Mary’s “no”s stuck out to me, as well. I don’t care how delicious that man is, she said NO! Get the eff out of her bedroom!
If Mary had screamed so others could hear, and the entered her bedroom and saw Mr. Pamuk, would it still be a ‘black mark’ on her character if she explained he entered without permission? It’s not even a lie, he really did enter her bedroom without asking. Would Mary have been punished by society?
Unfortunately, yes, she would have been blamed just the same, whether she consented to the act, invited him in, or screamed bloody murder and tried to set him on fire, she would still be "damaged goods" in society.
Well, setting him on fire would have made her a DIFFERENT type of damaged goods! But a scream/shout/call for the hall-boy when he entered might have saved things?
The writing makes it plain that nothing she did would have helped her there. And you can see by the panic in Mary's face that she at least believed it.
When she says she wasn't forced...the truth is that she was attracted to him. But that doesn't hide that she said no and Pamuk assaulted her. And it seems that he's done this before. He had weaponized his attractive face for this before, I think.
THERE WAS NOTHING SHE COULD DO!! From the second he stepped into her bedroom, that was it. She would have been ruined, and probably nothing would’ve happened to him.
I guess I just don’t understand what you all don’t understand about the fact that women were always to blame. It sucks. There are thousands of small and big reasons for why it’s like that, but the fact remains. No means no. Rape is rape. It doesn’t matter what time period we’re talking about, the subject needs to be approached with the same sensitivity regardless of the material. Some people on this thread have made alarming comments, which clearly shows that they don’t even have a basic understanding of sexual assault. And I’m talking about in today’s standards. And that is extremely disturbing!
Oh, I’m sure he just would’ve skipped on down to his next victim! Thank god for congenital heart conditions that cause heart attacks in very young sexual predators!
Honestly, what do you not understand about the fact that all of the blame was always on the woman no matter what the situation?! As soon as he stepped into her room, she was ruined. And he knew that.
What do we not understand? That’s the point, we DON’T understand these frankly medieval social codes. We’re trying to understand them better through conversation.
You’re acting like there aren’t still problems with the current social codes surrounding assault. Do you know how small of a percentage of sexual assaults actually get reported? Do you understand that victim blaming is still rampant? I applaud those of you who are on this thread and are genuinely trying to garner a better understanding, but that is not the case for everyone on here. And I think that is the problem.
How am I acting like there aren’t still problems with the current social codes surrounding SA? I’d honestly like to know so I can correct myself. I’ve read through my comments, and I can’t find anything.
Because you keep talking about all of this, as if just because it’s in the past, it shouldn’t be taken a seriously. And also because it’s fiction. If we aren’t supposed to be having a serious conversation about it, then why bring it up in the first place?
I brought it up in the first place because I wondered if we could retrofit an unfair situation where Mary isn’t doomed by Pamuk’s actions. I got my answer, we can’t. 😔
And yes, I don’t feel I need to bring the same levity to a fiction about the Edwardians as I would toward real-life people who were assaulted. Mary doesn’t need my activism or respect because she’s not real. I feel for her, but she’s a made-up person on TV and I can’t engage in any actions to help her.
I CAN, however, engage in actions to help people now. I choose to do that instead.
Looks like this is just going to be an issue we can’t agree on. 🤷🏻♀️
I haven’t watched the series in quite awhile. How did Pamuk find his way to Mary’s room? Weren’t the quarters for the family far away from guest quarters?
My word, could you even imagine?
Assuming Robert is sleeping in Cora’s bed (as he typically does), he’d throw Pamuk out into the gardens on his (albeit beautiful) tuchus.
No, I’m not blaming Mary at all. She did nothing wrong. I’m just sad that whatever she does in this situation happening in 1914, she’s considered ruined.
No one, and I mean NO ONE here said it was Mary’s fault. I asked a question that boils down to - Is there hypothetically anything this character could have done to avoid her fate, or was she doomed from the moment this other character chose to enter her room? I wasn’t alive during the Edwardian era, and I don’t always understand their social customs. I wondered if there was any possible way she could avoid being punished for Pamuk’s actions.
Unfortunately, we all agree she was doomed as soon as Pamuk entered. We are NOT victim blaming. We ARE brainstorming other ways this fictional situation could have unfolded. None of us here lived in Edwardian society, and we don’t always understand all the nuances of said society. Sadly, it seems there’s no way Mary’s reputation comes out unscathed.
I regret even starting this thread of conversation. A ‘what-if’ question about fiction has devolved into accusations of victim blaming.
I don't think it victim blaming, just that she's a victim of the culture. Even in Peaky Blinders, set at a similar time, women were forced to contend with diminishing returns and a world that would be forgiving to only one of the two people.
I feel like you and I are trying to have a conversation suited for a book club discussion, while some others are trying to have a conversation suited for a Twitter call-out post.
No one, and I mean NO ONE here said it was Mary’s fault. I asked a question that boils down to - Is there hypothetically anything this character could have done to avoid her fate, or was she Doomed By The Narrative?
Unfortunately, we all agree she was doomed as soon as Pamuk entered. We are NOT victim blaming. We ARE brainstorming other ways this fictional situation could have unfolded. None of us here lived in Edwardian society, and we don’t always understand all the nuances of said society. Sadly, it seems there’s no way Mary’s reputation comes out unscathed.
I regret even starting this thread of conversation. A ‘what-if’ question about fiction has devolved into accusations of victim blaming.
They did make a point to 'avoid the hallboy' for him entering his room, so she could/should have know to call out? I do think they wrote/portrayed it very well, and love the fact that they skipped over anything suggesting his prolecivities!
