How the Madonna-Whore complex never left society after all despite the sexual revolution.
By: Venus Osmani, SATSC Contributor
cw: hypersexualization of women, mistreatment of women, racism
The sexual liberation movement began with the implementation of oral birth control pills in the United States, allowing for a drastic increase in female post-secondary graduates and careers. The benefits of easily accessible contraception were huge, but criticism can be given for the uprising in hypersexualizing of women seen in the media, notably Playboy magazines. The infamous rise of Hugh Hefner’s and his Playboy Mansion dominated the 60s sexual
revolution of discarding the feminized norm of the “housewife” and embracing sex. The rise of Playboy was arguably one of the most influential marketing moves of the century. The company created an outlet for women to embrace sexual liberation after a puritan and sexually repressed America which was dominated by the Madonna-Whore complex proposed by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
The psychological dichotomy in Freud’s male patients essentially states women must be seen as either chaste and virginal or promiscuous and forthcoming; but never both. The great America prior to Playboy ostracized alleged sexual deviants and Hefner broke this ideology and challenged social restrictions. Playboy encouraged women to eradicate the norms of purity and to strive to become, for lack of better terms, sexual objects.
Yes, Hefner encouraged women to express their sexual nature and reach beyond the prudish nature of social norms, but here is the main critique to the evolution of the sexual revolution: the movement “revolutionized” women as sexual objects but it grotesquely presented women as exactly that. Women were now reduced to objects separate to that of their own sexual desires, creating an even more restricted role to be confined to. After the publication of this reformed ideology, the market turned women's bodies into a profitable business.
The movement
“revolutionized” women as sexual objects but it grotesquely presented women as exactly that.
Aside from pure pornographic material, female sexual imagery leaked through to clothing, cosmetic and most famously, fragrance industries because ultimately, sex sells. But how this sexual imagery plays a role in what sexuality entails?
Take Eva Mendes in the Calvin Klein Secret Obsession Ad or Victoria’s Secret in how embracing sexuality has its limitations based upon physical appearances. These advertisements show a woman who is not fully nude, yet still exposes herself entirely, containing the innocence centered around male dominated femininity — the epitome of the Madonna-Whore complex.
The Madonna-Whore complex and the idea surrounding sexual liberation targets white women at its core. Birth control pills in the early 1960s allowed for women to gain bodily autonomy with the freedom of choice and sparked the discussion of female sexuality and social norms. What failed to be mentioned was whether the pill complicated racist degradation of Black fertility, evoking several campaigns to promote sexist norms within Black communities and degrade Black childbearing.
What failed to be mentioned was whether the pill complicated racist degradation of Black fertility, evoking several campaigns to promote sexist norms within Black communities and degrade Black childbearing.
Black women were given the opportunity to gain control over their reproductive rights more than ever before, so why the criticism towards the pill? From the early 1900s to 1970s, many states supported the false idea of eugenics, stating that Black people are biologically less intelligent than white people, often denoted as ‘scientific racism’.
Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support Black inferiority, Black women were often sterilized regardless. So given the time period of the rise of eugenics and birth control, oral contraception was seen as a weapon against Black fertility as opposed to mere liberation and sexual endorsement towards predominantly white women.
The question is whether Hefner's influence was for the greater good or greater evil. Playboy reconstructed social norms to create a sexual revolution for women and he was an open supporter of the civil rights and queer rights movements. However, the company was inherently misogynist and normalized the objectification of women and at large, it was established for the benefit of men. In fact, former playmate Sondra Theodore had described the abuse of the sedative Quaaludes used for sex under the codename ‘thigh openers’.
Women are surrounded by sexuality in modern times. Much about sexual liberation is empowering and allows for reproductive control, but in another lens, the media perpetuates a sexually appealing standard for women to fulfill. Hugh Hefner advocated for supposed liberal feminism when mainstream society emphasized bachelorhood and promiscuity in opposition to the 1950s suburban dream. Nearly 70 years later, the Madonna-Whore complex continues to dictate internal misogyny: a spectrum of debauchery and chastity with no in-between.
A Dangerous Method
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley
Directed by: David Cronenberg
4 out of 5
Myles Herod
Entertainment Editor
For those who appreciate David Cronenberg’s work, there comes an undaunted delight in knowing it will break the rules.
His origin is a gory one. Debuting in the 1970s, the Canadian filmmaker cemented his status with an array of body horror pictures, drawing upon societies discomfort for sex, violence, medicine and technology.
However, unlike like many of his contemporaries (Scorsese and Spielberg), Cronenberg saw film as just another means of art – a philosophy that has undoubtedly allowed him to avoid Hollywood constraints and rise as an original, consistently able to attract A-list talent.
So while the grotesque images of Shivers, Videodrome and The Fly are very much part of his lauded past, the new millennium has afforded revision, one that has seen him transition from mind over body.
His newest in four years, A Dangerous Method follows the relationship between the founder of analytic psychology, Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), a Russian psychoanalyst who started as his disturbed patient – seething with spastic contortions and frightening hysterics.
Over the course of six years, spanning Switzerland to Vienna, the film incorporates hypothetical notions and factual context, sourcing its screenplay on Jung’s personal letters. Soon, as their bond intensifies, a breach between doctor and patient explodes into a kinky, masochistic romance – finding the aggressive Spielrein enamored with the married Jung.
In contrast, an air of stately intellect arrives with the film’s second relationship, a man who was Jung’s hero, colleague, and finally, rival – Sigmund Freud. Played by Viggo Mortensen, an actor who usually takes the call of stoic outcasts, the role is superbly cast against grain as Croneberg and Mortensen interpret the man as an adroit and sophisticated luminary.
By all accounts, A Dangerous Method is a period piece through and through – draped in decorative attire of the time, elegant locales brimming with cobblestone and carriages. Inside, however, with its darkened corridors, the picture functions as an absorbing verbal thinker, questioning the repression of our immoral thoughts and actions.
Given the advantage of having their work and ideas readily available, the film’s reward comes from observing these historic figures speak and validate them, splendidly embodied by skilled actors.
Through Freud’s concepts, Jung breaks through with Spielrein, having her divulge memories of sexual fervor and incestual abuse, subsequently igniting their passionate affair and her eventual path of psychoanalysis itself.
Even more fascinating, though, is the contact between Freud and Jung – lavish in insight, zingers, and deceit. A good sign of a film is when you want more, rather than less.
While Freud remains calculated, cerebral, a dismayed with clairvoyance, you sense that Jung is the opposite, toying with mysticism and prophecy – but only hinted at.
Influencing their professional divide further is a salacious cameo from Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross, a rouge student of Freud’s, sent to Jung for observation. While there, explicit tales of sexual promiscuity and cocaine indulgence rattle and seduce Jung’s psyche, rationalizing his affair with Spielrein, which, in turn, forms the catalyst of Freud’s fallout. All three bring terrific nuance to their roles, oddly melding into a ménage a trios of verbal sparring.
Restraint is the key word for A Dangerous Method. Opting for dialogue and debauchery over bloodletting – this is a film that tells, but rarely shows, save for a virginal deflowering. Yes, instead of the typical ‘cronenberg-isms’ of exploding heads, the film deals with imploding relationships and desires, still undeniably sealed by the director’s acumen.
For his first historical effort, David Cronenberg unleashes a stimulating treat for the mind, one that makes you ponder and seek the writings of Jung and Freud immediately afterwards. Tell me, for a film, what’s more admirable than that?
