MILF/DILF, WTF?
Jake Farr-Wharton 28 comments
MILF, the acronym used by males to describe another male friend’s mother’s sexually desirable attributes, or indeed to simply categorise any female who has bore children as sexually desirable. The term MILF was first popularised in the movie American Pie and has since become a ubiquitous phrase amongst most males.
As most men, I claim ignorance towards the inner workings of the female mind and had not ever suspected, given many women’s proclivity to cry ‘objectification’ towards such terms, that such a term would exist to describe sexually desirable dads.
As an ex of mine chatted amongst her friends over a few white wines as I tended to the barbeque and the children whilst also managing a D&M with a couple of old mates, I heard the phrase and my interest was instantaneously roused.
At first, I thought that the ladies were talking about my friend Ralph in pretend Kiwi accents, but I couldn’t resist, so I broke away from the man talk and asked, WTF? Who would have known that I was a DILF… actually I think said jealous ex may ensure I’m never alone with her lady friends again after such an admission, even though it was entirely light hearted and said jokingly.
This has implications!
Like most men, I walk around partially aware of the caveman part of my brain. For the uninitiated, this is the part of the brain that constantly ticks away, rating the women in my periphery. It is also the part of my brain that presumes that I am indeed a godly gift to women and that all desire me (don’t think me vain, this is mostly unconscious thought that all men have). Basically, I objectify women based solely on how their looks meet my taste (which differs from gentleman to gentleman).
Now, while I am a fairly vain gentleman, I had never really assumed that any woman wanted to have wild animal sex with me, just by looking at me. Apparently they do.
I feel violated. Objectified. And all because I a dad who takes care of himself… well, I never.
So, Nation’s women; QUIT UNDESSING ME WITH YOUR EYES... you’re making me uncomfortable.
Hehe, women have carnal desires as well. To me it's just as chauvinistic to believe that all women are here on Earth for the sole purpose of obeying every single male command and desire as it is to believe that women are holy creatures with only pure non-sexual thoughts directed to the betterment of mankind. In both cases it puts women into a corner and forbids them to just be themselves (not that I think that you're thinking like that Jake). There's no reason why women shouldn't have a libido ;) .
And anyway, just looking at your avatar, I have to say that you might not suffer from objectification if you didn't look *so damn fine*! (I wish all men who ever use the argument that a good-looking woman should expect to be treated like a lust object would suffer from this too. It's kind of lost on you since you already know how the animalistic part of your brains works ;) )
Anyway, I've noticed that you directed your last call only to "Nation's women". Does that mean you don't mind if men keep undressing you with their eyes? This married gay man here would like to know *wink* *wink* ;) .
Kissthis
Monday 6th April 2009 | 04:38 PMIt's a two way street boys. Sexism swings both ways. Welcome to the club Jake. It's not that bad. After all, it's always better to be looked over than over-looked. Muuuaaahhhh. :)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 6th April 2009 | 07:22 PM...in response to this comment by The Movie Whore. Dude, I handed in my man card long ago... around the time I started wearing pink shirts to work... or was it when I insisted that people refer to my pink shirts as mauve or salmon...
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 6th April 2009 | 07:30 PM
...in response to this comment
by Tsela.
I'm a feminist at the best of times my friend, I was just shocked, as you say, that women have a libido too... it could possibly be that I'm married to one without one though.
Those comments "she dresses for attention", make me sick. It is not far away from, "she made me want to do that to her by dressing all slutty... she wanted it"... not cool gents, not cool!
To answer your final question, as my gay chiropractor says, you know you're looking fine when the gays start staring... so go ahead gentle men... undress me with your eyes! I wear cotton boxers, so the significant bulging is just fabric bunching up...
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 6th April 2009 | 07:34 PM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
Indeed, welcome to club Jake!
That little grammatical error just made my freaking day!
