The rise of the 'Sugar Daddy'

I was vaguely aware of the notion (and seemingly rising phenomenon) of a sugar daddy. My understanding of a sugar daddy was a wealthy, older man who wanted to provide for a younger woman in return for companionship and possibly in some cases a sexual relationship. The website (that has irritated me this morning) Sugar Daddy describes it in a much more crude and blunt way. They suggest the following

"a sugardaddy is a man who engages in a relationship with a younger woman, where he is seen to be taking on economic benefits in return for the physical benefits a younger woman can provide"

This is such a shallow basis for any relationship and it saddens me to think that there are women out there who feel their only worth is their body or their looks. The website reasons that why would a woman want to work for her life when she can be spoiled by a man. Well there are several reasons why a woman might want to work/be financially independent and not relying on a 'sugar daddy'

• Financial independence is hugely important: it enables a woman to leave a relationship without feeling bound or trapped to the partner
• Financial independence also gives a woman equality within the relationship
• Engaging in a relationship such as this 'sugar daddy'-type relies on your looks being deemed attractive enough, as you age will you be replaced by the next younger model?
• Relying on a sugar daddy means appeasing them in return for money, this does not have to be sexual.

The next charming little section that I would like to consider is the 'How to find a Sugar Daddy' advice section. As you can perhaps expect the advice is often shallow. Although before going into that, there is one little snippet that I would like to focus on first. The last piece of advice relates to setting boundaries. I found this section worrying and questioned the possibility of some women ending up in situations beyond that which they would want. The section advises women that the men may be looking for sex, friendship or something totally different. They reason that there are lots of men looking to spoil beautiful women so you do not need to put up with anything uncomfortable. However, by the time a woman finds herself in an uncomfortable situation (potential here for any context/situation) it could be too late to back out easily.

Most of the advice takes the more obvious form of, if you want a rich man you have to look pretty like a Christmas bauble, there merely for decoration and enjoyment. Apparently to bag a man you need to look the part, this does not mean (they say) being as skinny as Kate Moss but you should spend time on your looks. They suggest a great perfume as men like this sort of thing. (I've always worn perfume because *I* like the smell of it). They argue that your clothing, hair, make-up and nails should be perfect, as you want to stand out *and* allegedly this will boost your confidence. I would reason that rather than boosting your confidence, a focus on having to look a certain way to please a man and working hard to maintain this look, will in fact leave many women self-conscious and unhappy. The brilliant Body Image Project encourages people to submit their stories about body image problems/stresses or upset that they have suffered. This project shows the impact that this notion of having to be perfect can have on self-esteem and body-confidence. I don't think encouraging women to look a certain way to attract a man helps this.

The next area of advice is about keeping this man once he has been attracted to you. Women are told to give him attention, listen to him, give him intellectual conversation, the site does mention some men may want sex, so that he wants to keep you around. There is no mention of any mutual respect for the woman, she seems to be expected to fawn over him, simply because he is wealthy. I appreciate I do seem to have missed one of the key 'selling-points' of the site in not getting this. Finally, the women are advised to spend time with their man on his terms. They suggest that he should be the sole focus for the women when out.

I really dislike these sites and this whole idea of sugar daddies because there is far too much focus on women having to conform to a fixed idea of beauty, total focus on only one partner in the relationship and the advice suggests an unequal relationship by solely focusing on his needs. I am sure people will criticise me and argue that these women are free to choose to be part of this. What I don't like is the fact that as a society we think it is ok, in the 21st century, to promote this type of relationship. The woman is not an equal in this, even if she believes that her beauty/body controls or enthrals the man, at the end of the day he controls the wallet and that gives power.

Sexualised behaviour on TV: Kavos and Magaluf

There have been a number of TV shows recently that have shown some horrific and degrading sexual behaviour, that made me wonder whether I was alone in feeling so shocked and concerned for the welfare of some of the people shown. I'm talking about the 'shock' documentaries about young people (late teens/ early twenties) holidaying in some of the more notable resorts. I'm talking about shows like

• What happens in Kavos on Channel 4
• The Truth about Magaluf: Stacey Dooley investigates on BBC3
And finally,

• Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents also on BBC3

Watching the TV shows, online, the first thing that struck me was the huge quantities of alcohol being consumed. The fact that as one bar worker talking to Dooley states they pour free-hand, meaning people buying drinks mostly likely won't have a clue how much they have really drunk. With the alcohol comes a lack of inhibitions, and so the sex games begin.
This was the part that both shocked and upset me. Watching it I felt that so many of the contestants seemed vulnerable due to the amount of alcohol that was freely available. If we then consider the TV shows individually

Starting with 'The Truth about Magaluf', at about 11 minutes into the documentary Dooley is talking to two bar crawl organisers about the sex-games that she has just witnessed. One act that drew a large crowd in the bar was the 'Erection Challenge', the purpose of this 'game' was for the women to give the men erections within 3 minutes. The host of the game told the women that they could use any means to do this. Dooley was clearly shocked by this, as I was and as I assume most viewers would be, and spoke to the men who had organised the bar crawl and 'activities'. The men reasoned that they would not include someone who was too drunk but they then say that the aim of the bar crawl is to get the participants 'wasted'. Dooley is still visibly shocked by this, and asks if this is a common event. The response she gets simply does not seem to take in the seriousness or degrading nature of the games by simple stating that this is Magaluf and you know the reputation. They follow this up by reasoning that they simply encourage the games. The fact that so much alcohol is involved, with some of the bars being 'free' as you pay 25-30 euros to enter makes these games seem all the more seedy. My fear is that women, and men, are getting themselves drunk and feeling that they need to prove themselves in 'games' like this. I question whether a sober individual would, or would want to, take part in a game that involved them performing a sex act whilst partially dressed in public. The fact that for the crowd and organisers this seemed like a normal event made it all the more worrying.

To move on to the other show on offer from the BBC: Sun, Sex and... again there was one particular section that stood out and offended. It involved a booze cruise, now my understanding of the term booze cruise was people travelling to France or Belgium to bring back cheap alcohol. However, on the holiday shown the term booze cruise refers to people paying to go out on a pleasure boat, drink a lot and then take part or watch sex-games. Again, my objections relate to the degrading nature of the games and the sexualised objectifying environment that they create. The 'host' welcomes the young people onto the boat and asks the assembled people to raise a hand if they are a virgin. My first thought was 'how childish' and then 'what is the point?' in such a question. However, it was the response of the host that annoyed me the most. When a woman raised her hand the host responded by shouting at her that she was a 'lying f*****g b***h', cue laughter from the boat (and the woman involved I think). The next segment shows the hosts telling a group of assembled naked men (I don't know why or how this happened, either) to run around the boat slapping their willies in the face of women. Personally, a stranger running up to slap me in the face with their penis would disgust me and I would term it an assault if this happened. The next 'game' involved women being told to give a 10 second love-bite on the body part chosen by the male partner, this led to one man waving his penis around and then having the love-bite administered to it. These games seem to serve no other purpose than to degrade those involved. In *my opinion*, having watched these 'games', I felt many were designed to degrade women. I question whether the women involved would have taken part in these games had they been sober and not in an environment that is encouraging and egging on this behaviour.

Finally, the Channel 4 show, What happens in...., followed round both workers and holiday-makers. Some of the more disturbing details from the show:

• Workers devised a punishment involving downing a shot of urine, the reason for this punishment? If a worker had slept with another worker 3 times.
• Sex-'games' involving a cucumbers placed between men's legs, with female partners simulating oral sex to eat them.
• Women placing tomatoes between their legs for the men to eat, again simulating oral sex in front of a large audience
• The seemingly obligatory sexual positions games; what I am struggling to understand (ignoring the obvious - why? or why anyone would want to take part) is why the women always seem to have to be topless in the games?
• The group of young men discussing the scoring system they had devised for the holiday, with ugly women being worth more points.

My concerns about these three programmes relate to the sexualised environment they create. I feel there is a sexist edge to the attitude and behaviour shown. The 'erection challenge' for example: if the man doesn't get an erection I wonder what the response to the woman would be? Would she be blamed for not being attractive enough for him? Would she be blamed for not doing it 'right'? This is all of course speculation. I dislike the encouragement for people to take part in these games, particularly when so much alcohol is involved. At what stage do we judge that those taking part have had too much to drink, and are the hosts of these events qualified to judge that? Again, these are merely my opinions having watched the programmes. I found myself shocked by the way people were encouraged to strip off and perform sex acts on strangers in public. Alcohol, being away from home (and presumably away from the potential for people to recognise you) and in the company of people egging you on I worry about the vulnerable individuals taking part. The programmes did not show the aftermath of these sex-acts/'games' on the individuals involved, when they sober up. How will they feel when they sober up and reflect upon what happened the night before? Trying to discourage people from visiting and giving money to these bars and cruises is not going to achieve much, I fear. However, trying to empower young men and women to respect each other might hold a lot more value.

