While I sympathize with her to a degree (who can't?), sometimes I want her simply to punch Alec and Angel both in their faces. I also can't stand her constant victimhood. Even though Hardy was ahead of his time in challenging the mores of late 1800s English society, he still has the whole vamp/virgin duality working in the text, which makes Tess a perpetual victim, which is quite annoying for the contemporary reader (at least, this contemporary reader).

Hardy, I think is saying this... "what difference does it make? he is rich, she is poor, either way he would get what he wants, where is she going to turn to?" The truth of the matter is that she has no where to go, therefore doesn't call out. I am tempted to think perhaps Hardy was playing Leviticus 22;

Quote:

---

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

---

That perhaps is just my speculation, though it seems possible.

These quotes also seem to haunt the book, and I do not have the scholarship to prove it, but I think Hardy may be playing on them. From Deuteronomy

Quote:

---

22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. [ Country Rape
If a woman is raped in the country, then only the man shall die (since there was no one to hear her if she cried out.)]
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

---

Stick that with the sub-title, "A Pure Woman Faithfully Presented" and you can look at the thing more in context. Of course, I guess we have to decide whether or not Hardy was against these sort of premarital sexual events, if they were consensual, and I cannot comment, since I am no expert on Hardy.

yes she was! alec took advantage