I love your little saying too, I think I'll use it next time I'm out with the queer crew (bunch of gay mates from school - well, some of them are gay anyway) and trying to sound sophisticated and witty!
Kissthis
Monday 6th April 2009 | 08:02 PMHmmm....not sure what grammatical error you're referring to, but happy to return the favor, as your article and your response to Tsela gave me a chuckle! :-D
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
Libido is a weird thing. People make sweeping generalisations that all men are sex-addicts and all women are holy virgins (or something of that effect ;) ). Well, I know women addicted to porn (some to gay porn, go figure ;) ) and I know men with no libido whatsoever. In the end, we're all individuals. Gender is just a small part of our personality, and no generalisation works that is based on it (just like generalisations based on ethnic background, origin, sexual orientation, beliefs, etc. all end up flawed).
"Those comments "she dresses for attention", make me sick. It is not far away from, "she made me want to do that to her by dressing all slutty... she wanted it"... not cool gents, not cool!"
Hear, hear! When I'm feeling evil, I wish at least one of those chauvinistic pigs would end up raped, just to hear during the trial from the defence that his running around in the park in running shorts and tank top was "begging for it". Of course, far from me to advocate raping chauvinistic pigs, they are usually not that attractive in the first place anyway... ;) No, seriously, rape is wrong, and there's no exception to that rule.
"To answer your final question, as my gay chiropractor says, you know you're looking fine when the gays start staring... so go ahead gentle men... undress me with your eyes! I wear cotton boxers, so the significant bulging is just fabric bunching up..."
That's what they always say, but then they turn around in the shower so you can't see what's happening down there ;) .
PS: And why is it that I've got a picture of Superman in the captcha each time I made a comment to this article? Is there some hidden meaning to that? I don't even find Christopher Reeve that attractive...
Kissthis
Monday 6th April 2009 | 09:33 PM
"In the end, we're all individuals. Gender is just a small part of our personality, and no generalisation works that is based on it (just like generalisations based on ethnic background, origin, sexual orientation, beliefs, etc. all end up flawed)."
Well said Tsela. You are a credit to your gender and your partner is lucky to have you. :)
P.S. I keep getting the Superman captcha too.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 7th April 2009 | 06:31 AM...in response to this comment by Kissthis. You said "welcome to the club Jake", without a comma between club and Jake, it read slightly differently to what was obviously intended... at least in my head... then again, I've always thought that there should be a "Club Jake". ; }
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 7th April 2009 | 06:43 AM
Shall we henceforth refer to gender generalisations as genderalisations?
Most women I've known over the years have a splendid sex drive during the first few months; this is the time where they are more than willing to initiate intimacy; then after only a few months, they expect all sex to be initiated by the man and begin complaining that "the romance is gone". Stupid women!
Actually, I find it funny when women make the statement that "all the romance has gone from the relationship", because it is normally around the same time that they stop putting out... therefore, in most women's (that I know) heads, sex and romance is 100% mutually exclusive, but for men, they are one in the same.
Perhaps I am just lazy.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 7th April 2009 | 06:44 AM
There is no coincidence with the superman captcha.
It is clear that when the universe thinks of me, it invisages superman.
Jake,
Be careful with the genderalisations (like the word!). I know men who don't equate sex and romance (and not all of them are gay!). I'm one of those (I also don't equal love and sex, but that's another discussion). As for those behaviours you mention, I wonder how much is really innate, and how much is learned through exposure to our culture. Do women stop initiating sex because they instinctively don't have the drive anymore, or because society expects that of them and they've internalised that expectation? Do men equal sex with romance because it's instinctive to them, or because society expects that of them and they've internalised that expectation? I personally expect the influence of society to be far more important than most people realise. Which means that education has unfortunately little role, as long as society in general still upholds the prejudice.
"There is no coincidence with the superman captcha.
It is clear that when the universe thinks of me, it invisages superman."
OK, then explain to me why I got Kermit this time ;) .
