Someone who REALLY understood this - Explain to me (LOTS OF SPOILERS)

I'm not sure because I haven't been in the situation but I've heard that sometimes if a woman is abused they develop some sexual habits that they may not have otherwise had. I'm sure the way she lived her life all stemmed from an abusive childhood.

I think she was probably lonely but didn't want to admit it. And I think she liked having him around but didn't want him to know it. Why else would she bother letting him stay with her if she truly hated him? I think she treated him like garbage because she was afraid of her own feelings and was trying to push him away. Him pursuing her was making her realize how messed up her life really was and she couldn't handle the reality of it.

As for him, I'm not really sure why he stuck it out for so long. I'm sure he was lonely too and possibly mesmerized by her. She probably peaked his interest and maybe in the beginning he thought it to be a mysterious challenge. And maybe he just wanted to try and save her. His side of it wasn't quite as clear to me but this is the way I saw it.

the following are my interpretations based on my limited knowledge of abnormal psyche, and the nature of people.

answer to question 1
The addiction to soft core porn is a subconscious attempt to regain control via the measure that it was taken away from her, her sexuality. (like when she bent him over and dry humped him in an aggressive manner) if she'd doing it and its not being "done to her" she feels safe.

question 2
He endured her abuse because of a low self image(im a former addict, i live in a car and i work at a video store...i don't deserve better than this), and because of sex. There was an elephant in the room at all times, a big ol' sexual elephant, while they weren't having sex it was still a major thing on both of their minds(constantly watching softies is going to cause your thought life to be dominated by such themes) I'd like to think that he eventually really developed some kind of semi-healthy feelings for her, but they were both really messed up so no telling.

question 3
there's a phrase "hurt-people, hurt people" she didn't want anyone close enough to hurt her again, she had extremely low self esteem from the abuse, and as such developed a disdain for anyone who expressed interest in her because in her mind they were either A. a molester/rapist or B. very pathetic if she met their standards(because of her own low self image) Also, her father was mean to her, and molested her...the number 1 relationship in her life that was supposed to model a male to female love was so messed up that negativity, aggression, and sexual perversion are subconsciously intermingled with "love" so when feeling of love or affection began to come up for the male lead it was expressed as aggression, domination and the couple times she simulated a rape act on him.


question 4
Soft core porn is all she knows about intimacy, its the safest intimacy she knows...she's traumatized and loathes/fears the physical touch of a man, does not want to make herself emotionally available because that two would cause her pain, but its obvious she's not happy with her life, all human beings deep down want to have some kind of connection with someone...and this, as messed up as it was, was one of the only ways she knew how to be "intimate" with someone watching a skinemax flick with the dude.

question 5
I'm not sure if there is a motif other than sexual dysfunction as a symptom of a deeper emotional problem.

again...all simply my interpretation

I got the feeling that she was continuing to be molested. Something about him supporting her in the way he did with the apartment reminded me of Brittany Murphy's character in Girl Interrupted. She was watching porn without penetration. I think it was her only way to escape, sexually.

About him sticking it out with her, I don't think it is because he has an addictive personality, I think some guys are born to want to be with women who treat them like dirt, just like women who love men who treat them like crap. I think not only did this become appealing to him toward the middle of the movie, the two had a lot of chemistry on screen. I think he was instantly attracted to her, obviously, in the store. I mean, chemistry makes people do things that look stupid to other people. I have been attracted to guys who are average looking, not very smart, but there is just something about them.

I don't think I am giving you a reasonable breakdown, but I loved the hell out of this movie. Please don't think these are unrealistic characters. I went through a period of two years where I treated my baby's father like this and worse on a continual basis. I started going to counseling and now take an anti-depression medication. After I had my kid, my seratonin levels were very screwed up. I think the mind is a very powerful thing as well and she has had some horrific physical responses to her depression caused by the rampant molestation she has suffered through.

as i saw it:

he meets the girl in the store so he falls in love with her then his addictive personality gets the better of him when he tries to pursue her.

and yes she is damaged so im guessing he identifies with that. the reason that she is so frigid and mean is because that is the way her father treated her when he was raping her(calling her ugly and annoying and clingy- like a child would be because it happened when she was little).

she doesnt know how to act (hence the violent humping with jason at the table) she doesnt know what a loving sexual relationship is so she acts out what she remembers and sees in the movies.

as you can see at the end of the movie her father basically controls her life to keep her from telling anybody what had happened.

and im guessing the title comes from the way she talks about guys' dicks. cause when she was being mistreated thats how she remembers it- that the men in her life and their dicks are "bad". with jason ritter he is good man who loves her so he is good therefore making his dick "good"

I think your questions are well intended. I applaud your willingness to give this movie a chance and do some mental work to figure it out. I think more people should do that with challenging movies. The kind of people who are satisfied with the commercial big star flicks aren't going to do this.

But after giving that a chance, sometimes the conclusion to make is that the writer actually didn't write consistent well-fleshed characters and didn't tell a good story. I think you said as much in one of your subsequent posts, and I'm in agreement.

I give this movie credit for some good things, It was original. These were unconventional characters and an unusual situation. It had some good moments. (I like the scene where the old guy came into the video store and talked about how important it is to be with someone, and the young guys were so respectful to him. That was nice.) It held much of my interest because I wanted to see just where it would take me next. But in the end, it didn't seem to me that it really took me anywhere.

I'm a movie viewer who doesn't care for most of the commercial mainstream mass-audience-pleasing movies. I look for things that are different. However, what I find with many of these indie Sundance circuit films is that they're full of quirkiness that might be charming, but they don't really have anything to say. The makers of these films might be talented on a number of counts. But they just don't know how to tell a good story.

We got a little bit in the way of some vague answers as to what might have traumatized the girl into being the strange one that she was. But not enough. And even less about the guy. I can already hear fans of the movie saying "You're provincial, because you need everything spelled out. You don't appreciate a film being an open canvass on which your imagination is going to have to do some work." Okay, fair enough. But when is that a legitimate artistic vision, and when does it become an excuse for the writer and the director to not to do the hard work of crafting a vision?

One of my favorite movies of all time is Remains of the Day, because it is a film that leaves much to your imagination, but does it right. The strongest things said in the movie were powerful precisely because they were never said, i.e. they weren't explicitly laid out. What's the difference between the two films? The difference is that in Remains of the Day is you at least had the basic facts of the characters' lives. You spent time with the characters; you got to know them. The thing they left to you imagination is precise details of what the characters were feeling. But the writer had logically consistent whole characters worked out in his head.

But in Good Dick, they didn't flesh out the characters so well. I think the writer probably started out with some good ideas. But she just tossed it around with a few quirks and eccentricities, some attention-grabbing gimmicks, some quaint dialogue, and she thought she'd written a script.