Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Evolutionary Explanation of the Madonna-Whore Complex

  • THEORETICAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Evolutionary Psychological Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Madonna-Whore complex is a product of male psychology that constrains female sexuality. Exaggerating actual differences, males categorize females as chaste “Madonnas” or promiscuous “whores.” This complex is a form of sexual dissociation according to Freudian dogma, proceeds from power imbalances according to feminist theory, and is a Western cultural feature of patriarchal oppression as per postmodern critics. While the Madonna-Whore complex does indeed violate the reality of female sexuality, it may be a feature rather than a bug. As herein argued, it is an evolved psychological outgrowth of paternal uncertainty. Paternal uncertainty forces male mating into short- and long-term strategies. Understanding its biological underpinnings allows us to place the Madonna-Whore complex in an evolutionarily informed matrix of sexual conflict. Therein considered, one can see the outsized threat of cuckoldry to the male. To the extent that males oppress females when dichotomizing their sexuality, females threaten males when engaging in short-term, extra-pair copulations. Thus, from seeing a one-sided oppression of a socio-cultural origin, we progress to an understanding of mutual conflict naturally extending from the biological realities of human mating among males and females with different interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

This is a theory article and so this is not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Or, Mary of Bethany.

  2. Although some of the biblical themes and mythological accounts that Feinman cites are less specifically related to the Madonna-Whore dichotomy as they are more generally indicative of male dichotomization of women, she nonetheless, succeeds in, at least loosely, implicating theological doctrine as complicit in promoting the dichotomization of female sexuality within the male mind.

References

  • Bareket, O., Kahalon, R., Shnabel, N., & Glick, P. (2018). The Madonna-Whore dichotomy: Men who perceive women’s nurturance and sexuality as mutually exclusive endorse patriarchy and show lower relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 79, 519–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cannold, L. (2008). Who’s the father?:[The moral ‘crime’ of paternity fraud.]. Living Ethics: Newsletter of the St. James Ethics Centre, (74), 4.

  • Chapais, B. (2013). Monogamy, strongly bonded groups, and the evolution of human social structure. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 22(2), 52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, B. K. (2006). Neo-institutionalism, social movements and the cultural reproduction of a mentalite: Promise keepers reconstruct the Madonna/Whore complex. Sociological Quarterly, 42, 305–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coogan, M. (2008). The Old Testament: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, H. (2007). Paternity fraud and compensation for misattributed paternity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(8), 475–480.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1988). What 70 million years hath wrought: Sexual histories and reproductive success of a random sample of American women. In L. Betzig, M. B. Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective (pp. 221–235). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faer, L. M., Hendriks, A., Abed, R., & Figueredo, A. J. (2005). The evolutionary psychology of eating disorders: Female competition for mates or for status? Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 78, 397–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinman, C. (1994). Women in the criminal justice system (3rd ed.). Greenwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueredo, A. J., Cabeza de Baca, T., Black, C. J., Garcia, R. A., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wolf, P. S. A., & Woodley of Menie, M. A. (2015). Methodologically Sound: Evaluating the psychometric approach to the assessment of human life history [Reply to Copping, Campbell, and Muncer, 2014]. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 299–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitouchi, L., André, J. B., & Baumard, N. (2021). Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–71.

  • Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe, J. E. (1987). Family life in Western societies: A historical sociology of family relationships in Britain and North America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.

  • Hartmann, U. (2009). Sigmund Freud and his impact on our understanding of male sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 2332–2339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera Aguirre, M., Fernandes, H. B. F., & Woodley of Menie, M.A. (2018). Life history evolution: A biological meta-theory for the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (1996/2011). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

  • Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Harvard University Press.

  • Israel, J. I. (2006). Enlightenment contested: Philosophy, modernity, and the emancipation of man 1670–1752. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. B. (2004). When daddy doesn’t want to be daddy anymore: An argument against paternity fraud claims. Yale JL &. Feminism, 16, 193.

  • Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahalon, R., Bareket, O., Vial, A. C., Sassenhagen, N., Becker, J. C., & Shnabel, N. (2019). The Madonna-whore dichotomy is associated with patriarchy endorsement: Evidence from Israel, the United States, and Germany. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(3), 348–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keesey, D. (2010). Neither a wife nor a whore: Deconstructing feminine icons in Catherine Breillat’s Une Vieille maitresse. Journal for Cultural Research, 14, 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klug, H., Alonzo, S. H., & Bonsall, M. B. (2012). Theoretical foundations of parental care. In N. J. Royle, P. T. Smiseth, & M. Kölliker (Eds.), The evolution of parental care (pp. 21–39). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kording, N. D. (2004). Little white lies that destroy children’s lives-recreating paternity fraud laws to protect children’s interests. JL & Fam. Stud., 6, 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, P. D. (2009). Freud: Inventor of the modern mind. Harper Collins.

