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?
Printable View
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.
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.
Quote:
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! :nod:
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.
I am currently doing an essay on Tess myself, along the lines of "Purity". (Happen to be stuck, though. :confused:)
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. :D
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 :D
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;
That perhaps is just my speculation, though it seems possible.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.
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
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.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.
yes she was! alec took advantage
What would Alec have to apoligize for when he met Tess after seeing her after his conversion and preaching jag if he had not raped her? The strength of his apology should make the rape obvious, plus there is her unwavering general disdain for Alec which also makes her nonreceptivness to his advances a foregone conclusion.
Tommy Hardy got into a bit of trouble with his publishers. They obviously thought that Tess had it coming, and wanted it to happen. Hence why Hardy felt the need to include the subtitle A Pure Woman later. These days yes, Tess was definitely raped. I believe she was. But back in the day readers may have decided that Tess was asking for it, considering she didn't always act as a woman 'should' do.
Hardy does not simply allude to rape, and if one reads the novel with an open mind to the contrary it becomes clear that there is evidence that Tess becomes Alec's mistress for a time as he has seduced her.
In part 1 there are various hints that Tess is unintenionally leading Alec on. Then there are further hints after the event itself (which is left rather ambiguous) that imply that she was passive. Hardy leaves it three months after the event depicted in the woods before Tess leaves. Tess sights that she has seen the light which could either imply that she realised being his mistress was wrong or alternatively that she was pregnant. Again it's left ambiguous.
Within the context of the time period, Alec would be responsible for seducing her and making her his mistress just as much as if he were to rape her. For the majority of the Victorian society there would be little difference between the two. Therefore, Alec's constant appologies could easilly mean that he is sorry for seducing Tess into willingly becoming his mistress for three months. This is also be furthered by Tess constantly blaming herself.
When Angel asks Tess about the events he tries to force the conversation to encourage Tess to claim that it was rape. Yet she doesn't, instead saying she was confused. Again, this is deliberatly ambiguous but certainly doesn't just alude to rape.
In a later edition of the novel, Hardy actually embellishes on the line "and then she told" with a passage depicting the events at Tantridge. Here he describes it as Tess having become Alec's mistress for a time before Alec proposed that they married. However he took her to a fake parson who was infact a friend of his and faked the marriage. When she found out that they were not truley married she left Tantridge. Whilst this was omitted from later editions (seemingly because it destroyed the ambiguity) it seems to infer far more that she made love to Alec willingly on several occations.
It is however ridiculous to asert either one way or the other. To say Tess was definatly raped is obsured as it is never made clear one way or another, but merely hinted at. Ultimatly, it doesn't matter what exactly happened to her. Hardy is criticising both Christianity and Victorian vallues within this novel and by leaving the act wide open to interpretation encourages a broader interpretation and thus a vast criticism of several values as apposed to just one.
I think though, Grant, that you miss a large part of the point.
The first issue: whether it was rape or not is irrelevant; if Tess cried out, nothing could have changed. Ultimately, her fate, and the fate of her family rested on her job - Alec knew that, and from the beginning essentially took advantage of that, and sexually harassed her. Beyond that, she tried to dissuade him, but he became more militant - reached by the point where, if he didn't rape her, it was clear that she had no other options anyway - her job lying on his good opinion of her, and her family's future at stake. Whether there was consent or not is irrelevant - clearly, judging by Tess reaction to him from the beginning, there was no real romance there - the later Tess, when she reunites with him, is simply a self-defense mechanism, as once again she is at his mercy, financially, and out of options. The only possible outcome was for herto give in.
Beyond that too, there is still the point of fact, that after the sexual encounter, had she spoken out, though he may be punished (though unlikely), she ultimately would have been branded a whore by society, and rejected from everywhere on those grounds. Tough luck - no options, so though I think you bring up some points that there is still ambiguity, ultimately, the willingness of Tess, by the constructs of naturalism which structure the novel, was merely a survival mechanism - faced with failure, or giving in, her options seem to have been quite slim - family fails, or she, like they intended of her, is sacrificed. Her family from the beginning tried to whore her off, I guess by this point she realizes that there is no running from it, and is ultimately taken advantage of, once, exhausted from trying to get away.
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 :yawnb:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
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.
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...
Even I think what makes it so unfortunate and unfair is her innocence, or rather ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
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.