This is where I will end this post, on the notion of respect. Teaching respect must not be confined to schools. It should be present in the media, in our music, our homes, our businesses and our politics. We need to see true equality in order to see proper respect between individuals. With respect there might not be the pressure to engage and conform with these sexualised games.

Infertility, same-sex relationships and children

Anyone who follows me, casually or otherwise, on twitter (@NrthntsFeminist) will possibly have noticed some of my rants about the treatment of infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples. My irritation (I seem to be very irritated this new year!) relates to a couple of key areas, and I am sure that anyone needing NHS/medical support in creating children in a same-sex relationship or struggling with infertility will be able to empathise with some of my feelings of irritation and anger,

• Why not just adopt?
• We should only fund children/people who already exist
• Children are a lifestyle choice/privilege not a right
• It costs too much to fund IVF etc
• Children need two parents/a dad etc etc
• Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment

Perhaps it is fair and ethical to state my position here, I am (and my husband) currently undergoing fertility treatment and so this is a raw and close issue for me. It is also an issue I have battled with in silence for many many months, but I no longer see that I should have to hide my feelings or discontent at the flaws in the system. I would like to systematically take the points I have raised and pick apart the flaws in them.

This post has been brought about following today's BBC The Big Question on BBC1. One topic being debated was the notion of using stem cells to create sperm, this would help infertile heterosexual couples in-light of the shortage of donor sperm as well as allowing same-sex female couples to both be the biological parents of any child born into their relationship. This would bring joy, happiness and new life for those desperate to have their own children. However, many of the commentators seemed disgusted by this notion of 'doing away with fathers'. They seemed to wilfully or stupidly (I will let the reader decide!) ignore the fact that this was talking about supporting and enabling same-sex couples in being able to create children that were biologically linked to both parents. The notion of simply adopting was raised at several points, as if this is an easy option, both emotionally and practically.

Before I begin to pick apart the points that I have identified further up in this post I would urge you to look at the Guardian's datablog about access to IVF, this came about as the result of a number of Freedom of Information requests to PCTs. Although it should be noted that the date of the piece is 2009 it is frightening to think that there are/were PCTs ignoring NICE guidelines with regards to access to healthcare and imposing requirements about the length of relationship or age for example. If we remove the emotion (and often religious arguments about morality of fertility treatment) we should see IVF and fertility treatment as doing just that, treating. IVF etc treats a medical need, infertile couples or some same-sex couples can not have children without assistance, this is a medical need. For example, some PCTs say that the woman in the couple needs to be between 30 and 35 to qualify for IVF, a woman aged 28 who is infertile will still be infertile at 30, forcing her to wait *another* two years will not alleviate her medical problems. Wolverhampton, Worcestershire, Newham, North Yorkshire and York, Oldham and Telford and Wrekin, for example, are all marked as responding to the FOI in 2009 saying no, they do not provide IVF for same-sex couples/individuals. Find out what your PCT offers or does not offer.

So to take the points made earlier: Adoption this is not the easy option that people seem to think. It is often suggested to couples as a way for them to have the family they want. It ignores the drives and desires that this couple or individual may have to have a biological child. In my experience people with biological children haven't liked the question being flipped and applied to them! Adoption is not easy, there are (rightly) numerous checks, panels and references. It is a challenging, rewarding if successful, process and should not be seen as a fall-back. To see it is as such is disrespectful to adoptive children and parents.
I will group a couple of points: 'We should only fund children/people who already exist', 'It costs too much to fund IVF etc' and 'Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment'. Fertility treatment is not something people enter into for the laughs it is to address a *medical* need. In the same way that any other person uses the NHS. To say we should only fund those that exists is in fact directly agreeing with the view that IVF/fertility treatment should be funded, as infertile people do already exist and are asking for help. The arguments that it costs too much and other areas are underfunded is a misnomer, drugs could be made cheaper if we looked at the profits made by large pharmaceutical companies. It is also a weak argument to say x lacks money so y should not happen. We should look at how the system can be balanced so that all needs can be met.
Children need two parents/a dad: this argument ignores the stability that a loving same-sex relationship can provide for a child. The nuclear family is perhaps an outdated model, as society moves forward and develops we should look at how we can support different models of family rather than applying our personal views.
The argument that children are a privilege is an interesting one. To some extent I do understand, children are not a commodity to be upgraded etc. However, I believe that everyone should have the ability to have a family, with medical support if needed. We should not be telling infertile people that their medical treatment constitutes a privilege.