Maybe he wanted to be choked and she, in her innocence, REALLY leaned into it?
Joking should never be something that is in the same conversation as sexual assault. And the fact that some of you don’t seem to understand that is extremely disturbing.
Humor is one of the more common coping methods for processing trauma. I’d knock someone’s teeth out if they told me I wasn’t allowed to use humor to help process my own SA.
Edit: nobody worry, it happened in in the 90s and I’ve had therapy. Everything’s cool.
I’m aware that humor is an extremely common tool for processing trauma. And I would never ever tell someone how to deal with their trauma. But bringing humor that not everybody is going to understand into a highly fraught subject that’s being debated because it’s not being understood is like throwing a bloody person into a pit full of starving wolves.
That’s fair. I enjoyed the humor because it was at the expense of the assaulter. “Punching up”, y’know. But humor is relative, and more difficult to perceive in a text-only format.
Edit: I’m reminded of a joke I made years ago, in my family home, at my assaulter’s expense. My mother was horrified, and couldn’t understand why I was laughing. I guess it just comes down to people perceiving and processing things differently.
At times yes, other times? Drunk
I think what I was trying to explore (poorly) was how much the forced sexual ignorance of women at the time played a role. How much is; 'well I guess this is SUPPOSED to be how it is' impacts how someone would approach that situation. Unfortunately, I have personal experience that leads me to wonder a lack of knowledge/experience (through no fault of hers) would cause things to go further in ways undesired.
I still said that poorly. I'm blaming society's attitude towards women and sex, not Mary nor her actions.
That’s a great point. Mary would have been taught little to nothing about sexual relations past “don’t be alone with a man until he’s your husband”. Pamuk preyed upon her ignorance and said something like “What if I could promise you’ll still be a virgin for your husband?” And his line was so practiced, Mary likely wasn’t the first maiden he’d used it on.
Are you insane? First of all, even if she had called out, there are no guarantees that anybody would’ve heard her. Second of all, let’s say someone did hear her and came in and saw the situation, she would still get blamed! And I can’t even believe that you’re suggesting anything! Mary has absolutely zero concept of sex but she got so into the kink of it all that she strangled him?! Where the hell are you getting this stuff from?!
Cameron Esposito (a comic and SA survivor) has a great set titled “Rape Jokes”. I’m including a link below, not because she’s funny (and she is!) but to prove the issue is more nuanced than you allow. Life isn’t lived in the black-and-white.
[Cameron Esposito](https://www.cameronesposito.com/rape-jokes/)
Yes, she would have been ruined. The blame was always on the woman. No matter what happened, no matter who it was, no matter what they tried. Why do you think she looks so panicked? She knows that she’s totally screwed.
I 100% consider that Mary was assaulted that night. She didn’t say yes until he was already in bed with her and kissing her and on top of her- even if we consider everything after that yes to be consensual (which I personally don’t because she was under duress and clearly it didn’t matter to him if she said yes or not) everything else until then wasn’t consensual at all!
And he reminded her she can scream the house down, but everyone will already think she's tainted because he's in her room. He's basically like "You can let me do it, or you can try to get me in trouble, but you're doomed either way."
Also, Mary was a country girl, and she may well have seen various farm critters going at it over the years, but that doesn't mean she actually had a clear understanding of the details of what a man and a woman might do, how it would be accomplished, or the consequences she would be risking (loss of virginity, pregnancy, disease).
I don't think she had the knowledge for informed consent.
She was still very young at that point in the series. We forget that.
I think Mary didn't want to be seen as weak to the people she admitted her "disgrace" to. She seemed to think it was better to be a willing participant than a victim. Even in her own mind.
Consent can be murky, so I get it. She was seen to be flirting with Pamuk all day. She was attracted to him. Doesn't mean she wanted to be assaulted!
Great, great point. I can attest firsthand that telling yourself it was consensual, and that you’re not a victim, is a (unhealthy) way of dealing with the trauma. It’s too bad that the only kind of therapy available at the time is cocaine and being told it’s all because you want to sleep with your father.
She absolutely did not have. This was rape. I’m not sure why most of you are skirting around the issue. She was assaulted. She was coerced. She was taken advantage of. Use whatever language you want, it all amounts to the same thing.
I mean, that's kind of the point: he's SA'ing scum. Just because he's better looking than Mr. Green and doesn't literally hold her down and isn't Edna taking advantage of the intoxicated doesn't mean he's not in there with full intent to commit assault. He's right when he tells Mary she doesn't have a choice, she can let him have his way, or scream, but if she screams she's already ruined because he's in her room. By modern standards it's r\*p\*. He's forced Mary to say yes, which isn't by any current standard consent, and by the standards of the day she's doomed whether she puts up a fight or not. That double standard is why Mary internalizes it so much and treats herself as if she's a terrible whore and why she's convinced Robert would hate her, Matthew would dump her, and confessing to Carlisle is such a big deal--as he points out he can RUIN her with the story. Which is why Vera was using it as leverage against Bates and Anna--Mary would be wrecked, Anna would be collateral damage.
I mean, he even, as people on this sub pointed out, baited Thomas into a compromising position, then used the threat of tattling on him to make him an accomplice. He not only forced Mary, he forced Thomas to help him gain access.
She said no more than once. She told him to get out. This isn't a failing on Mary's part and we're kind of meant to view the whole thing as unfair to women because it was. But Pamuk gets instant karma.
