Was Rhysand Sexually Assaulted Under the Mountain? A Look at Coerced Consent Through a Legal and Human Lens (wrote and research by my father (who's a diplomat, studied law and internal relations and political science) and by me, his mascot!
The A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) series by Sarah J. Maas brings forward complex issues of power, trauma, and survival, particularly with Rhysand’s experience Under the Mountain (UTM). Many fans have wondered: Was Rhysand sexually assaulted? To answer this, we need to look at his situation in both human and legal terms.
What Happened to Rhysand?
Rhysand, the High Lord of the Night Court, spends 50 years as a prisoner to Amarantha, who forces him into a sexual relationship. While on the surface, Rhysand appears to give his consent to this arrangement, he does so under extreme coercion. His choices are clear: submit to Amarantha’s demands or face deadly consequences for himself and his people.
But was this "consent" genuine, or was it a violation?
What Is Coerced Consent?
Legally, coerced consent occurs when an individual agrees to something—often under threat, manipulation, or fear—but the consent isn’t given freely. In Rhysand’s case, the power imbalance between him and Amarantha is extreme. She is not only his captor but also holds immense power over his life and the lives of his people.
In many legal systems, consent under these circumstances is not considered valid. Consent, by definition, must be voluntary, enthusiastic, and without undue influence. When someone is forced into a sexual relationship to protect others or to survive, this is not true consent—this is coercion.
What Does the Law Say?
In legal terms, what happened to Rhysand would most likely be classified as sexual assault by coercion. While different legal jurisdictions have varying definitions of sexual assault, the essence is the same: if consent is obtained through manipulation, coercion, or under duress, it is not real consent.
Most modern laws recognize that power imbalances—like between a captor and their prisoner—strip away an individual's ability to make autonomous decisions. Rhysand’s choice wasn’t really a choice at all. He agreed to Amarantha’s demands because he was trapped in a situation where refusing could lead to catastrophic outcomes.
For example, in many countries, the legal definition of sexual assault includes situations of coercion or non-physical force. It recognizes that threats, manipulation, or fear can overpower someone’s ability to genuinely agree, especially if their livelihood, freedom, or well-being is at risk. In Rhysand’s case, the threat to his people, combined with the fear of death or worse, left him without any real options.
The Human Impact: Survival and Trauma
While legal definitions are important, they don’t fully capture the emotional and psychological toll that Rhysand’s experience represents. His submission to Amarantha was not about desire but about survival. The fact that he acted willingly doesn’t erase the manipulation and the trauma that came with it.
Survival sex, or sex performed under coercion to avoid harm or ensure safety, is often misunderstood. It is not the same as freely consenting to a sexual relationship. Many survivors of sexual coercion feel guilt or confusion, believing that because they "agreed," their experience wasn’t truly assault. However, the context of the agreement is key. When someone has no viable choice but to submit, the law recognizes this as assault.
For Rhysand, as for many survivors, the emotional scars of coerced sex run deep. His sense of autonomy, dignity, and humanity was stripped away by the power Amarantha wielded over him. This is the tragedy of coercion—it forces someone into acts they would not otherwise choose, all for survival.
Why This Matters
The ACOTAR series opens up space to discuss the nuances of consent and power dynamics. Rhysand’s story reflects real-world situations in which individuals, particularly those in vulnerable positions, are forced into sexual relationships under the guise of "willingness." It’s important to understand that even though he technically agreed to the relationship, his consent was not freely given—it was extracted under duress, which legally and ethically wrong.
I'm going to talk real here, I personally don't like rhysand, I made tens of posts criticising him. However, in the case of him getting raped, he did get raped. And for you to say that he didn't, not only takes away from real victims trauma, but it's just wrong. It's just plain wrong. If the law recognises it, then you should recognise it too. There's not only one type of sexual assault, everyone's experiences are different. It's not your right to erase it. I've said this against the rhysand fandom and I'll say it to the anti fandom (which I'm quite literally part of) just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you get to erase it. Feyre was sexually assaulted by chemical submission, rhysand was with coercion. Both are trauma, it doesn't excuse what rhysand did.
However, we should always remember that real people go through this, I went through it. So that's a boundary no one should cross.
Here are some passages from the UK law to prove my point
1. Section 74 - Definition of Consent
“A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”
2. Section 75 - Evidential Presumptions about Consent
“If the defendant did the relevant act, and any of the circumstances below exist, it is to be presumed that the complainant did not consent, and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the complainant consented, and the defendant reasonably believed in consent.”
3. Section 76 - Conclusive Presumptions about Consent (coercion)
> “The defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the act.”
“The defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.”
