Dar’Khan is described as leering at Sylvanas in a way that makes her pointedly uncomfortable.
And then Arthas leaves her corpse with him in Deatholme to screw with her. Though frankly she doesn’t seem all that bothered.
But she did just get her soul torn from her body and weaponized into a child and artist killing sonic death ray. So, kinda a lot going on. Her only real thought at that time is how torturously she’s going to kill Arthas.
This isnt math, science or a court of law though. It’s her interpretation and many others.
(Damn it Ren 
)
It’s logic lol,
Indeed. I just thought it was funny we both typed the same exact at the same time 
Yeah, everyone is in agreement on this.
The reason this conversation is happening is because people denied that Sylvanas did those same things to a multitude of other people. Or more specifically, that what happened to Sylvanas was worse than what Sylvanas did to Anduin, Koltira, Derek, Delaryn, Sira, etc.
No one did this. You reacted to nothing. Can you provide proof and link these comments?
Here, Arthas is taunting Sylvanas with the horror of what could be happening to her corpse as they speak. A corpse that he assured her was not being chopped up and turned into some abomination but was
But he gave away the location of her body. The taunt was clear as day, enough to tell her where to find her body when she broke free… in the hands of the lecherous pervert who wanted her in life.
Now here, Sylvanas finds her corpse exactly where she was meant to fear it was (or where Arthas derived sick pleasure in knowing it was, and presumed Sylvanas would not figure it out.) One might be forgiven for interpreting the locked coffin to suggest that she had been undefiled, but it is likely an imprisonment allegory, and her body’s posessor would likely have a key. There is no real reason to expect that the book was trying to tell us that Sylvanas was being irrational in suspecting that her body was a plaything for a risen necromancer.
Specifically you denied that they were rape analogues, which would be fair if you hadn’t also claimed that what happened to Sylvanas was a rape analogue when there’s relatively little fundamental difference between them.
What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.
You are agreeing with a claim, based off your own interpretation, which you later said was canon.
This is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. People discussing the matter between themselves does not match that standard. Asking for the passage, which you did supply when asked what page number in a round about way, was good enough to pull up the passages as it seems Ainhin posted them above.
Ok… but heres the thing about your argument. Renautus accused no one of anything. Instead they have been accused of misrepresenting the narrative. Feel free to cite your sources.
Except there was no argument. There was a discussion between parties that Ainhin dove into demanding proof that he claimed one participant was duty-bound to provide him.
Like, when you came to defend your pal, did you bother to read what you were defending?
They are not. Her torturing koltira, Derek and Anduin were not sexual in any way.
This is clearly sexual allegory, calling her pretty, teasing her that he left her body alone with a creepy pervert who wanted to have sex with her.
They are not comparable. Everyone here is telling you the same thing.
I think that’s a valid interpretation, but it’s just that: an interpretation. It cannot be declared to be indisputably canon. If I were doing the same thing with lore that I wanted to confirm my beliefs you guys would rightly be calling me out for the same thing.
I’m guessing she (Golden) wanted to walk people to the edge of that implication without committing to it. It is a clever storytelling tool, honestly, as it makes a participant out of what is otherwise a passive reader.
And also gives cover to say “no, no, we never said that” if everyone torches it.
Thats fair. But I think it takes some impressive mental gymnastics to interpret it differently. Like when people take biblical cannon and suggest that Jesus never said he was God. In the bible, the Godhood of Jesus is cannon.
We could consider Arthas calling Sylvanas a beautiful corpse as sexual harassment.
Leaving her body with a predator knowing he may take advantage her inability to consent is sexual assault.
And Arthas uses this to threaten and humiliate her.
Ah yes, list of things that cannot be doubted:
The Godhood of Jesus
Sylvanas Windrunner’s Corpse Was expletived by Dar’khan
Except you know Maw did not say that.
Sexual Harassment is not sexual assault.
The potential for sexual assault is not sexual assault.
Sexual assault, by definition, is intentional physical contact that is sexual in nature without your consent.
If you’d like to claim it’s canon that Sylvanas was a victim of Sexual Harassment, well. In most cases a single incident wouldn’t cover the harassment definition, but we can probably say with confidence it wouldn’t be the only time Arthas had said something of the like. So sure.