I feel like we're running in circles but anyway:
There is enough of a coercion and power imbalance in that story for there to be no real "free choice". Yes, the woman could in theory say "No" but the consequences would be so bad that it'd be asking a lot of her to accept that.
coercion and power imbalance = no free choice
no free choice = no real consent
no consent = rape
After thinking about it some more, I think I'm with you. At first I was getting hung up on the fact that he's not threatening her with anything she isn't already facing at the outset, as she's already in the position of not being able to see her fiancé when she approaches him. But I see now that what's more relevant is that he is using his ability to
remove that condition (that's the power imbalance) as leverage to get her to have sex with him even though he knows she doesn't really want to (that's the coercion).
Still, it leads me to wonder where you would draw the line as to what constitutes a "free choice" in response to circumstances where either option has negative consequences attached, and how far such a broad definition of "rape" can be extended by this reasoning. A different but not wholly dissimilar scenario that occurs to me is one in which one spouse gives the other an ultimatum such as "if you won't have sex with me, I'll divorce you." The former
doesn't have a right to sex with the latter simply by virtue of marriage, but does one not have a right to terminate the relationship if one isn't finding satisfaction in it, despite the clear ramifications it may have on the other? If the latter partner responds by agreeing to the sex absent true desire in order to avoid dealing with the consequences of a divorce, does that make it an act of rape on the part of the former? (Note: I am
not suggesting I view this scenario as representing a healthy or positive relationship by any means; I'm merely attempting to explore the implications the above reasoning regarding "real consent" might have if applied to it.) It seems to me there could be any number of situations where one is faced with a choice in which neither option is attractive in itself, and must decide based on which is less unattractive, but does this really negate the exercise of free will and agency in the matter?
I realize this is a contentious and provocative issue that is very personal to many, so I would just like to emphasize that I intend these inquiries in honesty and respect, and am prepared to listen and consider others' points of view without engaging in flippant sniping or dismissal. (I can only
hope that others be willing to point out what seem to them insensitive or problematic aspects of what I've written in the same spirit.) I do not mean to express certainty or condonation of any particular position here, and seek not to justify abuse, but rather to better understand the related reasoning and whatever significant differences might or might not be relevant. I am at your mercy.
