ARTS

Design by Opinion Cartoonist Madeline Leja

From The Daily: Schlissel is gone, now what?

When the Regents of the University of Michigan decided to terminate former University President Mark Schlissel, they released 118 pages of Schlissel’s communications along with their announcement. These documents, containing emails, text messages and images, while important in the name of transparency, were promptly snapped up by a ravenous student body. One reddit comment remarked that “Never had this many undergraduates been so keen to do primary source research on a Saturday night.” The emails were memefied immediately, with merchandise coming to the market within the week, making fun of our lonely president m. This transparency is refreshing and Schlissel’s indiscretions were serious, but one naturally wonders, especially considering the predictable student reaction, whether this dump of salacious documents is anything other than an attempt to shield the Board of Regents — not necessarily the University as an institution — from blame and embarrassment.

It was no secret that Schlissel was not particularly popular on campus; discussions regarding Schlissel were frequently filled with frustration or disappointment. These grievances have led students to often question his decisions. However, many of the trademark bad decisions made by Schlissel were directed, or at least directly influenced, by the board.

Take the unpopular decision to prematurely bring students back to campus for the fall 2020 semester — prior to the development of COVID19 vaccines. This was not a unilateral decision by Schlissel and his administration but was a subject of major frustration for students who felt they had no voice in this decision. One board member, University Regent Ron Weiser (R), who has a financial stake in offcampus housing, even donated $30 million to the University days before its announcement to reopen. No one can quantify the impact of the regents, especially those with vested interests, on these decisions conclusively, but we must reflect on their influence.

While Schlissel’s actions were both damaging to the University’s reputation and an abuse of the power he held over U-M employees, numerous faculty accused of sexual assault and harassment were allowed a far more graceful exit.

When former American Culture lecturer Bruce Conforth was reported to University officials for attempting to engage in sexual relationships with three students in 2008, he was allowed to retire otherwise unpunished in 2017 — inarguably a much more private departure than that of Schlissel.

Former Music, Theatre & Dance professor David Daniels was fired by the board for allegations of sexual misconduct in March of 2020. Not only did the board not include a similarly large disclosure report, they began the process of formally firing Daniels over a year earlier, in July of 2019, based on allegations made public in August of 2018. Schlissel was reported, investigated and terminated in under two months.

In the well-known case of former Provost Martin Philbert, the board released an 88-page report based on an investigation into his sexual misconduct. However, releasing 118 pages of memeable emails does not have the same effect that releasing a dense WilmerHale report does. Hundreds of jokes were not inspired by this in-depth report, only a fraction of which consists of Philbert’s actual communications. Secondary sources like this report tend to obscure the actual nature of the relevant content, as actual words inherently convey more than descriptions. The Regents’ decision to release a mass of personal messages deviates from its customary form of transparency about its activities, which typically consists of formal reports like the one regarding Philbert.

In their official release, the board said they were releasing Schlissel’s communications “In the interest of full public disclosure.” Was this kind of visibility not necessary in those previous cases? Was the speed with which the board investigated and removed Schlissel not necessary before?

This is not to criticize the Board’s decision to be transparent. If the board is going to adequately combat the ongoing and historic issues of sexual assault and harassment in the University, as they should, a consistent approach is necessary. This is to say that releasing important documents related to similar allegations should be the norm — not exclusive to figures with a negative public image like Schlissel.

But apart from Schlissel’s strained relationship with students and faculty, it is worth noting that he fell out with the Board of Regents in the past year too. In light of the severity with which Schlissel’s case was treated in comparison to other aforementioned cases, it is clear that the board chose to use Schlissel’s actions as a means to (rightfully) remove an adversary of theirs. While these emails were insightful and undeniably humorous, this is a politicization of the process of dealing with sexual misconduct that will serve to taint future investigations with the stench of bias. Only a consistent protocol will ensure that this does not occur.

The board and administration must release a comprehensive plan of action for any future sexual assault or misconduct reports against professors, administration officials or any employed University official. Such a comprehensive plan will ensure that every case is treated seriously and with consistency to ensure that transgressions are treated with the seriousness and transparency they deserve. A system where allegations of misconduct are treated on a case-by-case basis allows for certain individuals, like Conforth, Daniels and Philbert to get away with their behavior for years. Sexual misconduct can occur at any level of the University. Only taking strong, public action against the most recognizable figures fails to address the broader issue.