Kissthis
Tuesday 7th April 2009 | 04:58 PM
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
You know, I thought about putting a coma there, but when I checked it in MSWord it didn't reveal any grammatical errors. I'm thinking a coma there would be optional and the statement could only be read as "Club Jake" if I would have capitalized the "c" in club. But I can see where you're coming from. :)
About this statement, "Most women I've known over the years have a splendid sex drive during the first few months; this is the time where they are more than willing to initiate intimacy; then after only a few months, they expect all sex to be initiated by the man and begin complaining that "the romance is gone". Stupid women!", please refer to this article:
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/womens-sexual-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100186622
In closing, a wise man seeks to understand the object of his affection, while a fool dismisses his lack of understanding as stupidity. :)
Good luck, "Superman". :)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 06:24 AM
...in response to this comment
by Tsela.
Hi Tsela, I think that men equate sex with romance because there it is viewed as a tangible reward for their work. While the word 'selfless' appers in the dictionary, no one on this earth does something for nothing, romance is the same.
It is generally accepted that dating is a prelude to sex, i.e. go on x number of dates, flirt, dance, touch, whatever, then sex. Romance is no different.
I should stipulate that I'm not equating love to sex, love is an emotional attachment to a person (sorry if I sound non-chalante about this topic, but I'm a complex guy), sex can easily be done without any emotion whatsoever.
It is an interesting question you raise though, I would not be surprised that since the societel trend is such that after marriage, women become cold fish, they accept it as the norm. Personally, if I had known that my wife would do this, I would never have gotten married and simply remained in a state of perpetual, committed monogomy... actually, if I had not been so religiously inclined that that stage in my life, I doubt I would have approached marriage anyway, but that is how the cookie crumbles.
Remeber that sexual education is largely still a strongly taboo subject for all children. Kids must learn from other sources, and unfortunately, these sources can often be a misleadingly poor (this may even be deliberate) influence.
Today I got Luke Skywalker... my sabre is still bigger.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 07:11 AM
Yes, I wondered when the 'female perspective' was going to be raised.
In truth, most men don't care what goes on in their significant other's heads.
This is for two important reasons;
1. most women (that I know - I realise I should qualify this statement) will voice every f*cking thing that pops in their head; this includes how they're feeling, interesting (to them, rarely to me) thoughts or tidbits, freaking everything - this is why men develop selective hearing and only ask "what is on your mind", when we suspect we're in trouble. The last thing that I want is to be dumped on. The second last thing that I want is to hear every little freaking facet of your day... there is a reason I don't work with you, it is to maintain some sort of mystery in our lives.
2. Men (or at least I) are absolutely satisfied to have nothing going on in their cranium, or think with intense depth and clarity for suspended amounts of time, all without uttering a word. Judging by the amount of totally mindless crap that comes out of most women's mouths after a few months of dating (once they feel that the previously 'comfortable silence' becomes 'comfotable babble'), our heads would explode if we were subjected to such inane chatter.
I have no need, let alone desire to understand my significant other, simply being with her is enough for me.
Kissthis
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 07:44 AM
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
Jake, you need to have your parents ask for a refund from whatever charm school they sent you to, because you FAIL! :-b
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 08:29 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
Why, because I'm telling the truth as I see it?
Sorry KT, I don't mean to go on the attack, but I've got to say, men and women are different in so many ways. My wife is who she is and I love her for it, but the last thing that I would want, is to think as she does.
Kissthis
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 09:46 AMYour truth paints you as an uncaring, insensitive, self-serving woman hater. Maybe you should re-read what you wrote; 1 & 2 specifically.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 10:53 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
I don't hate women at all. I'm married and have two children who are both girls and love them all. With the exception of my youngest daughter (eldest is my step daughter), I don't want to understand them. Knowing them and being available to them is more important to me.
Here it is, I'll lay it on the table for you; people are individuals, and so many of us are so intent on sharing every little thing that goes on in our lives with other people that we loose sight of what and who we actually are.