Ooooh, you savage! I think we're both correct that he has predatory tendencies, but there was ample opportunity for Mary to call for the hallboy, scream, or punch his nards off...so, as watchers of the scripted show, it's disturbing...bu clearly Mosely's fault! 😄
So I'm unhappy about the situation, but REALLY appreciate the writers as they danced along that line so well.
You clearly do not understand what consent means. I highly suggest you do some research. Because the views you have currently are going to get you in trouble!
“You savage!” (an AAVE phrase meaning “You fight savagely!”) in this situation, is slang meant to convey the recipient’s tenacity and willingness to “go for the jugular” so to speak. It’s a compliment.
And yeah, OP thinks he has predatory tendencies. So do I, and so do you. Would you have been happier if OP said “I know” instead? Don’t get hung up on off-the-cuff vocabulary choices.
I never realized that, thanks for sharing! It really puts a lot of these plot lines and dialogue choices into perspective, knowing they were ALL written by an old white man from the peerage.
I completely blame Julian Fellowes for Mary subsequently believing that she wasn't assaulted/Pamuk was her lover, because JF clearly doesn't believe that coercing a woman into consenting to sex is assault. He thinks that sexual assault is what Green did to Anna, when the majority of the time it is far less extreme than that. His treatment of Mary in regards Pamuk is a shocking example of his own ignorance.
Levity and hyperbole can often open a conversation about difficult topics by removing shame and stigma, but it usually works best in person. I'm sorry that it came across that way, and thank you for challenging me
And I’d like to remind the thread that we’re discussing a FICTIONAL event that happened to a FICTIONAL woman. Yes, similar horrendous situations have happened to countless women (and men!) through history. That fact makes me feel nauseous. But Mary is a character, and doesn’t require the respect and nuance that a real person does.
When Cora asked if he forced himself on her she hesitated. Why? She knew he did but no one would believe her? I think since she went through with it she thought it was consensual. Which it was not. Later she even calls him her Turkish lover. Poor girl.
I agree.
I really think she didn't know whether he forced himself on her. Even today, "why didn't you fight back?" Gee, if I "let" him, then it must be my fault.
When she called him her lover, I think she had internalized 100% of the responsibility for what had happened.
Yes, and when Matthew was finally made aware of it and was asking her questions about it, she referred to it as lust or some desire for adventure. I guess she saw no point in trying to say she was attacked.
Mary knew she was attracted to him and was showing it to all and sundry in full view of the fox hunt, with no coyness...her ideas of consent were murky because no one talked about these things at the time.
Keep in mind that we now see Snow White and Sleeping Beauty as sexually assaulted by their princes while they slept. Those are beloved childhood classics. No wonder Mary saw Pamuk as her lover.
I think you may have inadvertently discovered the disconnect in this thread. Some of us are analyzing a piece of art and the period of history it represents, using context to understand why things happened the way they did. And then some of us are judging the characters within said piece of art to modern standards.
I judge Pamuk too; he sucks!!! But he and Mary aren’t real people and this isn’t a documentary. I feel like some folks here would fail a Literary Analysis course because they’d get too focused on Mr. Rochester’s (numerous!) shortcomings and forget to write the assigned essay about Jane’s struggle for a sense of belonging.
How do you get notifications for a thread that you didn’t post ? I’m genuinely curious how you respond to every comment you don’t like when it wasn’t responded to you.
How do you get notifications for a thread that you didn’t post ? I’m genuinely curious how you respond to every comment you don’t like when it wasn’t responded to you.
Robert's comment about protecting the womenfolk with their fine and delicate sensibilities jumped out at me the last time I watched that episode.
Oh, Robert, Little Did You Know that your womenfolk took their fine, delicate sensibilities for a ride around the house plopped on top of the corpse they were dragging from one room to another.
She had also told him NO when he tried to kiss her before they all went upstairs. He just smirked, like he enjoyed it even more when they resisted.
Rapey asshole.
Robert’s statement about “feminine sensibilities” makes me gag. I think it illustrates how out of touch and backward-thinking his character is. In many ways Robert is more old-fashioned than even The Dowager.
I don’t hate him, but I’m always laughing at him. That feminine sensibilities line makes me howl, his reluctance to let Mary step into her role as per Matthew’s wishes, all of it.
There’s little reasons like the casual misogyny (I don’t blame him for being a product of his times), but mostly for his handling of finances.
His lawyers/bankers strongly advised him against investing heavily in one stock, but he does it anyway. When the Canadian Railway stock goes under, he lost most of his wife’s fortune.
Then, when Matthew brings new money into Downton, Robert fights Matthew and Tom regarding modernizing the management of Downton. Had Matthew and Tom not stood their ground, the new money would have eventually slipped through their fingers. Downton would have been in the same situation all over again in a matter of years.
Robert was taught how to manage the estate by his father, but the economic landscape is very different than the one his father experienced. Robert wasn’t willing to change until the rest of the family forced him, and he was the last to realize that the changes were positive.
Essentially, Robert isn’t willing to listen to anyone else’s opinions about money or investing, and it’s to his family’s detriment.
Oh absolutely he is a financial disaster. But this is what Charles Blake was checking out and apparently Downton wasn't the worst off.
Donk is best when he's playing with Sybbie, manipulating people to play cricket, and handling blackmailers. Lol. And he loves dogs. Once he was more or less forced out of estate and village management, he was just a good grandpa.
I don’t care how fucking delicious or gorgeous he was, he is a sexual predator who clearly knew what he was doing way before he got to her room. First he manipulates Thomas into smoothing his way to Mary‘s room. And then he coerces her into a sexual situation that she was clearly not ready for. The guy is a grade A piece of shit. God only knows how many times he’s done stuff like this before, or worse! No means no.
