This chart infuriates me so badly because at no point does it poise motherhood as a criteria in any category to start with. If she's older than you, still hot, and she ain't got no kids, she's a cougar, not a milf. Get your ♥♥♥♥ straight ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Now, personally, I find the concept of age difference in milfhood interesting. Some would argue that simply being a mother and also being someone whom "i" (the one making judgement) would like to ♥♥♥♥ is enough, which in this case would allow me to categorize several women younger than I am as milfs. I personally find this interpretation a bit flawed, and prefer defining it from A: Is the person a mother? B: Is the person sexually attractive to me? and C: Is the person old enough to conceivably be my own mother? All criteria needs to be met for true milfhood. This puts an age difference of ~16 years as your rough minimum to truly fit the definition.

Now, this is by no means a mainline philosophical stance to bring up, but frankly, now that I am pushing 30 and half the attractive women around me are already mothers, I find it pretty nonsensical to apply the term milf to all of them simply because they are both mothers and attractive. You need that certain... 'Friend's mom when you were at highschool age' vibe to add to it. If we go with the broad definition, she's just another woman in her thirties, which is entirely alright and attractive in its very own right!


>MILF and by extension DILF COULD be defined by the platonic ideal of a mother or father, but I think that is a non-objective understanding of parenthood. From here on out, I'll refer to MILF and DILFs as "Parents or Legal Guardian I'd Like to ♥♥♥♥" or "PoLGILF" in order to be more inclusive. A parent is a very concrete definable term: does that person care for a kid, whether they gave birth, adopted, whatever. (Additionally, the child can be of any age, but of course must be born, otherwise you just have a pregnancy fetish and are not yet interested in a PoLGILF.) Therefore, I don't agree that the age difference is required for someone to fit the position of a PoLGILF. If you are the parent or legal guardian of a child, and you are hot, you are a PoLGILF. Removing the age difference requirement of the definition of PoLGILF has the added benefit of clarifying siblinghood. That is, if you are interested in someone cares for a sibling that is 16 years younger than them, they are NOT a PoLGILF. Unless they have been given charge of their younger sibling, naturally. So now, we need to identify the age difference question, if they are older than you and do not have a kid, you correctly identify that that person is a cougar. Where I think you are mistaken is suggesting that a cougar MUST not have a child. I would argue that cougarhood is exclusively a question of age difference, interestingly this age difference is related to whether or not that person could be your parent, ~16 years difference. But the cougar can be applied regardless of whether or not that person is a parent or legal guardian themselves. Not all PoLGILFs are Cougars, and not all cougars are PoLGILFs. But there is without a doubt an overlap so that when we discuss PoLGILFs we generally think of someone older than ourselves.


>>I wish to extend my apologies for not clarifying the extend of the cougar-milf (or as you more inclusively and frankly, better, put it, PoLGILF) overlap - the two do indeed often both apply. In this case, I suggest going with which attribute of the two categories you find to be the primary attractor in this case (assuming gynophilic* observer for simplicity) - Is it the motherly warmth and comfort of a middle-aged woman, or is it the barely-contained raw sexuality of a divorcée finally letting loose to have some fun after years with an impotent banker?

In essence, I feel like our apparent disagreement lies in my failure to properly define my terms - Parenthood does not need to be biological, but functional, for one to qualify as a PoLGILF.

I still personally maintain that the subject needs to be roughly a decade and a half my senior to qualify. People who I may, as a teen, have seen as PoLGILFs are now simply people of my own age. The line is ever-changing on a personal level, as they sometimes are in the subjective sciences.

*Later edit: Replaced 'male heterosexual' with 'gynophilic' in recognition of a wider spectrum of people, all of whom the posted example may apply


>>>I appreciate your candor, and welcome your response. You put forth a very interesting point, which is that, given both possible definitions PoLGILF and Cougar we encounter the question: What matters to the observer? And this I concede is a poignant question. After all, these definitions are not of any use for the observed individual (the PoLGILF in question) but instead used exclusively by the observer! To the PoLGILF, whether or not they are a PoLGILF is irrelevant, but for the Person who would like to ♥♥♥♥ the parent or legal guardian (PWWLFPLG) the major interest may be exclusively that the PoLGILF is a parent or legal guardian. If I believe someone to be a PoLGILF, then isn't that enough for me in my own use to define them as a PoLGILF? To this, I disagree. Even though the observer may only focus on the potential for that person to be a PoLGILF, without knowing that person is a parent or legal guardian, they run the risk of being factually incorrect about that person. If we only focus on the PWWLFPLG's desires, we ignore the objective reality as it is experienced by other observers (who may or may not want to ♥♥♥♥ the PoLGILF in question). Instead we must maintain in objective definitions, as we do everyday in life, in order to best describe the world as most accurately as possible. A person can be thicc, a woman, a mother, a legal guardian, and many many more descriptions but just because the PWWLFPLG WANTS that person to be a PoLGILF, does not make them a PoLGILF!