"All I wanted was to be loved for myself"

Gaston Leroux never intended any Erik / Christine interaction to mean sexual assault, or to be foolishly interpretated as such. Reading rape where there is none is delusional, idiotic and simply wrong. We have entire passages of Christine Daaé admitting Erik respected her. That he never touched her in any inapropriate way (even kissing the bar of her dress to avoid physical contact). In the end, he kisses her forehead timidly and she does not fear it. What motivates him is tragedy and despair; what motivates her is empathy and secret desires she keeps hidden like a sin. She comes back to him voluntarily multiple times, whispering about her poor, unhappy Erik. She admits to Raoul she would love Erik if he was handsome. There is no rape here, delusional antis. Women are not the fragile sex and they do not need to be embarassed and harrassed into illiteracy, puritanism and plaint misunderstand of the text over some out of place feminist's hurt feelings.

May I add.

<<<< Even if Erik / Christine had sexual assault undertones/interpretations, it is still completely okay to shipp them. Even if there was rape in the story, it would not make shipping them harmful or wrong. You are allowed to romancticize fiction. Read, consume, produce problematic fiction and fuck antis. >>>>>

Disagree. It's not even a matter of opinion. There's plenty of textual evidence of him deliberately harming her. He forcibly drags her and knocks her out while abducting her to his lair despite her struggling and crying out in protest. There's a scene where he gets rough with her and grabs her by the hair and harshly yanks her head to look at him. At the end of the book Raoul and the Daroga hear her cry out in pain when Erik is trying to get his bag back from her. And that's just instances where he gets explicitly physical with her. If we're looking at non-physical harm there's plenty of that too. He lies to her and pretends to be a spirit her dead father sent to look after her. He references blue beard twice when he warns her he doesn't like curious women and he threatens to take out her, himself and a quarter of Paris with them if she doesn't marry him. And Christine IS hurt by his lies, she gets angry at him, she rages against him in the book. She lies to him to get him to let her go. She is genuinely afraid of him and for good reason because he has proven that he is capable of and willing to harm her and anyone she loves to make her do what he wants. I'm not saying there relationship isn't complex or that she can't have some kind of pity and affection for him but anyone who thinks Erik isn't capable of hurting Christine is lying to themselves and I've seen the sentiment enough to be thoroughly over it.

You can think that Eristine shippers are biased because we like the shipp, but you fail to recognize you are *also* biased on how you analyze these characters. Erik is not a mindless killer, his feelings for Christine are real. Your dismiss over Erik's regret over his mistakes just prove the lack of empathy towards him in the general discourse, there is no way for him to win: if he doesn't regret his violence, he's an evil psychopath. If he regrets his violence, he's a nasty manipulator. There is no logic here, and there's no attempt to actually connect to his character.

But certainly the worst part of your argument that kills any hope I have to have a meaningful conversation is the "male character" part. Terfsyop much? Erik's gender was never in question and you're the one making it about his gender. Erik isn't violent because he's a man, he's violent because of the years of severe abuse, dehumanization and isolation that was forced upon him. Male victims of abuse matter, even if they're violent or criminals, and people are allowed to defend and feel sympathy for characters in situations similar to their own. No matter what you tell yourself, this is a bad faith argumentation and objectively false, male victims are NOT more respected or treated better than female ones. Erik was written to be sympathetic, people will sympathize with him, specially people who had their traumatic experience dismissed as Erik had. But considering you agreed with previous anon asks mocking autistic fans for projecting into Erik and, again, using his gender identity as a "gotcha!", I doubt you will change your mind. When disability actually disables and mental disorder is actually disordering instead of being quirky and cute, then suddenly it's evil and "no excuse for showing symptons of the very illness one have".

I love how your argumentation proves Erik's defenders points. You don't know and don't understand anything about the story. "Didn't he groom Christine?" No. "Didn't he pretend to be her dad?" No. "Didn't he kidnap her?????" Yes, and guess what? We still defend him. You point out his flaws and proposely ignore the good he did because you don't want anyone sympathizing with Erik, but it won't work because we actually understand and know the character.

(The 2004 slop movie is worthless incorrect depiction)

And about the intentions: Erik wanted her to sing freely and beautifully. He fell in love with her and obviously did not know how to show it, he never had a normal life and never felt loved before. It's not his fault and not an act of malice.

https://www.allianceforchildren.org/blog/2018/06/what-grooming

I don't have a lot positive to say about the re-staged version of the ALW musical.

But I will admit I do kind of like the fact that Raoul barges into Christine's dressing room as she's undressing.

I like this because, on the surface its very ha ha, so awkward uwu, but it also highlights how very scandalous this very action is.

In 19th century theatre culture (especially in France) there's only one reason a man (the patron of the Opera, who is the main financial backer of the establishment) goes into a singer's dressing room with a bottle of champagne. Whether that is Raoul's intention doesn't matter: he's a man of society, he's the responsible one here, or he should be.

But setting that aside, this really makes me think about how Raoul is never thinking about Christine in a circumspect fashion. He is not thinking about the fact that this is a private area he is entering uninvited--a private area that is private for the very specific reason: at any point, Christine could very well be naked or otherwise in a state of vulnerability and/or undress behind that door. He does not knock, or announce himself. He either is not thinking about this or does not care. Both are bad.

(And yes I am conscious of the fact that Christine is not only undressing, but undressing in front of the mirror; the mirror that Erik is, in all likelihood, hiding behind, even as she does so).

To Raoul, as much as (perhaps even more so than) to Erik, Christine is an object. An object to be, by turns, admired, pitied, placated and protected.

Perhaps I find this so interesting because in the book, Raoul is shown to invade the sanctum samctorum of Christine's dressing room without her knowledge or consent several times.

"When you were pitying him the other night, the night of the masked ball. When you came into your dressing room, didn't you say 'Poor Erik'? Well Christine, there was Poor Raoul who overheard you!"

"That is the second time you have listened at my door, M. de Chagny!"

"I was not at your door! I was in the dressing room! In your boudoir, mademoiselle!"

An interesting contrast to Erik, who, in spite of abducting Christine, holding her against her will etc. always knocks three times on her door before entering her bedroom in the house by the lake, and gives her his word that in that apartment and in her dressing room she is assured of privacy from him.

"How can you believe yourself safer here in the theatre?" Raoul asked. "If you can hear him through the walls, then he can certainly hear us."

"No. He gave me his word that he would not be behind the walls of my dressing room again, and I trust Erik's word. My dressing room and my room in the house by the lake are mine exclusively, and are sacred to him.

The original author was a journalist (Gaston Leroux) who stood up for the demonised outsider and his novel was considered, what we now call, "woke" at the time. It contained an outsider, a poc and a strong heroine.

The story was a warning on how the trauma of othering and abuse someone to the point they are completely broken and no longer see themselves as human can damage a person. (And the difference showing kindness and understanding ((like Christine did)) can bring.