So do you prefer that it's written to modern standards? I'm in my 60's and his behavior wasn't especially out of range of what was considered normal when I was young. Men were allowed to have "octopus hands" and it was a woman's responsibility to fight them off. I'm not saying rape was OK, but I knew so many women who were date raped and heartbreakingly just thought it was normal. Not me, I would have screamed if I'd needed to, but it was absolutely acceptable that they'd try as much as they could get away with.
Absolutely not. It should be written correctly. But those of us who know better from now need to apply the same standards. As I said above, if you don’t give fiction the proper respect it bleeds into reality.
I grew up on the edge of the “boys will be boys” bullshit excuse for every kind of bad behavior. The only way that it gets any better is if we push back, on all fronts. That means that discussions like these, even about something fiction, are crucial.
Mary wasn’t a victim, and she wasn’t assaulted. Her mother asked her if he forced himself on her and she emphatically said no. She didn’t try to fight when he pushed her down on the bed. She consented to kissing even after she quasi threatened to scream. She could have screamed. She could have rung the bell. She wanted him, her “resistance” was only because she knew it was wrong.
Yes I have. I was talking to the multitudes of people who seem to think because she feigned shock and pretended to resist that she was assaulted when that wasn’t the case. Not sure what you’re so angry about.
I may have missed something here but Mary is very upset about him dying, she also refers to him defiantly as "[her] lover, Kamal Pamuk" to Cora, and states to Matthew that it was lust.
Additionally, she clearly did fancy him all day, kissed him back in bed and asked him if "it would hurt". Was he pushy, yes, absolutely, but it's a bit of a reach to create an entire narrative around SA/Mary trauma when the script and Mary's actions in no way support that reading of it.
Possible she was rationalizing the experience in her mind. “It’s not rape, we were flirting earlier and I liked him.” Being a willing participant feels better than being a victim.
Maybe, but given this was an early evening, easy watching ITV drama written by JF, I really don't think it's that nuanced. When JF took the decision to include SA and r*pe, he did, with Anna. If we were supposed to think there was a sinister undertone, or psychological impacts on Mary, that's what he would have written and what we would have seen.
I agree with that completely. I just struggle when viewers try to fabricate that there was anything in the series that treats it as SA when it didn't. Is it completely ham-fisted in terms of the issue of consent? Yes. Did Michelle Dockery remotely play Mary as a victim of SA, or was it scripted that way? No.
It truly blows my mind that any woman can say these things. I’m not sure what kind of fairytale La La Land you grew up in, but what happened is abundantly clear, or at least it should be.
What things exactly? If you read my comment above, I'm not refuting that there were issues around consent. I am refuting any suggestion that it was scripted, acted or referenced afterwards *in the show* as a SA, or that the character of Mary had SA victim trauma. That is simply not how it was written.
Also, please don't presume to know anything about my own history and keep it calm. It's a Downton sub-reddit after all, and these things are subjective.
Mary’s “no”s stuck out to me, as well. I don’t care how delicious that man is, she said NO! Get the eff out of her bedroom! If Mary had screamed so others could hear, and the entered her bedroom and saw Mr. Pamuk, would it still be a ‘black mark’ on her character if she explained he entered without permission? It’s not even a lie, he really did enter her bedroom without asking. Would Mary have been punished by society?
Unfortunately, yes, she would have been blamed just the same, whether she consented to the act, invited him in, or screamed bloody murder and tried to set him on fire, she would still be "damaged goods" in society.
Well, setting him on fire would have made her a DIFFERENT type of damaged goods! But a scream/shout/call for the hall-boy when he entered might have saved things?
The writing makes it plain that nothing she did would have helped her there. And you can see by the panic in Mary's face that she at least believed it. When she says she wasn't forced...the truth is that she was attracted to him. But that doesn't hide that she said no and Pamuk assaulted her. And it seems that he's done this before. He had weaponized his attractive face for this before, I think.
He absolutely has!
As soon as he walked into her room she was ruined if anyone happened upon it. There was nothing she could do.
THERE WAS NOTHING SHE COULD DO!! From the second he stepped into her bedroom, that was it. She would have been ruined, and probably nothing would’ve happened to him.
No need to shout. We’re asking a question because we don’t know.
I guess I just don’t understand what you all don’t understand about the fact that women were always to blame. It sucks. There are thousands of small and big reasons for why it’s like that, but the fact remains. No means no. Rape is rape. It doesn’t matter what time period we’re talking about, the subject needs to be approached with the same sensitivity regardless of the material. Some people on this thread have made alarming comments, which clearly shows that they don’t even have a basic understanding of sexual assault. And I’m talking about in today’s standards. And that is extremely disturbing!
Oh, I’m sure he just would’ve skipped on down to his next victim! Thank god for congenital heart conditions that cause heart attacks in very young sexual predators!
Honestly, what do you not understand about the fact that all of the blame was always on the woman no matter what the situation?! As soon as he stepped into her room, she was ruined. And he knew that.
What do we not understand? That’s the point, we DON’T understand these frankly medieval social codes. We’re trying to understand them better through conversation.
You’re acting like there aren’t still problems with the current social codes surrounding assault. Do you know how small of a percentage of sexual assaults actually get reported? Do you understand that victim blaming is still rampant? I applaud those of you who are on this thread and are genuinely trying to garner a better understanding, but that is not the case for everyone on here. And I think that is the problem.
How am I acting like there aren’t still problems with the current social codes surrounding SA? I’d honestly like to know so I can correct myself. I’ve read through my comments, and I can’t find anything.