While firing Schlissel is a step in the right direction, the Board of Regent’s choice of an interim replacement, President Emerita Mary Sue Coleman, is not untainted herself. Coleman was reportedly aware of allegations against Martin Philbert during her tenure as president. Despite the allegations and Coleman’s knowledge, Philbert was allowed to continue serving as Dean of the School of Public Health for the rest of Coleman’s term and nearly six years afterward.

If Coleman’s appointment was meant by the board as a return to normalcy, to the “scandal free” era before Schlissel, it just shows how deeply tolerance of sexual misconduct is ingrained in the University’s administration. The flood of sexual assault and harassment allegations against faculty and administrators during Schlissel’s term was by no means unique. The issues of sexual misconduct within this university have been tied to Mark Schlissel; losing him means losing a figurehead to rally against and replacing him with a less controversial former president who people remember fondly. Once the jokes about these emails die down, we will still be left with an administration that turns a blind eye to sexual misconduct, but this time one that commands less scrutiny from the public. This cannot become the case. We have to remain vigilant about this issue. To avoid further negligence and complaisance, we must hold the board accountable for consistent and fair actions when faced with such situations.

ANDREW GERACE | 2021 COLUMNIST Dear President Schlissel, talk to Jon.

Dear President Schlissel,

If you’re reading this message, walk outside your door and talk to Jonathan Vaughn. In case, President Schlissel, you don’t know who that is, you may want to check out the student, local, statewide and national press coverage that his courageous statement has attracted. He is one of more than 2,000 students and athletes who survived the abuse of Dr. Robert Anderson, and he would like to talk to you. Now that you must know who Jonathan Vaughn is, walk outside your door and speak to him.

If you’re still reading at this point, President Schlissel, and not outside talking to Jonathan Vaughn, then I have to imagine there must be some problem preventing you from talking to him. Let’s brainstorm some solutions.

Maybe you’ve been looking for Jon all over campus but can’t find him to speak with him! Finding your way around campus, especially with changing bus routes, can always be tricky. Thankfully, he’s right outside your house! If you’re still having trouble finding him, send me an email about directions, and I’d be happy to walk you the 10 steps out your door to the sidewalk.

If you’re still reading, President Schlissel, then it must not be a problem of directions. Maybe you’re staying inside because you’re worried about catching COVID-19? A reasonable fear, given that we are living in an ongoing pandemic. If you are staying inside because you’re concerned about catching COVID-19, don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical that you aren’t giving faculty the same opportunity? You provided a ringing endorsement of “Work Connections” in the face of faculty members telling you the current process is a failed system. While I can’t cure hypocrisy, I can say that it does breed discontent. Studies have shown outdoor, masked and vaccinated meetings have incredibly low chances of COVID-19 transmission. Put on a mask, walk outside your door and talk to Jon.

If you’ve gotten this far, President Schlissel, then it must not be directions or a COVID19 worry that’s stopping you. Perhaps you’ve lost your voice and are worried Jon won’t be able to hear you if you go outside to speak with him. I know my voice would undoubtedly be hoarse if I spent even half the time making empty promises of accountability and transparency as you do. To your credit, it is astounding you found the words to keep your job scandal, after scandal, after scandal, after scandal, after scandal; we’ve all been waiting for years for the other shoe to drop. If your voice is sore from all of the platitudes, as someone who works with singers as part of my degree in the School of Music, Theatre & Dance, I suggest warm water with honey and lemon, a humidifier for your bedroom and vocal rest. Drink some tea, walk outside your door and talk to Jon.

If you’ve made it here, President Schlissel, then it must not be directions, COVID-19 or a sore voice that’s preventing you from doing, quite literally, the bare minimum for these survivors. Perhaps your schedule is too busy; maybe you’ve penciled in too much time to think about how you’re going to spend your early removal package! If that’s how much a failed presidency costs, I can’t even imagine how much we’ll have to spend on a successful one. But look, I get it, especially at this point in the year, things just pile up. I’d suggest budgeting time a little differently; why don’t you take some of the time you spend ignoring the Faculty Senate and use it to talk to Jon? Make some free time, walk outside your door and speak to Jon.

If you’ve read this far, President Schlissel, I can’t say it is looking good for you. I would like to think I’m an intelligent guy, but truthfully, I’m running out of solutions for you. Suppose it’s not about directions, COVID19, losing your voice or a packed schedule. In that case, the only remaining problem I can think of is that you’re a selfish, cowardly embarrassment to the University of Michigan. We’re supposed to be the “Leaders and Best” around here, remember? If you can’t muster up the courage to go outside your house and talk to someone who is far braver than you, then you don’t deserve to be the head of this University. Being the “Leaders and Best” is not a passive description of who we are, but a higher calling we are charged to pursue in all we do; if we don’t have that in the highest office, what are we as an institution? If you can’t do this one small act that would make a large impact in the lives of these survivors, and survivors of other scandals under your tenure, then I suggest you close this article, gather your personal belongings and resign immediately instead of in June 2023 as planned. Make sure you sneak out the backdoor so you don’t risk bumping into a real “Leader and Best.”

