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.
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.
If she wanted him, why she said GTFO when they kiss? If she wanted him, why she said GTFO again in her room? Why he didn't stop after the first time? So yes, it's still rape or, at least, absence of consent, which is still a form of rape. Do you think she won't ruin her reputation anyway if she started to scream? The fact he was in her room is enough to ruin a woman's reputation back in those days, even they were fully dressed and not kissing when someone stormed in the room.
If she didn't want him, why did she lay in the bed, not even struggling to get free and ask him "will it hurt", then ask him "is it safe", and then proceed to kiss him back herself? From that point, we don't see, but basically know, that they had sex and during or shortly after Pamuk died. And she is waking Anna.
I'm sorry, but I still think and feel if she really wanted him out, if she shouted out, GET OUT OF HERE, her father would have heard, come in and kicked Pamuk out of the house, (or Pamuk would have just started leaving at that point). And that would not have hurt her reputation, she could have said he pushed in, unwelcomed, and she vehemently objected to his advances.
The problem with this thing is that the fans of Mary wouldnt never admit that she was horny for the man, that she was a normal human being with sexual urges; plus, they cut a line in wich Pamuk told her how to fake her virgnity in her wedding night, so more was added to the confussion. We must remember her expressions when she first meet Pamuk,she was totally hot for him to the point of ignoring Matthew and Napier, even Matthew noticed that. It was the same expression that she had when Henry jumped to his car in Brancaster, in that moment she was hot and intriged for that man in particular.
Also we must consider that JF sometimes messed some love scenes for the dialog, in the same way Tom seemed a lot of pushy towards Sybil. Gregson followed Edith to Scotland, Henry Talbot went uninvited to mostly all the times she was with Mary´s family, Gillingham stalked Mary in some sort of way, etc. So the way that the Pamuk-Mary was written it wasnt a exception in consideration to tthe show, but i never thought that it was rape and the writter never wanted that some fans could believe that.
In the end, that plot, nto only was about dumping the body and avoid scandal, it was about that Mary for once was "weak" and all ended in a mess; from that moment Mary always acted more calculated because she learned that if you are not careful with some things problems could be ahead (in the future, she made a whole plan to spend the week with Gillingham in Liverpool, she got driafragms, invented an alibi, etc). In the same way Edith was also "weak" and ended pregnant with Michal Gregson.
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.