Pretty much everyone is familiar with the Madonna-Whore complex. It’s the idea that people see women as aligning with one of two categories 1) as the Madonna – put on a pedestal, non-sexual, model of perfection or 2) the Whore – an overtly sexual being, she is defined by sex and nothing else, a slut. And most of us, at least most of the people I know, condemn this perception of women. Any kind of dichotomy is problematic. Dichotomies over-simplify issues, they inherently value one option over the other which benefits neither party because it pressures those trapped in the dichotomy to continually perform to standards that could very well be unattainable. And they’re boring. Furthermore, this Madonna-Whore dichotomy in particular is harmful to women through it’s definition of them through sexuality and its ultimate effect of dehumanizing them. Women become objects in this dichotomy. They are either an untouchable object of perfection or an object meant only for sex. I feel like this is a pretty standard understanding of the Madonna-Whore complex.
What I’m interested in is the way that this dichotomy exists for men as well and how it compares to the Madonna-Whore complex. I’m not that creative so the best term I could come up with was The Best Friend-Bad Boy complex. We’ve all heard of a guy (or girl but more often the term is used for men in my experience) being “friend-zoned.” This is where a guy becomes a non-sexual entity in the eyes of another (remember that Ryan Reynolds movie?). The Madonna is an ideal of beauty and perfection. She is pure and good and so cannot be seen as a sexualized being. The Best Friend who has been friend-zoned is a non-sexual but not for the same reasons. In it’s use, the Best Friend becomes a non-sexual identity because of an emotional investment the one doing the friend-zoning has placed in them. The Best Friend is a confidant who the friend-zoner can rely on for comfort and understanding but somehow this reliance removes The Best Friend as a possible sexual partner. The Bad Boy is the Whore in this analogy but as with the Madonna and Best Friend, the comparison is not quite the same. The Bad Boy represents danger and mystery he is unknown and you are unknown to him and that makes him desirable as a sexual partner over the safety of The Best Friend. The Best Friend has your back, there is mutual trust, understanding and comfort but it is the desire for danger and the unknown that results in sexual desire.
So what’s up with this? Why is it for women, the non-sexualized entity is an image of perfection and for men he is just a trust-worthy confidant? Why is it that the female sexual object has the derogatory term “whore” to describe an overtly sexual and exclusively sexual being while for men, the sexually desirable is a bad boy in a leather jacket who will probably break your heart? I think the explanation for the terminology and understanding of the Madonna-Whore complex has to do with the history of defining women and controlling women through sex. There are women for sex and women who are not for sex. Slut-shaming is not a recent thing, it goes way back. And for the dichotomy for men, I think it is, if not a result of the Madonna-Whore complex, at least in conversation with it. Through slut-shaming and the valuing of chastity in women we learn to value abstinence over sex, we learn to think of sex as bad, dirty. So a Best Friend who you can trust and who comforts you cannot be someone with whom you engage in the bad and dirty act of sex. That act has to occur with someone who is bad. In both cases we are being taught that sex is bad and awful and you’re bad and awful if you want it and have it. Seriously guys, chill out. Sex is sex.
*I’d like to point out that I’m mostly speaking about how these dichotomies describing the sexuality of men and women operate in a heteronormative environment. I don’t feel as if I know enough about how they may or may not work within the realms of other sexualities so please educate me if you have some insights!
Things and Stuff 