If you feel, President Schlissel, that none of these possible problems address your neglect of Jonathan Vaughn, feel free to reach out. I’m sure we can think of something.

Andrew Gerace can be reached at agerace@umich.edu.

ARTS over the ARTS over the YEARS YEARS

Bis etum il ius eliquam usaerum eium velicti comnit dunt, tota que consequo is essunture dolor molesti beriore, il ea ne plab ipsae excero te volorep tation re videndunt omnihil ipienda veliqui nobites APRIL 5: Lil Nas X’s remix of “Old Town Road” featuring country star Billy Ray Cyrus is released. The song’s popularity was born largely from a viral explosion on social media sites such as TikTok. et laboriame lantiossunt hil ius arumqui dentibus, qui aliat pa qui simolessit, nes escilit harum que volorit eicia con plis everum fugitatur si quiae esto blaturem labo. Itatas mos venis arumnihilla ntentotatem aut etum hil il mod quam es est as endaesc DECEMBER 16: The film adaptation of the Broadway Musical, “Cats” starring James Corden, Dame Judi Dench and Ian McKellen releases to shocked audiences worldwide. ipiendis escium lation cupta doluptam ab FEBRUARY 9: “Parasite” makes Oscar history as the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture. Directed by Korean filmmaker, Bong

Joon Ho, the film centers themes of class conflict and colonialism.

MARCH 19: Shortly after the first coronavirus lockdown and mounting police brutality in response to Black Lives Matter protests, Gal Gadot and many other celebrities sing John Lennon’s “Imagine” on social media. AUGUST 21: The University of Michigan Museum of Art unveils an exhibit titled “Oh, honey…” Curated by graduate student, Sean Kramer, the exhibit critically analyzes the museum’s art collection through a queer lens.

NOVEMBER 12: Taylor Swift releases, Red (Taylor’s Version), a re-recorded version of her fourth studio album, red. Taylor’s 10-minute unabridged version of “All Too Well” holds the Guinness world record for longest song to reach number 1 on the Billboard Top 100. JANUARY 15: The Regents’ release of thenUniversity President Mark Schlissel’s private emails prompts a renaissance of “Schlissel memes” on social media. Popular meme accounts such as @umichaffirmations quickly capitalize on the opportunity to gain tens of thousands of likes.

MARCH 27: After Chris Rock makes a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith’s Alopecia disease at the 94th Academy Awards, Will Smith walks on stage and slaps the comedian.

Rina Sawayama, ‘Minari’ and cultural ‘others’

NORA LEWIS 2021 Daily Arts Writer

When we think of what defines good art, nationality and language are generally not the first factors that come to mind. Yet, in reality, the celebration of the arts is often heavily influenced by outdated ideas dictating what stories are deserving of recognition.

The British-Japanese pop singer Rina Sawayama stands as one of the clearest examples of this phenomenon. When BRITs and the Mercury prize were released back in July, the 30-year-old musician’s critically–acclaimed album, SAWAYAMA, was noticeably missing from the lineup. Sawayama sat down with Vice following the news, describing her exclusion from nominations, and even the possibility to enter for consideration, as “othering.” Despite having lived in London for 25 years, Sawayama was not considered “British enough” according to stringent award guidelines, ones that she labeled as “border control.”

Sawayama was born in Niigata, Japan, where she lived for five years before moving with her family to London. She currently holds an indefinite-leave-to-remain visa, which grants Sawayama stay in the U.K. for an indefinite period of time and allows her to study and seek employment. Most of Sawayama’s family still lives in Japan, one of the few countries that prohibits dual-citizenship. She explains that “getting rid of my Japanese passport genuinely feels like I’m severing ties with them.” The situation shines light on a flawed definition of Britishness and the persistent view that non-European voices are unwelcome in British culture.

