Plot Summary[ edit ] "After having sex, Rae is staring downward, feeling guilty for betraying her husband, by allowing Hughie to please her, including having an orgasm.
Where did that come from? After a passionate coupling with Hughie, Rae must decide whether she has it within herself to go back to her husband. But can she reach John in time and come to forgive herself, or is Rae doomed to remain Hughie's lover? None of the inner conflict described above is apparent in the dialogue of the movie, or in Rae's actions.
She clearly is trying to return to her husband. Whoever keeps editing this is a perv. While there's very little dialogue in that scene the body language sets up what the characters are going through. Hughie believes she wants to have sex with him which is why he looks pleased, and Rae is conflicted between going through with sex and trying to take control of the ship which is why she goes for the shotgun while teasing Hughie with the notion of intercourse.
We see that despite leading him on Rae wants to avoid sex with Hughie and rescue her husband. However because the dog draws attention to her when she goes for the gun Rae feels rushed and finds no other alternative than to go through with being Hughie's lover. When they finally do commit the deed Rae clearly displays a mixture of both pleasure and pain which leads to the conclusion of feeling guilt while being carnally satisfied. It's obvious Rae is using the seduction to her advantage, and afterward she still gives off facial expressions of guilt and annoyance when she sits up on her bed looking down.
Most movie summaries on this site have more detail than this film which is oddly always being edited down to a premise. It's one thing if Hughie is interested in having sex with her. It's another when Rae willingly and seductively goes along with it. Heck she didn't need to waste time with the gun anyways if there was a harpoon right below her.
Still I feel kinda bad for her character though considering she lost her child and now this. But the article brings up an interesting point: What if Rae did get pregnant with Hughie's kid? Then wouldn't this be the creepiest thriller of the 80s I do agree that from a woman's perspective carnal lust can be uncontrollable and that things could have turned out worse if she refused him on the spot. Still, she had other means to stop him besides trying to turn the boat off and eventually giving herself to him.
There was the spear gun as previously mentioned and she could have been seductive enough to delay the sex for later so she would have had time to come up with a better plan. I'm sure her mind wasn't thinking straight anyways given the situation, but it's not like she had no way out.
Here are some editied photos from a website: They are described in great and unnecessary detail, and the fact that Rae is wearing "nothing but a robe" is made abundantly clear over and over. Perhaps this should be changed However it does seem repetative with certain things such as "her wearing the robe" and "her wearing her wedding ring" which seem unnecessary to add. Other than some trimming here and there, the sex scene was a crucial and equally disturbing part of the movie that doesn't need to be removed from the plot synopsis.
Most of Rae's characterization is built between the death of her son and the sex scene. These things were never in the book yet the writers and director added this to expand Rae's journey from a troubled victim to a seductive warrior. Personally this is the most controversial scene in the movie because the audience is taken in shock at the decisions and consequences Rae is making by choosing to sleep with Hughie.
I trimmed the repetative stuff as well as took out the obvious info which is that they are aving unprotected sex. So far as I can tell the rest of the plot matches what was in the movie Oldboy88 Why do I feel like I'm reading erotica. I don't want to change it, if most people think its fine. And I can discuss anything I please, who are you, the king of wikipedia? You don't like what I have to say so you delete my comments.
In what way does that help? From the comments I've noticed so far it seems like you and Joe want a change. Why don't you stop wasting time making useless discussion topics about a change and actually do something about it.
Or you can contact Oldboy88 since he edited things out that bothered Joe Everytime I write anything, you have to come in here and comment. My comments are not all adressed to you, and you shouldn't be worrying so much about what I'm doing. You have no interest in editing the article. Your only purpose on this page is to delete my comments and speak out of turn. Why are you here? You seem to be the obsessive one.
If you care so much, why don't you get a username and sign your posts. I will do as I please and continue to post whatever I like. Have a good day. Don't contact me again. Sorry it bothers you so much but I'm not the one constantly begging for the article to be changed. That is why I'm doing nothing about it. Rather than take my comments as an attack, you should be thinking of them as advice and help.
You don't need to make a similar topic on the issue and all your defenses can be adressed in this one with others who seem interested. Don't act immature about this.
I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template , you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Excessive plot description[ edit ] Um Feel free to contact me if you think it was too much.
Also, some of this still seems kind of jilted. If anyone is better than me at editing, please make this flow a little better. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information.
I made the following changes: As of February , "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification , as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.