This is fiction so it doesn't have to reflect real life right and wrong. But in real life if you coerce someone to have sex, like your boss says "have sex or you will lose your job" and you say "yes" it's not consensual sex. She's "alright" with it cause of the values within the story of a fictiona historical society.
I don't think the comparison is accurate. She's a competitive girlboss that agreed to the terms with the intent to win that later outright says that she isn't mad at him for anything he's done so far. In this scenario in which she was given the choice to have sex with him to get what she wants, we've been told directly how she feels about that and her concern seems more about the lack of care he had at first rather than the sex itself. She notably comments about how gentle he is after that and clearly considers it pleasing.
The scenario you're comparing to is a lot more forced since nothing in it implies that the person is actually impartial to the sex and may even be okay with it. All we're told in your scenario is that the person was told they will lose their job if they don't have sex with their boss. The boss also isn't fleshed out in the same way the ML is either, with the ML actually not being a bad guy and treating her right now and regretting his misunderstanding.
Whether he's a good or bad guy is irrelevant. Whether she agrees is also irrelevant
It's okay in their fictional society. But this behavior is not okay in real society. It's coercion.
"Sexual coercion is when a person pressures, tricks, threatens, or manipulates someone into sex. It is a type of sexual assault because even if someone says yes, they are not giving their consent freely."
In the United States this behavior may be legally considered abuse, assault, or sexual harassment depending on the state law. He says"have sex with me or I will not give you a divorce". Calling it a bet doesn't really change that he is holding her legal status and life hostage.
If you want to learn more about consent and coercion in real life, here is a good article. I don't mean to be condescending but it's really important that we all know how to identify abuse in case we encounter it. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sexual-coercion
"In the United States this behavior may be legally considered abuse, assault, or sexual harassment depending on the state law. He says"have sex with me or I will not give you a divorce". Calling it a bet doesn't really change that he is holding her legal status and life hostage."
It's not just that "he's calling it a bet", it actively is. And they wrote a contract so I disagree on the legal aspect. Honestly, it feels like you're projecting and arguing a possible outcome/an imagined scenario in which things were perceived more negatively by the people involved rather than the actual reality of what we read. I understand that coercion exists and what it is, but the relevant rebuttal here is that that isn't the emotional context of the situation, as I've already pointed out.
Forgot one more thing:
It's also not just that "she agreed", it's that she agreed and FEELS in accordance with that. We have the emotional context here, she's not mad at him. She's not feeling raped, she's feeling confusion about his intentions and like she's going to try to win the deal. Competitive. That's just the story.
Her emotions impact her health and whether she's taking lasting harm from his actions. It impacts their relationship going forward. But it doesn't change his actions.
By abusing his legal power over her as his spouse his is being abusive. From the moment it says "have sex with me OR" I won't give you something you need, or you will face consequences. He is doing something morally and legally wrong. It's not as wrong as more harmful types os assault and coercion but it IS wrong. "Feeling raped" is not the measure of consent.
It's like if you go up to someone and slap them across the face. Well they didn't feel that hurt, it was a light slap, we laughed it off, they didn't feel threatened. That's all good but it's still not okay to do that.
"It's like if you go up to someone and slap them across the face. Well they didn't feel that hurt, it was a light slap, we laughed it off, they didn't feel threatened. That's all good but it's still not okay to do that."
I'm having trouble imagining a scenario in which you would slap someone across the face lightly and the person would *genuinely* not care. In that context, the "laughter" would most likely be a coping mechanism. But if it was light, if the person didn't care that the person did it and if they didn't feel threatened then I really don't see how you could say "it's still not okay", it'd clearly be a joke. It wouldn't really be your business to step in and be like "hey, you shouldn't slap people", it's not a big deal to anyone involved as you've set for the background here, you'd be overstepping and imposing your own morals on someone else's personal relationship.
There are people who are made of sterner stuff that don't get effected by things that you would perceive as going too far. Like, choking someone is wrong too but I doubt you'd tell someone who consensually chokes their S.O. not to do that "because it's bad to choke people and you could face legal repercussions". That legal repercussions could be involved in only relevant if it's relevant.
I don't think I need to clarify, but just in case I'll make it clear that by "choking", I mean sexually.
I think this is more gray than people are acknowledging. Like, with that being a part of the story even...
It's not like he just raped her on their first night, he had just set up a deal between them that she agreed to that he would try to get her pregnant within a month. Sure, she wasn't expecting the sex right there and then and she takes issue with that he was rough, wording it as that he did whatever he wanted, but to say she didn't consent to the sex seems off. It was within her own interest and she did agree to the deal. She doesn't even know yet why he treated her like that the first time. I mean, WE know that in his head he was being an asshole for personal reasons, but she just looks back on it and goes "?" right now. She just said that. She's noted the change in his behavior since literally the next day, since he realized she was a virgin.
I think it's important that he's realized he did wrong, is actually looking at her now and is trying to do right. And that matters because it's explicitly a part of the story that she does not hate him for anything he's done. She just said that. She's not feeling raped, he just irritated her that night. It's not part of the story that she feels raped, it's just not. I'm sure he's going to face some backlash in a bit though, because she was just thinking about why he was acting like that at first and contemplated that it might be because of the rumors. So I see it maybe being a hurdle in a second where he has to make up for it. Not for the "rape", but for the fact that he believed the rumors for a time.