But it’s not just a British issue; the Grammys are notorious for excluding Latin and other foreign language albums from their Album of the Year nominations. An album in a language other than English has never won Album of the Year, and for 2021 alone, nations. “Minari,” which features both Korean and English dialogue, as well as Korean and Korean-American talents, apparently didn’t make the ize American as only English-speaking.” So often in American pop culture immigrant stories, especially those of people of color, are labeled as outsid-

This photo is from the official album cover of “Sawayama,” owned by Dirty Hit.

there are only two nominations for Latin artists outside of the Latin categories. It’s yet another explicit example of the music industry’s tendency to pigeonhole foreign talents.

The recently released film “Minari” (2020), which follows the story of a Korean-American family living in rural Arkansas, faces a similar barrier. Although “Minari” was directed by American filmmaker Lee Isaac Chung and produced by American companies A24 and Plan B, the film was categorized as a foreign language film in the Golden Globes by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. The HFPA guidelines stipulate that a film’s dialogue must be at least 50% English to be considered for Best Picture nomicut.

This exclusion comes on the tails of two similar cases at last year’s Golden Globes. The Oscar-winning film “Parasite” (2019), which was entirely in Korean, and “The Farewell” (2019), a film with both English and Chinese dialogue, were also ineligible for Best Picture nominations despite receiving overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics. Lulu Wang, director of “The Farewell,” tweeted in response to this year’s Golden Globe nominations, “I have not seen a more American film than #Minari this year. It’s a story about an immigrant family, IN America, pursuing the American dream. We really need to change these antiquated rules that characterer experiences despite their central importance to the American identity. So, is the only requirement for artistic recognition to speak English?

As evident from past Best Picture nominations at the Globes, it’s not that simple. The 2009 film “Inglourious Basterds,” which prominently features dialogue in German, French and Italian, was nominated in the Best Drama category despite large portions of its story transpiring in a language other than English. Many of its stars, including Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent and Diane Kruger, are not American, calling into question why “Inglourious Basterds” and “Minari” have faced such different treatment despite their many commonalities.

The problem that remains is that works in the Foreign Language category do not receive nearly as much attention as those in the Best Drama or Musical/Comedy categories. The Golden Globes in particular nominate Best Actors and Actresses exclusively from these two groups, nominations which are not afforded to actors in foreign language films. They’re treated as an afterthought — never truly equivalent to their “domestic” counterparts. It’s disheartening, to say the least.

The experiences of Sawayama and “Minari” point to an overarching issue with xenophobic microaggressions in Western pop culture. When the recognition of art is overshadowed by arbitrary percentages and passport statuses, it is abundantly clear that English-speaking cultures are still unwilling to view foreign works as equal. These works are often placed inside the box of their “foreignness” and treated as some kind of novelty, a completely separate entity from mainstream American or British art.

Even when music or films are popular among mainstream audiences, accolades like the Mercury prize and Golden Globes continue to either subjugate this art or bar it from consideration altogether. An unwillingness to change award qualifications displays an unwillingness to acknowledge that “British” or “American” identities today are not what they were in the past.

Beneath this whole mess, what is perhaps most ironic is that both SAWAYAMA and “Minari” explore the trials of finding acceptance in Western culture and learning what it means to belong under the so-called Western identity. The continued exclusion of cultural “others” from prestigious award show recognition further solidifies how artistic inclusion still has an incredibly far way to come.

Pixar moms: A deconstruction of MILF culture

EMMY SNYDER AND MADELEINE VIRGINIA GANNON Daily Arts Writers

Stacey’s Mom has got it goin’ on — or at least, the animated moms of Pixar do. Since the 1995 premiere of “Toy Story,” the world’s first animated film made using computer technology, Pixar has become a household name. The studio is best known for its animated children’s films, from “Finding Nemo” to their most recent release, “Luca.” The name Pixar has long been synonymous with childhood — and now?

Pixar’s “The Incredibles”: Children recall the slapstick humor of Mr. Incredible; parents fondly note the hidden, wry comedy that made the film a multi-generational hit. For others, it’s the firm, round backside of Mrs. Incredible’s peachy-keen cheeks; the tight elastic of a super-suit that clings like saran-wrap around her wide, womanly hips; the perkiness of a bum, the audacity of an ass, the perfection of a pear figure — aged by 40 years like a bottle of something fine. That’s right, Mrs. Incredible is a MILF. Sorry, not sorry.

Shocking, I know. Some readers may even be turning away in thinly veiled disgust. How dare we sour the sanctity of a Pixar film with softcore erotica written in fervent devotion to Mrs. Incredible’s poppin’ figure? We dare in the spirit of journalistic integrity, a devotion to seeking the truth. Because we aren’t the first to call Mrs. Incredible a MILF — that dubious glory belongs to the Internet and the horny little shits who live there.

