My answer is definitely no. Now, before I explain why I think he didn't ravish her, I'm going to point out why some people think he did. The reason why is pretty noticeable. When the Phantom puts an unconscious Christine to bed at the end of The Music of the Night sequence, she's wearing tights. When she wakes up the next morning, she's not wearing them. There are three sources I'm going to use as evidence to back up my claim that he didn't rape her. First off, the "Goofs" section of the IMDB web page for The Phantom of the Opera (2004) says that Christine wearing tights and then not wearing tights can be explained as the Phantom just took the liberty of taking off her tights. Secondly, a website called Questions Answered The Phantom of the Opera (2004) has an answer to a question, which was: "What was the Phantom doing while Christine was asleep?" The answer is that he was playing music on his organ. Lastly, TV Tropes says that in the original script, the Phantom is shown getting into bed with the unconscious Christine as the song The Music of the Night ends and the scene fades, leaving no doubts about his intentions. However, TV Tropes also addresses the obvious: this didn't happen in the movie. They also say why this didn't happen in the movie and that is because it would be difficult to see the Phantom as a tortured, romantic hero after a blatant violation like that. So yeah, I don't think mysteriously missing tights equal rape in this situation. 

And yes, I believe he didn’t rape her even though the late Joel Schumacher said he was going for the implication that sexual activity occurred in the Phantom’s cavern that night.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Why?