As I mentioned I have come at this from a person point of view, as someone who is facing having to wait several years for the medical treatment I need, for no better reason than that is the arbitrary interpretation of NICE guidelines in the PCT near me. I believe that IVF/fertility treatment for infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples addresses a medical and scientific need, the access to this should be open to all and free from moral judgements.

The Apprentice (and women)

The Apprentice, in particular the UK series, regularly pulls in millions of viewers and is popular prime-time viewing. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the format is simple:

• Between 14 and 16 candidates are normally involved.
• Their bios at the beginning of the series, and included as snippets during the episodes, showcase these individuals as often allegedly the 'best business brains' in Britain
• The candidates are then split into teams for business tasks, for the first few episodes they are normally split along gender lines
• The business tasks are designed to test different aspects of the business world, albeit in a very artificial environment.*
• The team that is deemed to or does lose each week is up for firing.
• Each team has a project manager and the losing manager selects two candidates to go into the boardroom for the potential firing.
• Finally, the winner gets a job or investment from Lord Sugar

Anyway....back to the point in hand. My frustration about the nature of tasks and the arrogance of some of the candidates is a little irrelevant really. My annoyance is the way that the women are often shown, spoken to and described on this show. Broadly I would break my annoyance down into: women who are strong and capable being portrayed as bossy and aggressive, men speaking down to the women, casual sexism and the contrast between the way men and women are described.

There are some notable examples; two famous and notable examples were Ruth Badger and Claire Young. Both women were very successful on the show, they had been successful in business before the show and continue to be successful after the show. However, they were often described as aggressive women during the tasks, when the same or similar behaviour in business was praised as decisive when talking about the men taking part in tasks. Strong women are often given the label of aggressive, and it is difficult one to shake.

Sexist attitudes are not confined to the 'grown-up' version of the apprentice. This year there were some absolute gems from the Young Apprentice, by absolute gems I of course mean bizarre sexist rubbish. The first episode sees the project manager of the boy's team label the fashion task as quite feminine. Now, not being the most fashionable of individuals I am prepared to be corrected, but I thought there were an awful lot of very famous and very talented male fashion designers. This is not even the worst or most annoying bit from the episode, but it shows how ingrained the notion of 'male' and 'female' jobs are. In the cab at the start of the task one of the candidates, David, declares that the men will win because 'they are the better sex'. This is then laughed about by the other male candidates in the cab. I tweeted about this at the time as I found his attitude and arrogance bizarre and dated. It is the fact that this was deemed a sensible thing to say on national TV about your fellow competitors, that you would win based solely upon your gender. Even if it was a joke, and I doubt it as it was preceded by the argument that even though cooking is feminine 'everyone knows men make the best chefs', it isn't funny or needed in the 21st century.It is that this language and belief system has become such a casual part of our society that no-one seems to really react.

What I intend to do, and any help is gratefully appreciated(!), is to properly document all the instances of dated or sexist language in the apprentice. I think that when we change the arena in which women are expected to work then we will start to see better moves towards equality. A Daily Mail article says that research blames women for the pay gap, this is because they allegedly do not ask for pay rises. Whereas other research suggests that women fear being seen as aggressive and pushy if they ask for a rise, a label that will only serve to hold them back in the future. We see women stuck in a vicious cycle, ask for a pay rise and they risk being seen as pushy, don't do it and they risk being seen as too cautious and not driven enough. TV shows like the Apprentice can help the portrayal of women in industry, they can remove the stereotypes and challenge them. However, at the moment I think it is falling short. I'd like to end this post with a link to some of the criticism that star of the show Lord Sugar has received for some of his comments about employing women of child-bearing age.**

*I have often reasoned that the business tasks/environment is very artificial because of the quick timings and lack of acknowledgement for the specific skills that would be needed to be successful in certain tasks. For example in Series 7 episode 2: Mobile Phone Application the candidates were required to design an App and launch it by the next day. An artificial task, that ignores the work required to design (properly), code and test an app for launching.

