By K. A. Laity
Sometimes it's all I can do not to turn into Little Bunny Foo Foo and hop through this world bopping people on the head. No, not about the mosque—though that issue has exposed the ignorance of people too stupid to live (one would think) and the machinations of the corporations who manipulate their easily frenzied minds—no, this time I'm going to stick with sex.
A simple issue, eh?
Alert and sexy author Saranna DeWylde pointed me to a little news story on a Australian psychologist Holly Hill's book, Sugarbabe. The subtitle, The Controversial, Real Story of a Woman in Search of a Sugardaddy, just makes you want to sigh with discouragement. This "naughty feminist" tells the folks at Lemondrop that 'Couples who want to stay together should try out "negotiated infidelity," with a "sugarbabe" who acts as what we can best describe as a surrogate wife meets Hooters waitress. And who, by the way, is paid for ministering to your man.' Hill writes about her own time as a "sugarbabe" so she knows whereof she speaks.
Well, sort of.
According to Girl.com.au's coverage of the book,
Holly Hill (pseudonym) gave up her job at the behest of her wealthy boyfriend - and then found herself dumped and penniless. After spending six weeks in bed pining for her lost love, she was encouraged by a friend to be 'open-minded' about her career choices - and ended up placing an online ad for a sugar daddy. She received an almost overwhelming response from all sorts of men, but most of them were married men whose wives had lost interest in sex.
The "friend" who advised Hill to follow this path was clearly not a sassy gay friend. How to unpack the wrong? A ten-year-old feminist could sort this out (get me a ten-year-old feminist, STAT!). A woman who had a good job, gives it up at the tyrannical demand of her wealthy boyfriend, who then surprises her by dumping and abandoning her once she's completely dependent upon him. Who didn't see that coming up Fifth Avenue? Do people not read Gawker?
Hill extrapolates from this population of men—married men who respond to an online ad for a woman looking for a sugar daddy—to draw several conclusions about marriage. Surely if she is actually a psychologist behind that pseudonym, Hill ought to recognize the concept of a "flawed sample" here. But no—she seems to make sweeping generalisations (CYA note: I haven't read her book, I'm looking at interviews and clips from the book) about relationships and marriage.
Her conclusion seems to be: women don't like sex, so it's all their fault, so buy a hooker, sorry, "sugarbabe" who is an exclusive prostitute after all.
I know the traditionally sexist Australian culture may have some influence on her conclusions—as does her fantastically flawed data sample—but why are we back to this myth that women don't like sex? Because if there's something wrong in a relationship, women have been socialized (and marketed) into thinking it's their fault. We all know that relationships between two people are affected by both those people; it's not a huge leap of logic to suggest that married men looking at personal ads to find a "sugarbabe" might not be all that interested in finding out why their wives might have lost interest in having sex with him.
I'm sure we can hunt up a ten-year-old feminist and a sassy gay friend to explain this to Hill.