capri0mni | (Reply)

From:

the prince's failure to actually do something to warrant marrying her makes it even rape-ier than the usual

Indeed. In the original, non-bowdlerized, version, he actually visits her every day for weeks. And although the phrase "They had sex" never appears in the text, Rapunzel does ask Mother Gothel why her clothes aren't fitting anymore, and why she's suddenly nauseous every morning when she wakes up... And that's how Mother Gothel figures out Rapunzel has not been so lonely in her tower as previously assumed (it is mentioned in the original version that she goes into labor and gives birth in the forest; from the second version onward, the children are just sort of there, at the end). So, not only doesn't the prince do anything to save her, he shows every indication that he would have been happy to keep her as his private little sex object indefinitely.

So, really: the whole premise that this charming, handsome, prince is evidence that the outside world is not as cold or ugly as Mother Gothel says it is falls apart. As far as I'm concerned, the prince is as ugly as they come.

(Another thing I like about this Disney version is that, Rapunzel, having no cultural cues for "this is what sexy looks like," responds to the Romantic Male Lead's early attempt at "charm" with nothing but confused frustration)

...The problem with writing that story is: the trouble I'd have giving Rapunzel reason to weep over the prince, thus curing his blindness.