The Madonna versus the Whore Syndrome

If you’ve yet to learn of this psychological complex, I shall briefly overview it for you to avoid glazed eyes and boredom. It is a longstanding theory (first instigated by our dear friend Sigmund Freud, he has a lot to answer for) that denotes men both consciously and subconsciously place women into two significant categories in their minds; the nurturing mother type figure, and the sexually pleasing promiscuous girl – aka the Madonna and the Whore, respectively.

Coinciding with this theory is the unfounded (or is it?) concept that being both sexually arousing and in a loving long term caring / nurturing relationship are two mutually exclusive ideals, and thus presents many difficulties that women have faced throughout the ages. Are we to be the nurturing borderline mothering and thus boring girlfriend, or the sexually attractive ‘whore’ type?

“Where such men love they have no desire and where they desire they cannot love.” Freud.

Photo: Pexels

I personally squirm at the use of the word whore however, it is apt here. Although do not, dear reader, decide you are a ‘whore’ and run to the toilets for a private weep. It is just a term used to explain the antithesis of the Madonna figure; it is not chiding you for having lots of sex with lots of men (who are we to judge, anyway?). What these two terms explain, is that females can never be both, and should we be the object of sexual desire that men take to to their beds, we cannot thus then be viewed as the potential sweet, caring, kind nurturing female figure who the male wishes to love, cherish, and protect.

Usually I’m up for a healthy debate about whether certain human-identified mindsets are based on any truth or just waffle to fill up an ancient essay, but this particular syndrome is SPOT ON. I for one have come face to face with this beast on more occasions than I can recall, and the beast is goddamn ugly. I am, both proud and ashamed to say, a person that oozes sexuality. Even when I don’t want to and have no intention of attempting to gain attention of men, I get the gawps and the heckles and the fragile attempts at gaining my number. No, before you all think I’ve just confessed I sleep around, I don’t – I just give off some form of sexual prowess that drives men nuts. I have no idea what it is. I am not being arrogant here, just acknowledging some facts I’ve had to face. Even when I think ‘I look a state I best leg it back home’ I still, somehow, get attention. Many many girls will identify with this too  – I know I’m not alone.

However, the downside of aforementioned natural sexuality is that, to men that are sexually aroused by the ‘whore’ figurine, I will never transgress into the ‘loving long term girlfriend’ Madonna role. Don’t get me wrong I have had ample long term relationships but never have I been the girl they wish to protect, cherish and love. I am not the wallflower, I am not the ‘wouldn’t she make a wonderful mother to my children’ female. I am the ‘wouldn’t she look so hot tied to my headboard’ female.

Am I the saint?

Or am I the sinner? 

Image credit: @Oneclickwonders

And can I ever be both?

Please note: This is not my declaration that I am the ‘whore’ and that is that. It is a declaration of what I am perceived to be by the male species. Being attractive and curvy with a witty tongue and opinionated mind apparently means they get turned on and I get turned off in the ‘potential wifey’ category. That’s fucking lame. I’m a very loving, loyal and fun girlfriend. In fact sometimes I am too loyal, but I shall not digress. I’m just saying, I am fully capable of being the Madonna but as men are creatures of visual appreciation and can get turned on by the rise of a hem line, I am always viewed as the ‘whore’ first and foremost. And whilst neither persona is right or wrong, it does impede your chances if you are one, but wish to become the other. Just as a whore cannot be viewed as the Madonna, nor can the mothering nurturing female be arousing or ‘sexy beyond control’. Sex appeal is something you either have, or don’t. A bit like the ability to paint. You can be taught how to paint but your final canvas will never look as good as those who hold a paintbrush as naturally as they convert oxygen to CO2.

Photo: Pexels

So it seems, to keep a man’s eye line on you, you must be both the saint and the sinner. You must break all of the above rules, boundaries, you must defy Freud’s theory and master the art of both to ensure your relationship is long lasting AND fulfilling in the bedroom. How is that actually possible? OR FAIR?

What I will say is this – I am attracted to guys who are epic in bed, and yet when we’re done I still want them to stay over / cuddle / hang out / go party together. I am capable of seeing both a sexual connection AND a long term relationship in just ONE man. In fact, if he arouses me sexually and appeals to my more female sensitive nature, I think fuck I’ve got a winner here and hold onto him for as long as possible. I don’t on any level think: “Omg he turns me on so much I can’t control myself, but because of that he’d make a shit long term boyfriend”. I think – I hit jackpot! He’s a keeper. I thought that was rationale of the highest order. No? Apparently not! I can’t explain why guys can’t distinguish a woman who is capable of living in both the spheres, and I can’t explain why being one makes you incapable of being the other (in their eyes anyway).

But it does certainly explain why women start changing their appearance / dress code if they want to try snag a man for longer than a 4 hour Sunday evening slot. The way I see it, if the man I’m dating only has the capacity to view me in one dimension (bent over) then he doesn’t deserve me long term anyway, and can quite frankly sod off into oblivion.

P.s There will be at least one guy who contests everything I’ve said, demands that he can cope with the duality and probably WhatsApp me to explain in an overbearing and condescending tone that the theory is flawed from the foundation. This guy is a wanker anyway, so he can go suck it. You can’t mess with Freud lightly.