If my identity could only be derrived from a few short sentences showing an uncensored look into my interations between myself and women I am around, then that is pretty sad. The truth is that I'm complex, I can't, just like anyone else I've ever met, be summed up with a few generalised words.
I would bet that if you surved 100 men in long term (and monogomous) relationships, and asked them if they wanted to "understand the object of his affection" on a deeper level, at least 80 percent would say no. That said, the stipulation would be that a man would need to be asking the question and the man's partner would need to not be present.
In the same way that what goes on in my head is my business, what goes on in a girl's head is theirs. I don't particularly want to share my thoughts and as such would prefer to have theirs kept in their overhead compartment.
Kissthis
Wednesday 8th April 2009 | 02:49 PMHow do you get to know someone without sharing your thoughts and feelings?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 9th April 2009 | 06:31 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
People tell you what they want you to know; you ask what you want to know.... what more is necessary?
My wife can tell me anything in the world. She can (and will incidentally) tell me every little thing about her day, every vivid detail of her dreams and every single thought that comes into her head or pain or feeling her body inflicts on her. This is totally one sided and she knows that I don't listen. I completely and utterly tune out.
Like most men, I realise that women get some sort of therapeutic benifit from vocalising everything that they come into contact with, also like most men, I will not provide anything more than well timed grunts or nodding gestures reassuring her that it is ok to continue. If she wants a response, she will ask a direct question and I will answer. If she wants advice, I am all to happy to give it. When I pick up the subtle undertones denoting an important anecdote, I will listen, but otherwise, why?
Kissthis
Thursday 9th April 2009 | 07:23 AM
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
Everyone has moments when they tune out a loved one, usually due to some distraction like watching a football game, or some other preoccupation. But the way you express yourself comes across as resentful, cold and emotionally detached.
Also, not all women are as vocal as you portray your wife to be. Being ADHD, I have plenty of thoughts I keep to myself.
You make sweeping generalizations that just aren't true. My ex loved to communicate. Sometimes excessively at inappropriate times, like when I was trying to go to sleep. He would also call me several times a day while I was at work, just to shoot the shit, and I would have to remind him I was on company time. His obsession sucked the life out of me, hence the "ex" reference. But that was extreme. I would never marry someone under those circumstances. The foundation of marriage is built on communication. While I can understand the occasional tuning out, you make it sound as though it's a standard operative in your daily life. That just seems sad to me. :(
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 9th April 2009 | 08:39 AM
...in response to this comment
by Kissthis.
I've always thought myself generally detatched from reality to some degree. I have a rather vivid immagination and often escape internally, mulling through complex equasions and stories. My young daughter is my solid earth.
That is just me. I'm different. It's hardly something to be sad about though, we all make the decissions that lead to our current state of being, we are the masters of our own reality.
Kissthis
Thursday 9th April 2009 | 10:23 AM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Sorry Jake, but I gotta say, that's f*cked up. But hey, whatever floats your boat. :)
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 9th April 2009 | 11:07 AM...in response to this comment by Kissthis. KT, I love you more and more each day!
Kissthis
Thursday 9th April 2009 | 08:37 PM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. You're starting to grow on me too, Jake! ;-)
Henk V
Friday 9th April 2010 | 05:39 PM
wild animal sex? It suits yer jpg...
Omnivore, carnivore or herbivore, what ever gets yer rocks off. At my age I see people trotting around and wonder if this is them being well behaved, I really wouldnt have a "like to list at all".
My lusting after Sarah Palin is because she has a bunch of guns and fishing boats.. good reason.
The Movie Whore
Monday 6th April 2009 | 02:40 PMYou realize sir you just a lot of the rest of us in trouble with this full admission in writing about what really goes on in our brains. Please turn in your man card to your nearest man card collection center.
Seriously, It is all true. Men really are simple creatures. No matter how hard society tries to change us some instincts never die.