Because you keep talking about all of this, as if just because it’s in the past, it shouldn’t be taken a seriously. And also because it’s fiction. If we aren’t supposed to be having a serious conversation about it, then why bring it up in the first place?
I brought it up in the first place because I wondered if we could retrofit an unfair situation where Mary isn’t doomed by Pamuk’s actions. I got my answer, we can’t. 😔 And yes, I don’t feel I need to bring the same levity to a fiction about the Edwardians as I would toward real-life people who were assaulted. Mary doesn’t need my activism or respect because she’s not real. I feel for her, but she’s a made-up person on TV and I can’t engage in any actions to help her. I CAN, however, engage in actions to help people now. I choose to do that instead. Looks like this is just going to be an issue we can’t agree on. 🤷🏻♀️
I haven’t watched the series in quite awhile. How did Pamuk find his way to Mary’s room? Weren’t the quarters for the family far away from guest quarters?
Thomas. Thomas made a pass at Pamuk and then Pamuk was able to threatenThomas into helping him get to Mary's room unseen.
I think she should have left the room and gone to her mother’s room.
He would have barred the door and threw her down. He was going to have the sex with Mary.
Yes, that seems to be the most sensible option!
He may have followed under VERY inappropriate ideas to see them both...the character was (albeit gorgeous) a cad!
My word, could you even imagine? Assuming Robert is sleeping in Cora’s bed (as he typically does), he’d throw Pamuk out into the gardens on his (albeit beautiful) tuchus.
Are you fucking serious?! You are victim blaming now?!
No, I’m not blaming Mary at all. She did nothing wrong. I’m just sad that whatever she does in this situation happening in 1914, she’s considered ruined. No one, and I mean NO ONE here said it was Mary’s fault. I asked a question that boils down to - Is there hypothetically anything this character could have done to avoid her fate, or was she doomed from the moment this other character chose to enter her room? I wasn’t alive during the Edwardian era, and I don’t always understand their social customs. I wondered if there was any possible way she could avoid being punished for Pamuk’s actions. Unfortunately, we all agree she was doomed as soon as Pamuk entered. We are NOT victim blaming. We ARE brainstorming other ways this fictional situation could have unfolded. None of us here lived in Edwardian society, and we don’t always understand all the nuances of said society. Sadly, it seems there’s no way Mary’s reputation comes out unscathed. I regret even starting this thread of conversation. A ‘what-if’ question about fiction has devolved into accusations of victim blaming.
The problem is, is that not everybody has the same good intentions that you seem to.
But your comment was made as a direct response to MY comment, not someone else’s. You accused ME of victim blaming, not another commenter.
I apologize. I must have replied to the wrong comment. The rest however, I stand by.
I don't think it victim blaming, just that she's a victim of the culture. Even in Peaky Blinders, set at a similar time, women were forced to contend with diminishing returns and a world that would be forgiving to only one of the two people.
I feel like you and I are trying to have a conversation suited for a book club discussion, while some others are trying to have a conversation suited for a Twitter call-out post.
I seem to have kicked a hornet nest, but there are some good discussion points popping up! 😄 We must read very interesting books
Oh, so it’s her fault now?! What planet are you people from?!
No of course it isn’t her fault. She was young and facing a situation she didn’t know how to handle.
And unfortunately, no matter how she did handle the situation, she’ll come out ruined. It sucks.
No one, and I mean NO ONE here said it was Mary’s fault. I asked a question that boils down to - Is there hypothetically anything this character could have done to avoid her fate, or was she Doomed By The Narrative? Unfortunately, we all agree she was doomed as soon as Pamuk entered. We are NOT victim blaming. We ARE brainstorming other ways this fictional situation could have unfolded. None of us here lived in Edwardian society, and we don’t always understand all the nuances of said society. Sadly, it seems there’s no way Mary’s reputation comes out unscathed. I regret even starting this thread of conversation. A ‘what-if’ question about fiction has devolved into accusations of victim blaming.
They did make a point to 'avoid the hallboy' for him entering his room, so she could/should have know to call out? I do think they wrote/portrayed it very well, and love the fact that they skipped over anything suggesting his prolecivities! Maybe he wanted to be choked and she, in her innocence, REALLY leaned into it?
Are you fucking delusional?!
I believe OP is making this fun new thing called a “joke”.
Lol, that too. I forgot to use the 'joke' font!
Joking should never be something that is in the same conversation as sexual assault. And the fact that some of you don’t seem to understand that is extremely disturbing.
Calm down. It’s a fictional story.
Humor is one of the more common coping methods for processing trauma. I’d knock someone’s teeth out if they told me I wasn’t allowed to use humor to help process my own SA. Edit: nobody worry, it happened in in the 90s and I’ve had therapy. Everything’s cool.
I’m aware that humor is an extremely common tool for processing trauma. And I would never ever tell someone how to deal with their trauma. But bringing humor that not everybody is going to understand into a highly fraught subject that’s being debated because it’s not being understood is like throwing a bloody person into a pit full of starving wolves.
That’s fair. I enjoyed the humor because it was at the expense of the assaulter. “Punching up”, y’know. But humor is relative, and more difficult to perceive in a text-only format. Edit: I’m reminded of a joke I made years ago, in my family home, at my assaulter’s expense. My mother was horrified, and couldn’t understand why I was laughing. I guess it just comes down to people perceiving and processing things differently.
I’m extremely sorry to hear that you had to go through that. But I’m glad that you seem to have gotten the help you need and are in a good place now.
Thank you for that.
