To the people who think that wasn't rape... Would you do it?

Body language baby. She wasn't asking for it but she most certainly enjoyed it. She kissed him and grabbed his chain, moaned in pleasure, etc. Stp white knighting, you saw the film you know what happened.

It's quite telling that no one actually answered the question.

I haven't seen the rape seen just yet, but I can tell "amy" is a bit...off. I'm not saying she deserved rape...but she's a bad person. She changed the date of the battle on his log board, she encouraged him to go confront the guy about walking into the house, then she watched it, then she made suggestive moves on him while he was talking to them.

I donno...just think you consider that there are other things going on than just face value.

Welp...I see she just flashed them AFTER her husband asks her to be more modest. Interesting.

This is a movie, and so instead of arguing whether it was rape in the technical or legal sense, or asking a provocative question like whether "you" would do it, it is far more relevant and interesting to ask about the filmmaker's intention in its interpretation. It is clear that in both the original and the remake, the filmmakers intended a great deal of ambiguity in the viewer's interpretation. At the time of the Peckinpah's original in the 1970s, the standard defense against rape charges was that it was consensual sex. Since intentions are largely unprovable, the defense not surprisingly always sought to dig into the woman lifestyle and past history.

It is of importance that in the film(s), David and Amy were moving into her hometown. Thus unlike the men in Deliverance or the women in the I spit on Your Grave series, the villains were not some strange men in an unfamiliar location but actually people that Amy grew up with. Judging from the men, Amy had come from a rather poor surrounding. David was a scriptwriter in the remake, but the original character played by Dustin Hoffman was a mathematics professor, and thus it appeared that he had married someone beneath him in terms of background and social status. Why he did that was not clear, but it is reasonable to surmise that Amy was more comfortable in the company of those men than with her own husband. Amy did not understand - and did not care - what her husband was doing in his job. She playfully messed with his script. (In the original, she changed the mathematics of his research on the blackboard - which was far more serious).

In the original, Amy (played by Susan George) openly taunted David for being a coward: he fled from the violence in US campuses (that was the Vietnam era) and chose to spend his sabbatical leave in the "quiet" English countryside. That part was diluted in the remake, but it was still clear that neither Amy nor those rednecks regarded David as much of a man. He allowed himself to be pushed around by those guys (like changing the work schedule to their liking). It is of even greater importance that Charlie in the film was not just a friend but was Amy's old flame. Amy might have married David for a better life, but it was possible that she was still attracted to Charlie and hoped that her husband was more like him. She might not really be prepared to commit any act of infidelity, and so instead she tried on several occasions to provoke her husband to stand up for her (and also for himself) - and in a way become more of a "Charlie". However, David failed miserably. When Amy complained that the men were ogling her, David instead said she should have dressed more discreetly. He also did not want to confront the men about the killing of the cat and Amy had to do it herself. Sadly, at the end, David had to kill to prove himself to be a man and thus regain the respect and love of his wife. Again, that had been somewhat watered down in the new film, but in the original it was abundantly clear that she looked at her husband in a totally different way at the end and even saved his life by gunning down the last villain.

Thus one has to look at the rape scene in the context of all of the above discussions. Amy might not really have led Charlie on or "enjoyed it", but it was indeed possible that - other than the total disappointment with her husband at the time - she was still attracted to her old flame and so resisted him only half-heartedly. (In the original, it was shown that while she at first resisted Charlie and said "no" several times, eventually she started to embrace him). It was like between giving in and not giving in. Like what I said at the beginning, a lot of ambiguity was intended by the scriptwriter/director in the interpretation.

In fact, the script had gone on further by including the part about the mentally-handicapped Jeremy and the Lolita-like 15-year old girl. It is likely that Jeremy would be arrested after they found the girl's body, and people would conclude that this evil guy had raped the girl and killed her when she resisted. But in fact he was the victim and the girl was the predator and offender.

I think the people arguing that it wasn't rape are trolling. Seriously. She hadn't consented when he penetrated her. Even if she did consent or start to enjoy it halfway through he still raped her. He took her by force when she was screaming 'no'. Idiots.

i totally agreed with HenryCW. And i agreed with supergirlxx110-1 and Scribblenaut only if we talk about 2011 remake. In 1971 yes she totally want it, she enjoy it, she moaning, kissing hug him and whisper him nice things and cuddle hug and kiss him in the end of sex. And in the end she is so in villain`s side. And she love charlie. Like Henry says, she know where she coming, she grow up with this villains people, she was Charlies ex, Charlie know how to seduce her (she probably like it rough).

In the situation Charlie put Amy in, there was no consent. He is 6'6" and all muscle, she's barely over 5' and about 110 lbs. Charlie pushed his way into the house and Amy continued to say "No." and "Stop it"

Not all circumstances are the same, but in this case - 'No' means 'No.' Also NOT saying 'Yes' means 'No' and the reason for that is she is being forced to submit and after saying 'No' so many times and being ignored, silence doesn't equal consent. Lastly, Saying 'Yes' under duress or with the threat of violence means 'No.' A look of enjoyment doesn't mean she wants it. Charlie wanted her to be enjoying it and so she complied with a moan, probably as a means of survival. But afterwards, Amy is most definitely not smiling.

Charlie does nothing to stop the other man from raping her...in fact, he watches. As the other man sodomizes her and Amy screams in pain, Charlie just sits there.

Amy doesn't tell David about the rape because generally women don't tell their spouses for a period of time. In fact, women are more likely to call a crisis hotline first, before telling a close friend or relative. The anger and terror and helplessness and all the other emotions begin to return to her at the football game.

No woman is looking to be or deserves to be raped. Amy's behavior - changing the number on the chalkboard, pacing and pouting in front of David when he is busy writing - shows she lacks maturity. Obviously, flashing the workers can be misconstrued as flirting, but Amy again is acting more like a juvenile than trying to entice the men. (In the 1971 version, Susan George is barely out of her teens and her behavior is a bit more understandable)

For a film that seems to be in the horror/thriller genre, the script realistically portrays rape and a woman's reaction to it...from the actual rapes where she is overpowered held down raped and sodomized, to her response to it - not telling David the truth but still being angry with him and the extremely realistic Post Traumatic episode at the football game with the images tormenting her - to the look of hate and rage on her face as she kills the second rapist.

Again, every situation is different, but in this scenario, Amy is most definitely raped.