Why did Mary freely admit the truth to her mother, about Kamal Pamuk, knowing how it would affect her social statis, once people found out? She could have easily claimed that she was raped by Pamuk. No one would have known what really went on.
Even accepting that she did want it (my own take is that she was ambivalent), why would she admit that to her mother once the only witness was not in a position to tell the truth? Whatever the wider world may have thought, to Cora it would make a big difference whether her daughter is the unfortunate victim of a one-off event or the kind of girl who might go from scandal to scandal. It would make a big difference to know that her daughter had not forgotten everything she had been taught by her family.
So if I get you right, you are saying that she must have wanted it (or at least definitely not been an unwilling victim), because otherwise she would have said as much to her mother. "He forced himself on me and I was not able to stop him". Which clearly she did not, as best as I recall having just rewatched that episode last week.
If Mary would have wanted to stop Pamuk, she simply could have ring the bell and inmediatlly some maid would have go to her room, in those houses they always keep a maid or hall boy for the night if there is some problem. Pamuk would have faced a major scandal for going to the room of a unmarried woman, besides the daughter or a earl in wich house he was staying. Ovbiously in those house parties people meet their lovers, but they did it discretly, like a open secret, but those were people already married and basically they agreed to do that, by calling some servant the only who would have been exposed would have been Pamuk. The man said that he was working in the embassy, well, a scandal like that would have been the end of his diplomatic career, they would have pack and send him back to his country, shame to his aristocratic family in turkey, and Mary would have gain fame of virtuosity in front of all her family and a example for everyone there.
Furthermore, in Seas 1 Eps 5, Mary is talking with her mother about her prospects and what happened with Pamuk and Mary even says, "Kamal Pamuk, my lover". Who would say that if they were raped or forced into sex?
I don't think all your arguments hold water, QuiGonJohn. Her lying still or not shouting during the act is not evidence that she was not raped: plenty of women are paralysed with fear during rape. And if a woman puts up with sex because she is even more afraid of something else (violence, scandal) that does not make it not-rape. However, the fact that she kissed him and talked to him about whether it would be ok is more questionable. A quick-thinking woman might have known who was on duty, rung the bell the moment the door opened, and quickly and frostily said "show Mr Pamuk out"- but that would depend on whether she could trust that servant not to talk. Imagine the young Thomas with such a story: he would be completely untrustworthy.
What she could have done, however, was to have lied to her mother. That would have made good sense. Pamuk is dead: he can't deny any story about him forcing his way in and not letting her get at the bell rope.
The reason she did not do so suggests that she feels responsible, that she knows that at least part of her wanted this, and that since Pamuk has been punished for her part in it, she needs forgiveness or punishment or something, too.
To add to this, in the last episode of Season 2, The Christmas Special, she eventually tells Matthew the whole story about Pamuk. He asks why, did she love him and she says, no, it was not love, it was lust. He does not hold that against her and by the end of the episode they are engaged. But just another instance of Mary admitting that she wanted to have sex with Pamuk, as much as he wanted her. Watch that episode if you don't believe me.
I think it was rape , beyond seduce, it was clearly that she didn't want him, she told him to leave him twice at least , but he didn't because bed Mary Crawley was his plan all along, he definately had to have her that night no matter what way he used. Although she didn't scream like Anna did, but it didn't mean she was willing to do it. If she scream or ring the bell , she will be ruined anyway that's what Pamuk keep telling , to take advantage and use a 21 yrs old girl, he didn't give her any choice, if she scream the whole houseold will hear it, there will be a scandal that " a man in lady Mary's room", I belive she haven't kissed by anybody before Pamuk , she was inexperienced and afraid and she didn't know what to do, she didn't want this to happen but she gave in like Hannah Baker in 13 reasons why. but in her mind, she may not know this was rape and if you understand Mary's character , she was not that kind of girl pretend to be poor, all she knew she made a mistake, she may even blamed herself that she flirt with him so this happened, and she always hide her feelings, hide her vulnerability, she would admit she had a lover rather admit to her mother she was so scared to scream because it lead to her reputation will be ruined anyway. and thats what she told Matthew, she think it is useless explain because she lost her reputation anyway, she wanted Matthew to forgive her, so she tell him the worst, I think JF said that in his book.