**These obnoxious comments are ignoring the basic fact that not all women of child-bearing age can have or wish to have children.

Women as portrayed by TV

This is just a briefish post (I promise!) because I want to add a couple of longer posts that focus on specific TV shows in the near future. I find myself watching a lot of random TV shows on DVD and on the iplayer etc (none of them live I might add!). Increasingly I have noticed some frustrating cliches and stereotypes that are not only boring and tired but offensive.

I'd like to start with a show that I had enjoyed as a child: Jonathan Creek. As a child I remember watching it and enjoying the puzzle solving, always a small competition between me and my dad as to who could solve it first (frustratingly for him I normally won!). Re-watching it as an adult I was disappointed to see the often sexist bit-part portrayal of so many of the female characters. Take the first episode for example: The Wrestler's Tomb, not wishing to spoil it for anyone it starts with an artist who has made his living painting nudes. Now there is nothing wrong with painting the female form, however, the comment was made that he was then sleeping with or had slept with a large number of his models. The women are characterised as falling madly for him and being almost in awe. It is assumed that the wife must have killed him out of jealousy, this is focused upon for a considerable part of the episode.

However, this is one episode and is perhaps not the worst of the show. One of the main recurring characters, Adam Klaus, the TV magician. He seems to permanently have scantily-clad women draped over his performances or he is portrayed as lusting after women. The women he lusts after seem to be portrayed as mere objects, in one episode he is pursuing a porn-star and is disappointed when her implant 'bursts', complaining that he has been cheated. Now I know that this is only *fiction*, but it is the fact that the writers felt this was an acceptable way to portray women and that it was necessary for the plot and episode. When actually the show would be fine with simply solving mysteries, murders and the rest. The fact that it seems almost automatic to have the female characters as 'entertainment' or the side-kick is frustrating.

Then there is the sheer number of shows devoted to beauty and conforming to an ideal. One particularly annoying example is 'Snog, Marry, Avoid?' in which women (and occasionally men) are rated by the public based solely upon their looks, they are then given a make-under. There are several flaws with this concept:

• Beauty in a person is something that can be judged, measured and rated
• Beauty is merely your appearance
• To be truly happy you should want to be desired by others, including people who you don't even know
• You should want to be married

Again, perhaps I am missing the point or being too *serious* here, but shows like this annoy me. They annoy me because they ask members of the public to judge someone based simply upon their looks; no consideration of achievements or personality and then they tell the individual that they need to change in order to be liked and desired. That is the first thing that annoys me about shows like this. The second is that there seems to be this goal of marriage presented for these entrants. You, yes you, want to be desired and married to someone who does not know you and is judging you solely on a photo shown by a TV crew with an agenda.
I also think it is dangerous for younger viewers to have this type of imagery and ideal presented as entertainment. An interesting piece by the National Association of Social Workers, based in Washington, looks at the role of body image for adolescent girls; considering the role of culture and media upon their self-image and esteem. So whilst these TV shows might be marketed as light entertainment they should be viewed as part of the cultural landscape that these young people are growing up in and trying to navigate.

I was going to look at The Apprentice and the contrasting way that women and men in business are often seen, described and portrayed. However, that is an entire blog post in itself. So I will finish with one more irritating example of casual sexism in TV fiction: Bad Education: Episode 4 School Trip: the bus driver amongst other misogynist little 'gems' reasons that he will never use sat-nav as he will not be told what to do by a woman. Again, I realise that this is *fiction* but it has been included for an attempt at comedy. It perpetuates the view that women are bossy and always moaning at these put upon men. Somewhere a writer decided that this an amusing little line for another show aimed at young people (BBC), it feeds into the society that sees women as a source of humour rather than part of the humour.

I appreciate that people might find this a little ranty or moany but I can't see a reason why TV can't be well written, respectful and still funny! We don't need to make cheap gags at the expense of a section of society. When adolescents grow up seeing women (in particular) as objects to assess based upon their beauty and as a source of amusement then is it any wonder that we still have street harassment and inequality? When our TV better reflects the world we should live in perhaps this will change.