I feel stupider for having read this

and I question the integrity of the American legal system when now that I know a law professor wrote it.

Over at Instapundit Elizabeth Price Foley writes a piece questioning the reaction to the rape of Sansa Stark in the last episode of Game of Thrones.  In part it reads:

I honestly don’t understand why everyone is assuming this was a “rape.”

During the episode, Sansa was married to character Ramsey Bolton (a creepy, sadistic character, for sure).  Immediately after their wedding, Ramsey asks Sansa to undress.  She complies, and then one hears her crying, presumably as Ramsey is raping her.  But the two are married, and Sansa never once indicates, overtly or even implicitly, that she objects to having sex with him.  So if she does not object in any way, would not her husband reasonably assume she consented?  If one wanted to shoot a “rape” scene, should not the script writer have at least provided some indication that Sansa articulated a “no”?

Professor Foley claims she watched the episode but I severely doubt it.  Over the last two episodes Sansa has been informed a number of times about how Ramsey treats people who displease him, flayed corpses, tales of him hunting people with dogs, introducing her to the man he mutilated and psychologically tortured etc.  

On the night of their wedding Ramsey doesn't ask Sansa to undress he tells her while the man he has physically and psychically maimed is standing in the same room. When she hesitates he asks if she is going to say no, and then reminds her what happens to people who bore him, "and no would be boring".  She begins to comply and when she takes too long he rips her dress open and (admittedly off camera) forces himself into her.  While we don't hear Sansa say no we also don't hear her consent.  Based on the reaction of Theon, and on Sansa's reaction when the camera cuts back over, there wasn't any.  

And, when was she supposed to say no anyway?  Immediately after he again reminded her that he physically maims people or has them killed by hunting dogs when they displease him? Or maybe she thought he would only flay her while she was still alive.  

In what twisted universe is this consent?

No, it was rape.  Maybe if we lived in Westeros it wouldn't be, just like it wouldn't be in modern Saudi Arabia or medieval Europe, but in the context of the intended audience it was rape and it was clearly supposed to invoke that.  The fact that Professor Foley can contest that is just plain scary.

I was going to say the reaction in the comments was just as bad but between the point where I first read this, yesterday, and now most of the more offensive ones seem to have been removed and there are a lot more comments disagreeing with the author.