While one could make a compelling argument for rape, that Mary was taken advantage of and placed between a rock and a hard place by a suave and debonair predator who clearly made it his mission to have her no matter the cost, to be convinced that a rape occurred is to not know Mary or understand the context of the incident in relation to the rest of the story. To answer the OP question, she didn't lie to her mother because it was not in her nature AT THAT TIME to do so. Recall when she and the Duke were caught by Bates upstairs, Mary said it was her habit to always apologize when she's in the wrong. In this case, she was in the wrong and caught as far as she was concerned. It didn't matter that the only witness was dead, she followed her nature and told the truth. Also, it was more her nature to be completely honest and to be blunt when doing so. Recall her attitude and actions when William's mother was dying, "I don't care a thing about rules," and she proceeded to go against the rules and tell William to go see his mother. Finally, she stood up to her father and said she wouldn't mourn her fiancee, even though she probably should have as a formality, because it was all in the family. To me, it would have been more her nature to take responsibility for the incident rather than to appear the victim, even if it might have been to her advantage to do so. In the beginning, Mary was cold, arrogant, and even MORE full of herself than she was near the end.
Things change for Mary as the series progresses: "I've been married, I know everything," and, "I'll do it, I don't mind lying," characterizes Mary later as she's more calculating, more cunning and much less sure of herself as tragedy and trouble have worn away her naivety. This is the context that gives us a clue into why the incident was not rape. The times had changed; I don't see Mary acting the same way toward Pamuk had the encounter occurred post-war. But the innocence and arrogance of the aristocracy prior to the war gave them carte blanche to do pretty much as they pleased with little consequence. While there was still a threat to Mary's social status we're she found out, in her mind, they were going to easily cover up her folly. If only she were nicer to Edit! Haha!
Finally, it is difficult for us to look through our 21st century, politically correct lens and see things as they were in 1912. Someone else already talked about 'no didn't mean no', especially for the aristocracy. Mary was flirting with Pamuk at dinner, talking about the journey to Istanbul being "painful". Why did she use that word when a more appropriate word could have been used? Consider her reaction to Pamuk's response. She was flirting with Pamuk with her "No's" in the della Francesca scene; we might take her response literally I the 21st, but she was provoking Pamuk. Mary wanted him as much or more than he wanted her. In the bedroom, her formal and prudish response was a part she had to play; she couldn't appear to want him. When she finally gave in, she did it by choice; she was not forced. There are any number of things she could have done to resist and turn him away without a physical conflict, but she didn't. Regardless, Mary's entire encounter with Pamuk from the first moment they met makes us believe that she wanted to have a sexual encounter with him.
Continuing my argument against rape, at the 41:10 mark of S1e3, Mary tells Carson that for the first time in her life, she understands what it is to be happy. This, after "the ghastly business" is over and she has been sitting in Pamuk's room, in the dark, when Carson enters to check it. Is she happy because she was raped? Because Pamuk died? Because her mother found her out? Because her reputation was at stake? None of these; she's 21 and 'never been kissed', and she had just experienced a love affair in one day that some don't experience in a lifetime as far as she knew. Yes, she describes the sex act itself later as lust to Matthew, but the whole day was the happiest day of her life... the first meeting, the hunt, dinner, flirting, and bedding... with a man she called "so beautiful"". Pamuk was Mary's first love, like it or not.
What I don't like is Daisy going on about Mary's room giving her the creeps in S1e3. She saw Pamuk being carried into HIS room, not Mary's. Yet she freaks out in Mary's room and makes Anna jump while she's making the bed and says, "I hate this room". Mary. Anna, and Cora had already been down the hall with the body and made the turn into Pamuk's room when Daisy opened the door. She has no idea where they came from or what had happened. I'm sure this has already been covered somewhere.
What do you think?