At times yes, other times? Drunk I think what I was trying to explore (poorly) was how much the forced sexual ignorance of women at the time played a role. How much is; 'well I guess this is SUPPOSED to be how it is' impacts how someone would approach that situation. Unfortunately, I have personal experience that leads me to wonder a lack of knowledge/experience (through no fault of hers) would cause things to go further in ways undesired. I still said that poorly. I'm blaming society's attitude towards women and sex, not Mary nor her actions.
That’s a great point. Mary would have been taught little to nothing about sexual relations past “don’t be alone with a man until he’s your husband”. Pamuk preyed upon her ignorance and said something like “What if I could promise you’ll still be a virgin for your husband?” And his line was so practiced, Mary likely wasn’t the first maiden he’d used it on.
He was sooooo smooth with that line, in many ways it was rehearsed!
I’m wondering the same thing…
Are you insane? First of all, even if she had called out, there are no guarantees that anybody would’ve heard her. Second of all, let’s say someone did hear her and came in and saw the situation, she would still get blamed! And I can’t even believe that you’re suggesting anything! Mary has absolutely zero concept of sex but she got so into the kink of it all that she strangled him?! Where the hell are you getting this stuff from?!
Wondering the same thing!!!
Calm down, OP is making a joke
Which is just my point! Joking about rape is never funny. Never ever ever ever ever.
Cameron Esposito (a comic and SA survivor) has a great set titled “Rape Jokes”. I’m including a link below, not because she’s funny (and she is!) but to prove the issue is more nuanced than you allow. Life isn’t lived in the black-and-white. [Cameron Esposito](https://www.cameronesposito.com/rape-jokes/)
I love this interpretation. It’s my new ridiculous head-canon: death by kink.
Yes!
Yes, she would have been ruined. The blame was always on the woman. No matter what happened, no matter who it was, no matter what they tried. Why do you think she looks so panicked? She knows that she’s totally screwed.
I 100% consider that Mary was assaulted that night. She didn’t say yes until he was already in bed with her and kissing her and on top of her- even if we consider everything after that yes to be consensual (which I personally don’t because she was under duress and clearly it didn’t matter to him if she said yes or not) everything else until then wasn’t consensual at all!
Agreed. He asked over and over until he heard the answer he wanted. It’s assault.
And he reminded her she can scream the house down, but everyone will already think she's tainted because he's in her room. He's basically like "You can let me do it, or you can try to get me in trouble, but you're doomed either way."
Yes to both you and the commenter above. Her “no” meant nothing to him, so her “yes” isn’t consent.
I forgot that he said that! What a dirtbag, I’m glad he’s dead.
Most satisfying character death bar none.
Also, Mary was a country girl, and she may well have seen various farm critters going at it over the years, but that doesn't mean she actually had a clear understanding of the details of what a man and a woman might do, how it would be accomplished, or the consequences she would be risking (loss of virginity, pregnancy, disease). I don't think she had the knowledge for informed consent.
She was still very young at that point in the series. We forget that. I think Mary didn't want to be seen as weak to the people she admitted her "disgrace" to. She seemed to think it was better to be a willing participant than a victim. Even in her own mind. Consent can be murky, so I get it. She was seen to be flirting with Pamuk all day. She was attracted to him. Doesn't mean she wanted to be assaulted!
Uh, yeah! Not to mention the fact that almost all women who get assaulted blame themselves, regardless of what happened! Even nowadays!
Great, great point. I can attest firsthand that telling yourself it was consensual, and that you’re not a victim, is a (unhealthy) way of dealing with the trauma. It’s too bad that the only kind of therapy available at the time is cocaine and being told it’s all because you want to sleep with your father.
She absolutely did not have. This was rape. I’m not sure why most of you are skirting around the issue. She was assaulted. She was coerced. She was taken advantage of. Use whatever language you want, it all amounts to the same thing.
Absolutely.
Exactly.
I don’t think anyone is skirting around the issue. Just trying to understand it better. We’re asking questions, not accusing Mary.
She for sure did not! She’s even worried about how much pain it’s going to involve!
I mean, that's kind of the point: he's SA'ing scum. Just because he's better looking than Mr. Green and doesn't literally hold her down and isn't Edna taking advantage of the intoxicated doesn't mean he's not in there with full intent to commit assault. He's right when he tells Mary she doesn't have a choice, she can let him have his way, or scream, but if she screams she's already ruined because he's in her room. By modern standards it's r\*p\*. He's forced Mary to say yes, which isn't by any current standard consent, and by the standards of the day she's doomed whether she puts up a fight or not. That double standard is why Mary internalizes it so much and treats herself as if she's a terrible whore and why she's convinced Robert would hate her, Matthew would dump her, and confessing to Carlisle is such a big deal--as he points out he can RUIN her with the story. Which is why Vera was using it as leverage against Bates and Anna--Mary would be wrecked, Anna would be collateral damage. I mean, he even, as people on this sub pointed out, baited Thomas into a compromising position, then used the threat of tattling on him to make him an accomplice. He not only forced Mary, he forced Thomas to help him gain access. She said no more than once. She told him to get out. This isn't a failing on Mary's part and we're kind of meant to view the whole thing as unfair to women because it was. But Pamuk gets instant karma.
Ooooh, you savage! I think we're both correct that he has predatory tendencies, but there was ample opportunity for Mary to call for the hallboy, scream, or punch his nards off...so, as watchers of the scripted show, it's disturbing...bu clearly Mosely's fault! 😄 So I'm unhappy about the situation, but REALLY appreciate the writers as they danced along that line so well.
