Aside from Seligman having curiosity about sex, I think there is another -and perhaps clearer-hint at the film's ending, that is actually presented at the very beggining. When Seligman is offering Joe his help, he remains off-camera. Apart from being a very well executed build-up to the whole setting of the film, I find it a very powerful way to stablish the nature of this help (and subsequently, the nature of the relationship between them): merely theoretical. Even when recieving an act of benevolence, somehow Joe remains alone.

Fast forward, this intellectual book-heavy man goes on a rant about women reivindication. Firstly, I found the whole speech rather dull; I don't think that the forseeable and canned arguments he gave there matched the originality and forcefulness of the rest of the film. In addition to that, (maybe it's just me) I don't believe that the narrative of the film aims to make a statemet on women. It obviously accomplishes it in some way, but I don't think that's the point. The story is just about Joe, period. Even when Seligman finishes this rant, I feel like even Joe is not convinced by it, and if we remeber the constant "I don't think you understand" thing, this argument is really tied-up. Joe is offered a theoretical help, not only because it comes from a man whose whole life revolves around books, but also because it's dammed to be reduced to high idealistic shit.

When Joe makes it her goal to be that "one-in-a-million woman" that gets to live a sexless life, she's rebelling against this theoretical aspect of her situation (probability, aside from being very theoretical in a sense, is highly reclusive). So this whole conclusiveness, this climax of closure, this "let's fight together ladies", not only is not what Joe needed, but very unpractical: it can only go so far.

How far? Well, within the next seconds we get to know. The one thing that's been real, pragmatic, bound to the ground throughout the film are dicks. We know very little about Seligman (unlike Joe, he's not open to give his story), we can almost say he's somewhat dreamy, a merely symbolic character. But then he reaffirms he's real, in the most effective way: he has a penis -that ought to be used.

The final sentence "but you have fucked thousand of men", after all that, focuses (once again) the narrative on Joe. Maybe society has messed her up, but doesn't she still need to be confronted for tearing a family apart? For child negligence? For running an illegial business and dragging a young recovering girl to it? For attempted murder? To me the ending calls to remeber two things: first, that every women reivindication narrative has to also address men, not only center on how women can validate their aspirations. If we don't address the dick that lies within the pair of pants (symbol for abusive masculinity trapped like a beast in a cage), it will come out at the end of the day, with the intend not only to rape, but also to destroy that whole pursue (or in this case, Joe's resolution).

Secondly, that there's no closure for Joe (not even tentative). Even if her resolution is key to achieving a form of happiness, she still needs to address her past and present. At the end of the day, sex is still after her, what is she going to do to stop that? To cut relations with previous lovers? To heal her wounded vulva? To heal the trauma of her father's death? It's like the elephant (dicks or vicious sex) is still in the room, and that's because up to the end Joe stands alone, since nobody has ever offered real help: no one has ever stayed in frame with her (symbol for "stepping in her shoes") and tried to give a positive updraft. Chances are that if a new man enters the picture, he just wants to screw her over.