The MILFs: Who, What, Where

But first, what exactly is a MILF? As Urban Dictionary describes it, a MILF is a “Mom I’d Like to Fuck, or Mature I’d Like to Fuck.” MILFs usually apply to “hot moms,” but the term is liberally applied to any woman above the age of thirty. The MILF obsession is no niche Internet kink found in the recesses of Reddit but an evergrowing phenomenon found across adult films, platforms like Instagram and even dating apps. According to a 2016 survey by the adult website GameLink.com, “interest in MILF porn has risen 83%” between 2012 and 2016. This trend has continued to grow in prevalence since.

Many consider the 1999 cult classic film “American Pie” to have launched the modern MILF obsession. The raunchy comedy follows a group of teenage boys competing to lose their virginity by their high school prom. In the film, actress Jennifer Coolidge (“White Lotus”) has sex with her son’s friend — the true MILF fantasy. However, it is important to offer credit where credit is due to 1967 classic “The Graduate,” where actor Dustin Hoffman (“Rain Man”) is seduced by a beautiful, neglected housewife: Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft, “The Miracle Worker”). In 2003, Fountains of Wayne released their iconic hit “Stacy’s Mom,” a serenade to Stacy’s (supposedly) hot mom. As adult film star Tanya Tate remarked in a 2014 interview with Thrillist, “there are plenty of guys out there who really had crushes on their Mom’s friends (as teenagers).”

In fact, the target age group for MILF content on adult websites is between the ages of 18 and 25; this age range lands neatly between the naivety of adolescence and the “wisdom” of adulthood. It also correlates with the widely accepted peak period of horniness.

The classic MILF lover is a not-yet man who washes his sheets every three months (optimistically), shotguns Natty Lights and advertises “MILFs only, seriously” on his dating profile. He believes women his age are “crazy,” “clingy” and far too sexually inexperienced to possibly please him. He longs for an older woman who promises a brief, scalding affair of “no crap,” who will usher him into manhood through the power of her perky, never sagging tripleDs and lust for a barely-pubescent, skinny, frat pledge’s medium-firm abs. It is this dazzling specimen of raw masculinity that drives the MILF-ication of Pixar moms.

The Evolution of the Pixar MILF and Evolving Beauty Standards

Pixar MILFs walk a fine line between the celebration of motherhood and pandering to societal beauty trends. On one hand, moms can be and are hot. Our critique of MILF culture is in no way a rejection of hot moms. Moms deserve to embrace their femininity and womanhood, to embrace themselves, to be a woman as well as a mom. On the other hand, in consideration of evolving beauty trends over the last twenty years, there is an undeniable parallel between the developing animation of Pixar moms to emphasize curves and contemporary beauty standards.

While the definition of the ideal body changes, women will always be subject to damaging and often unachievable beauty standards regardless of the form they take. The idea of the “perfect” ass, or, if you’ll allow me, “booty standards” has varied wildly, reaching all ends of the spectrum in the last three decades. Pixar, of course, animates the women who appear in its films to comply with such booty standards, sculpting and reinforcing the image to which real women and girls compare themselves.

In the ’90s, as Bustle puts it, “the ideal (…) butt was super tiny and kind of flat.” The original Toy Story hit theaters in 1995 and, accordingly, Andy’s mom, the only human woman who appears in the film, has an unremarkable, flat behind (and zero impact whatsoever on the plot or any character development). Andy’s mom is also known as Ms. Davis (little-known fact, courtesy of Pixar Wiki) and is a secondary or even tertiary character, background to Andy, who is background to the real stars of the film: the toys, who compete for Andy’s affection.

As the flat ass went out of style and the Kardashian-style (read: humongous, typically cellulite-free and expensive) booty began to take its place in pop culture, Pixar’s animation choices reflected the change onscreen. In 2004, Pixar unveiled the Incredibles and thus the MILF of all MILFs (and, with her, the dump truck ass of all animated dump truck asses): Mrs. Incredible, AKA Elastigirl. The matriarch of the Incredible family is the most iconic superhero mom of all time (and unquestionably hot). In the first movie of the franchise, she’s got a more than ample size booty and a stick-thin waist, giving her curves so dramatic that she’d fall over if she were real.