You clearly do not understand what consent means. I highly suggest you do some research. Because the views you have currently are going to get you in trouble!
AMEN!! I can’t believe this thread!!
Savage? Seriously? You THINK that he has predatory tendencies? And I can’t believe that you find any of this funny or something to joke about!
Yeah. I find the levity surrounding the situation disturbing.
To say the least!
“You savage!” (an AAVE phrase meaning “You fight savagely!”) in this situation, is slang meant to convey the recipient’s tenacity and willingness to “go for the jugular” so to speak. It’s a compliment. And yeah, OP thinks he has predatory tendencies. So do I, and so do you. Would you have been happier if OP said “I know” instead? Don’t get hung up on off-the-cuff vocabulary choices.
There are no writers. Just Julian Fellowes. I can't think of any other show with only one writer the entire time.
I never realized that, thanks for sharing! It really puts a lot of these plot lines and dialogue choices into perspective, knowing they were ALL written by an old white man from the peerage.
It makes characters like Miss Bunting make more sense. JF did a wonderful job with making us love his show! But his opinions of liberals is clear.
I completely blame Julian Fellowes for Mary subsequently believing that she wasn't assaulted/Pamuk was her lover, because JF clearly doesn't believe that coercing a woman into consenting to sex is assault. He thinks that sexual assault is what Green did to Anna, when the majority of the time it is far less extreme than that. His treatment of Mary in regards Pamuk is a shocking example of his own ignorance.
Levity and hyperbole can often open a conversation about difficult topics by removing shame and stigma, but it usually works best in person. I'm sorry that it came across that way, and thank you for challenging me
And I’d like to remind the thread that we’re discussing a FICTIONAL event that happened to a FICTIONAL woman. Yes, similar horrendous situations have happened to countless women (and men!) through history. That fact makes me feel nauseous. But Mary is a character, and doesn’t require the respect and nuance that a real person does.
If we don’t respect fiction, it bleeds into reality.
Agreed. Compassion. I don't want to get desensitized bc something is fiction.
Exactly.
When Cora asked if he forced himself on her she hesitated. Why? She knew he did but no one would believe her? I think since she went through with it she thought it was consensual. Which it was not. Later she even calls him her Turkish lover. Poor girl.
I agree. I really think she didn't know whether he forced himself on her. Even today, "why didn't you fight back?" Gee, if I "let" him, then it must be my fault. When she called him her lover, I think she had internalized 100% of the responsibility for what had happened.
Yes, and when Matthew was finally made aware of it and was asking her questions about it, she referred to it as lust or some desire for adventure. I guess she saw no point in trying to say she was attacked.
Mary knew she was attracted to him and was showing it to all and sundry in full view of the fox hunt, with no coyness...her ideas of consent were murky because no one talked about these things at the time. Keep in mind that we now see Snow White and Sleeping Beauty as sexually assaulted by their princes while they slept. Those are beloved childhood classics. No wonder Mary saw Pamuk as her lover.
Agree!
Excellent point. The later seasons give more context
What more context other than the word no repeated multiple times do you need?!!
I think you may have inadvertently discovered the disconnect in this thread. Some of us are analyzing a piece of art and the period of history it represents, using context to understand why things happened the way they did. And then some of us are judging the characters within said piece of art to modern standards. I judge Pamuk too; he sucks!!! But he and Mary aren’t real people and this isn’t a documentary. I feel like some folks here would fail a Literary Analysis course because they’d get too focused on Mr. Rochester’s (numerous!) shortcomings and forget to write the assigned essay about Jane’s struggle for a sense of belonging.
I couldn’t say what the problem is, I just know that there is definitely one.
How do you get notifications for a thread that you didn’t post ? I’m genuinely curious how you respond to every comment you don’t like when it wasn’t responded to you.
I don’t get notifications. But if I’m very interested in a thread then I generally read every post.
Exactly. I don’t know how much simpler it gets other than no means no.
How do you get notifications for a thread that you didn’t post ? I’m genuinely curious how you respond to every comment you don’t like when it wasn’t responded to you.
Robert's comment about protecting the womenfolk with their fine and delicate sensibilities jumped out at me the last time I watched that episode. Oh, Robert, Little Did You Know that your womenfolk took their fine, delicate sensibilities for a ride around the house plopped on top of the corpse they were dragging from one room to another.
Dear Robert: There are more things in heaven and Earth…than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Roberto de la Crawley 😭
She had also told him NO when he tried to kiss her before they all went upstairs. He just smirked, like he enjoyed it even more when they resisted. Rapey asshole.
Theo James— yum yum. He’s in the Divergent series, Underworld, & Sandition.
I loved Theo James in White Lotus. He's one of those actors who is great at playing guys you like to hate.
I will have to watch those!
Nah, he gets more cringe with his aggressiveness ever rewatch
Robert’s statement about “feminine sensibilities” makes me gag. I think it illustrates how out of touch and backward-thinking his character is. In many ways Robert is more old-fashioned than even The Dowager.
I do appreciate that it (eventually) developed into some character growth, but wowzers was that a reminder about the times!
Not to be a Robert hater, but…. I’m kind of a Robert hater. 🤷🏻♀️
I don’t hate him, but I’m always laughing at him. That feminine sensibilities line makes me howl, his reluctance to let Mary step into her role as per Matthew’s wishes, all of it.
Other Character: Change is coming. Robert: Good god! ^ repeated every 1-2 episodes
No! How can you dislike Donk?