  • Larue, G. A. (1983). Sex and the Bible. Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. J. (2002). Beyond dominance: The importance of leverage. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 77(2), 149–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. (2014). Evolution of social monogamy in primates is not consistently associated with male infanticide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17), E1674–E1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science, 341(6145), 526–530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2003). The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(3), 282–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. W. (2021). Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 15–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunn, C. L. (2011). The comparative approach in evolutionary anthropology and biology. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brian, J. (1995). Milan Kundera & feminism: Dangerous intersections. St. Martin’s Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opie, C., Atkinson, Q. D., Dunbar, R. I., & Shultz, S. (2013). Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), 13328–13332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opie, C., Atkinson, Q. D., Dunbar, R. I., & Shultz, S. (2014). Reply to Lukas and Clutton-Brock: Infanticide still drives primate monogamy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17), E1675–E1675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peñaherrera Aguirre, M., & Fernandes, H. B. (2021). Phylogenetic analysis within comparative psychology. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5967–5975.

  • Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychololgy, 95, 1113–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. G. (2017). The effect of the promiscuity stereotype on opposition to gay rights. PLoS ONE, 12(7), e0178534.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Platek, S. M., & Shakelford, T. F. (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plavcan, J. M. (2002). Reconstructing social behavior from dimorphism in the fossil record. In J. Plavcan, R. F. Kay, W. Jungers, & C. P. van Schaik, C. P. (Eds.). Reconstructing behavior in the primate fossil record (297–338).New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Plavcan, J. M. (2012a). Implications of male and female contributions to sexual size dimorphism for inferring behavior in the hominin fossil record. International Journal of Primatology, 33, 1364–1381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plavcan, J. M. (2012b). Sexual size dimorphism, canine dimorphism, and male-male competition in primates: Where do humans fit in? Human Nature, 23, 45–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plavcan, J. M., van Schaik, C. P., & Kappeler, P. M. (1995). Competition, coalitions and canine size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 28(3), 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in a desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sela, Y., Pham, M. N., Mogilski, J. K., Lopes, G. S., Shackelford, T. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). Why do people disparage May-December romances? Condemnation of age-discrepant romantic relationships as strategic moralization. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slurink, P. (1999). Culture and the evolution of the human mating system. In M. G. Johan, D. van der, D. Smillie, & D. R. Wilson (Eds.) The Darwinian heritage and sociobiology (pp. 135–161). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

  • Strassmann, B. I. (2003). Social monogamy in a human society: Marriage and reproductive success among the Dogon. In U. H. Reichard & C. Boesch (Eds.), Monogamy: Mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans and other mammals (pp. 177–189). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tanzer, D. (1985). Real men don’t eat strong women: The virgin-Madonna-whore complex updated. The Journal of Psychohistory, 12, 487–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tishkoff, D. (2006). Madonna/whore: The myth of the two Marys. Author House.

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B.G., (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: The Darwinian pivot (pp. 136–179). Chicago, Illinois: Aldine de Gruyter.

  • Watts, D. P. (2010). Dominance, power, and politics in nonhuman and human primates. In P. M. Kappeler & J. B. Silk (Eds.), Mind the gap: Tracing the origins of human universals (pp. 109–138). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, E. V. (1988). Mother, Madonna, whore: The idealization and denigration of motherhood. Free Association Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wlodarski, R., Manning, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women. Biology Letters, 11, 20140977.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saint Elizabeth University, Morristown, NJ, USA

    Steven Hertler

  2. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Mateo Perñaherrera-Aguirre & Aurelio José Figueredo

Authors
  1. Steven Hertler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mateo Perñaherrera-Aguirre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aurelio José Figueredo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors are listed above: Steven Hertler, Mateo Perñaherrera-Aguirre, and Aurelio José Figueredo.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Hertler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

We jointly give our consent to publish.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hertler, S., Perñaherrera-Aguirre, M. & Figueredo, A.J. An Evolutionary Explanation of the Madonna-Whore Complex. Evolutionary Psychological Science 9, 372–384 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-023-00364-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-023-00364-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation