it seems you are trying very hard to deescalate the amount of coercion involved to prove a point but it does not work like that. Loss of a 6 month relationship is unfortunate but its nothing you cant live with.
I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter. Which appears to be that to me, rape requires coercion, whereas to you, whether it qualifies as rape depends arbitrarily on how much Marion stands to lose if she doesn't agree.
It's like you seem to think that if I offer you a $100 for sex and you agree, it's prostitution. But if I offer you a million dollars and you agree, it's rape...because you personally feel it's an offer you can't turn down. And if that example doesn't convey the idea to you, imagine that the person I'm offering money to is starving to death in a thir world country.
If I offer a million dollars to someone starving to death in exchange for sex, and they agree...are you saying that's rape? Even though offering the same exact deal to a millionaire wouldn't be?
Is that really how you see it?
Marion loses her soulmate if she refuses
...so, does that make Little John and Marion bad people because they both agreed to form a relationship that denies Robin of his soulmate?
the bound between her and robin is Devotion,
and she would do anything to be reunited with him.
You're just totally making this up. She left him for the first guy who offered.
it doesnt matter if it was rape or not. The result
was still emotional trauma for her boyfriend
Then why do you blame the Sheriff for that rather than Marion? She was the one who cheated on her boyfriend. The Sheriff has no obligation to Robin, nor to Marion.
If A and B have an agreement, and C makes an offer to B that violates the terms of the agreement and B accepts...B is the guilty party here. C was not party to the agreement between A and B.