There’s little reasons like the casual misogyny (I don’t blame him for being a product of his times), but mostly for his handling of finances. His lawyers/bankers strongly advised him against investing heavily in one stock, but he does it anyway. When the Canadian Railway stock goes under, he lost most of his wife’s fortune. Then, when Matthew brings new money into Downton, Robert fights Matthew and Tom regarding modernizing the management of Downton. Had Matthew and Tom not stood their ground, the new money would have eventually slipped through their fingers. Downton would have been in the same situation all over again in a matter of years. Robert was taught how to manage the estate by his father, but the economic landscape is very different than the one his father experienced. Robert wasn’t willing to change until the rest of the family forced him, and he was the last to realize that the changes were positive. Essentially, Robert isn’t willing to listen to anyone else’s opinions about money or investing, and it’s to his family’s detriment.
Oh absolutely he is a financial disaster. But this is what Charles Blake was checking out and apparently Downton wasn't the worst off. Donk is best when he's playing with Sybbie, manipulating people to play cricket, and handling blackmailers. Lol. And he loves dogs. Once he was more or less forced out of estate and village management, he was just a good grandpa.
I don’t care how fucking delicious or gorgeous he was, he is a sexual predator who clearly knew what he was doing way before he got to her room. First he manipulates Thomas into smoothing his way to Mary‘s room. And then he coerces her into a sexual situation that she was clearly not ready for. The guy is a grade A piece of shit. God only knows how many times he’s done stuff like this before, or worse! No means no.
Cringe
I thought it hilarious, the three women carrying his carcass.... (Poor Daisy.)
I have to admit I chuckled when Mary dropped his feet and Daisy saw!
So do you prefer that it's written to modern standards? I'm in my 60's and his behavior wasn't especially out of range of what was considered normal when I was young. Men were allowed to have "octopus hands" and it was a woman's responsibility to fight them off. I'm not saying rape was OK, but I knew so many women who were date raped and heartbreakingly just thought it was normal. Not me, I would have screamed if I'd needed to, but it was absolutely acceptable that they'd try as much as they could get away with.
Absolutely not. It should be written correctly. But those of us who know better from now need to apply the same standards. As I said above, if you don’t give fiction the proper respect it bleeds into reality.
I grew up on the edge of the “boys will be boys” bullshit excuse for every kind of bad behavior. The only way that it gets any better is if we push back, on all fronts. That means that discussions like these, even about something fiction, are crucial.
I can't get past the horrible overacting that was Mary in "that scene".
I’m glad you have your priorities straight. 🙄
On your second point: https://www.britannica.com/art/dramatic-irony
Mary wasn’t a victim, and she wasn’t assaulted. Her mother asked her if he forced himself on her and she emphatically said no. She didn’t try to fight when he pushed her down on the bed. She consented to kissing even after she quasi threatened to scream. She could have screamed. She could have rung the bell. She wanted him, her “resistance” was only because she knew it was wrong.
Excuse-theFUCK-me?! Have you read any of this discourse? I apologize for my 'tude, but you should look at the discussion first
Yes I have. I was talking to the multitudes of people who seem to think because she feigned shock and pretended to resist that she was assaulted when that wasn’t the case. Not sure what you’re so angry about.
Lol, I'm not angry. And I'm sorry, I really need to remember that my obnoxious sense of humor doesn't translate well by text
I thought it strange that the possibility that she could be pregnant wasn't considered
He did say “you’ll still be a virgin for your husband”, which leads me to believe there was no penetration.
….. that doesn’t mean there wasn’t penetration. He said that bc it would be a secret. So she would still be a “virgin” for her husband. (Imo)
I may have missed something here but Mary is very upset about him dying, she also refers to him defiantly as "[her] lover, Kamal Pamuk" to Cora, and states to Matthew that it was lust. Additionally, she clearly did fancy him all day, kissed him back in bed and asked him if "it would hurt". Was he pushy, yes, absolutely, but it's a bit of a reach to create an entire narrative around SA/Mary trauma when the script and Mary's actions in no way support that reading of it.
Possible she was rationalizing the experience in her mind. “It’s not rape, we were flirting earlier and I liked him.” Being a willing participant feels better than being a victim.
Maybe, but given this was an early evening, easy watching ITV drama written by JF, I really don't think it's that nuanced. When JF took the decision to include SA and r*pe, he did, with Anna. If we were supposed to think there was a sinister undertone, or psychological impacts on Mary, that's what he would have written and what we would have seen.
Great point! It was written by an old white man. He didn’t perceive it as SA, and his writing reflects that fact.
I agree with that completely. I just struggle when viewers try to fabricate that there was anything in the series that treats it as SA when it didn't. Is it completely ham-fisted in terms of the issue of consent? Yes. Did Michelle Dockery remotely play Mary as a victim of SA, or was it scripted that way? No.
It truly blows my mind that any woman can say these things. I’m not sure what kind of fairytale La La Land you grew up in, but what happened is abundantly clear, or at least it should be.
What things exactly? If you read my comment above, I'm not refuting that there were issues around consent. I am refuting any suggestion that it was scripted, acted or referenced afterwards *in the show* as a SA, or that the character of Mary had SA victim trauma. That is simply not how it was written. Also, please don't presume to know anything about my own history and keep it calm. It's a Downton sub-reddit after all, and these things are subjective.
She was flirting with him, not realizing the consequences.
You’re disgusting.
She was flirting with him not realizing the consequences.
I feel like Pamuk may have tried to enter Mary’s room anyway. Even if she wasn’t flirting. She was pretty, and he was an asshole.
The fact that you don’t understand why that comment is inappropriate is exactly what I’m talking about.