look at my whore-ding!

In a world that is founded upon various principles, be it personal or political, the principle of decorum is the most fascinating one. What I find even more unsettling is its easy adoption in domestic settings. There has been enough discourse about the male gaze. Margaret Atwood once wrote about the presence of an ‘invisible’ voyeur in the minds of women who monitors our actions— the percolation of the male gaze into our subconscious. This, in my opinion, explains the kitchen and bedroom policing surrounding decorum or tradition. It also forms the basis of the Madonna-Whore complex.

Before I unpack it, I wanted to talk about the concept of binaries that never seem to leave the experience of womanhood due to the male gaze. A woman can’t be both sexual and reserved. She can’t want both a family and financial independence. She can’t be both ‘good’ and argumentative. In its entirety, a woman can’t question and be. Take 1970s Bollywood for example. Increasingly, two kinds of women were depicted on the celluloid. The chaste heroine and the ‘other’ woman, more free, more flamboyant in her clothing, and more commonly present in bars as a cabaret dancer, who attempts to lure the hero to further the agenda of the villain. This figure was known as a vamp. The actress, Helen, had garnered immense fame in this role. The idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ was driven home, alright, but at the same time, how do we explain the cassettes after cassettes of Helen’s (like Raat ki Raani) that were routinely sold off? And the men who especially came to the cinema to watch movies with her songs in them? Recently, I saw this news about an influencer who a group of men chased because she posted ‘sexually explicit’ dance videos. Ironically, she was profiting from those because she was catering to a predominantly male audience.

So, if I understand this correctly, decorum demands a tinge of whore inside of a wife. Not one who thinks, but one who responds to suggestive prompts. Got it. Hmm. Now, what does that remind me of? Anyway, who decides what or what is not a whore? Why are we making it make sense? Seriously, because if it is based upon the number of beds she is bagging, then it just shows some good furniture store or real estate sense on her part.

Visual media has a far-reaching impact, as we all know. Laura Mulvey has talked in detail about the concept of scopophilia¹, which translates from the camera to the male audience. What is also important to note is the internalization that happens within women, which ultimately makes them the flagbearers of the rather obtuse principle of decorum. It starts in a myriad of small ways. In a heteronormative context, a woman, for example, might project her insecurities onto another woman who, due to her persona—physical or otherwise—might be able to garner a lot of male attention. The latter’s sexuality and beauty are perceived as legitimate threats to an already fragile social order. For example, Monica Bellucci’s Malena, wherein the female protagonist’s extraordinary beauty and initially perceived singlehood not only make her the focal point of the male gaze but also bring forth the violent ire of practically every woman in that town. Malena’s subdued return with her husband helps her gain that lost kindness. This movie, thus, highlights the presence and the fear of the wandering male gaze within women, which ultimately circles back to Atwood’s argument.

The Madonna-Whore Complex (MWC) is rather interesting in this context. Sigmund Freud describes it in the following (irritating) quote: “Where such men love, they have no desire, and where they desire, they cannot love.” He further describes the phenomenon as men viewing women in binaries. That is, a man would not be sexually attracted to the woman he had romantic feelings for. This is because she holds the capacity to be a wife and a mother. As a result, he would devalue women he considers to be promiscuous while desiring them. Freud concludes that it was difficult for men to differentiate the love they held for their wives and mothers.

In this light, Brooke Brownlee (2022)² cites Orly Bareket’s 2018 study about Camerino’s 1400 painting titled, “The Madonna of Humility With The Temptation of Eve” wherein there is a sharp contrast between the earthly and nurturing image of Virgin Mary with the dark, naked and almost sinful depiction of Eve. Firstly, I am tired of the villanization of Eve for biting into that damn apple. Apples are alright and frankly, tasty. Secondly, if anyone has read Milton’s Paradise Lost, then it is clear that Eve is quite tired of being left behind. She is not considered Adam’s equal by God or his angels. In Book V, she is extremely angry and upset because Raphael tells Adam about Satan and not Eve. The reason she ‘strays’ is because of God himself.

Pardon me for the digression. My point, much like other feminists, is that the MWC is rooted in misogyny and sexual oppression. The two are often intertwined to exacerbate tyrannical forces. I do not even need to resort to literature or cinema anymore. The examples are very much around us. Brownlee talks about the research on social dominance orientation, which shows how men in power are more likely to perpetuate stereotypes around gender and sexuality, citing them as natural and biological. Emily Kane and Mimi Schippers also strengthen this argument by highlighting the fear of male emasculation that could result from assertive female sexuality.

Whatever.

So, in conclusion. Men have their little theories to make the world more shitty for us. It is terrible when women not only give in to that but actively try to propagate the same. Please don’t. The unlearning is difficult but necessary. I realized this during my undergrad years. The world is already shitty. At least we can try not to be.

1. sexual pleasure derived chiefly from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity; voyeurism.

2. The Psychology of MWC- Brooke Brownlee