Jump to 2014, when “Big Hero 6” blessed us with sexy-ass MILF Aunt Cass who is also, to put it mildly, well-endowed in the behind area. Then, in 2017, “Coco,” a musical tale of a boy with a dream to realize his stardom and the history of his family, hit the big screen. The boy, Miguel, finds himself in the land of the dead and among many of his ancestors, including Mama Imelda, his great-great-grandmother. Despite Imelda being not technically human but an adorned skeleton (thus lacking any flesh or muscle), the animators make use of her bones to give a suggestion of her figure. They suggest, of course, an enormous ass. Imelda wears a royal purple dress that flows out at her hips and behind, suggesting the big booty underneath that once was.

Mama Imelda’s imagined backside was nothing in comparison to that of Mrs. Incredible in the second installment of the Incredibles franchise. In “Incredibles 2,” released in 2018, Mrs. Incredible’s ass reached new heights, or, more accurately, new voluptuous extremes. As we’ve stumbled through the 2010s into the 2020s, the size of the ideal booty has grown dramatically alongside our enormous existential anxiety. Thus, Mrs. Incredible’s perfectly smooth and gigantic ass (which was already highlighted by her new suit) needed to be bigger, too.

Fan Art of Pixar MILFS and nonMILFS

When Pixar does fail to animate a woman character in compliance with exaggerated beauty standards, “fans” take matters into their own hands and hypersexualize the characters themselves. The result? Fan art. In this case, crude illustrations and photoshopped images of MILFs and non-MILF characters alike. If she’s not a MILF, she becomes one. If she is, the features that make her so become even more exaggerated. A quick Google search for images of Ratatouille’s Colette yields a drawn resemblance of the character, but with a dramatically contoured face, pouty lips and a big, bulging, smooth ass.

The aunt from “Big Hero Six” is another serious offender: Aunt Cass is regularly photoshopped in illustrations to have Hooters-level pornographic cleavage. Her polite, crew-cut neckline swapped for a scoop-neck design barely able to contain her overflowing breasts. The image practically drips with the drool of horny men who salivate every time a woman bends over.

It is in the hyper-sexualization of Pixar moms in fan art that MILF culture truly becomes apparent. Where Pixar may be guilty of pandering to popular beauty standards — elevating moms who are often absent from and even rejected by fashion and beauty trends to a level of femininity offered only to the young (and perky) — fan art reveals the sheer infatuation fans have with fucking moms.

Although these female characters have enough ass for everyone, the actual number of Pixar mom characters is limited. This only communicates that more important than the personhood of a mom is her body, because her primary value will always be as a sexual object; her primary purpose to, as an asshole once yelled at me at a reproductive rights protest from his truck as he drove by, “go make a baby.” Women get to be either caring mothers or bad bitches; then they’re forced into two-dimensionality. These characters exist to serve men — be it by birthing them and caring for them directly, or by offering themselves as sexual objects. In this light, Pixar’s work doesn’t empower moms but rather harms women and girls because it doesn’t glorify moms as they truly are. Instead, it suggests that they can only achieve glory or even be worth anything if they embody these impossible standards.

Why MILFs?

This discussion leaves us with one final question: Why MILFs? There are several arguments to consider. The Oedipus complex suggests that children form an unconscious sexual desire for parents of the opposite sex and a sense of competition with the parent of the same sex. In this sense, young men begin to idolize older women as sexual partners due to lingering envy and desire for their own mothers. In other words, “mommy issues.”

Absent mothers can push men to seek maternal-sexual affection to replace or make up for that neglect; overbearing or extremely affectionate mothers can prompt men to project their relationships with their mothers onto other women in their life. For some men, it’s a question of helplessness. Unable to cook, clean, dress or navigate the wild, these young pups find themselves defenseless and unwilling to adapt to the newfound independence of adulthood. Traditional gender roles emphasize women as caregivers — perhaps MILFs developed through a fetishization of the traditional housewife role as women become increasingly independent.

Perhaps the most common drive, however, is the perception of older women as sexually experienced, mature and taboo. In this relationship, the young man offers nothing but their hot-stud body. The MILF would cater to their pleasure while simultaneously acting as a caregiver: maternal and comforting for the sexually inexperienced. MILF culture is obsessed with what women can offer to men. There is no sense of a woman’s sexual pleasure — if she does benefit, it is through the ability to “catch” a young man. Notice how the condemnation of “cougar” and the fetishization of “MILF” are simultaneously incongruent, yet strikingly similar.

Even in the supposed renaissance of the older woman, mothers are still constrained to the desire of men, eternal caregivers. When’s the last time a man between 18–25 years of age found the clit? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

As perhaps the MILF-man (a “mommy boy”) would put it best: “Mommy? Sorry. Mommy? Sorry. Mommy?” — Mommy, not sorry.