According to a story by Katie Thomas in today's Times, families are more likely to travel with their daughters to sporting events than with their sons. "There are far more people who will travel with 12-year-old girls than even 12-year-old boys," explains Don Schumacher, executive director of the National Association of Sports Commissions, "And vastly more people will travel with 12-year-old girls than 18-year-old boys." This may have to do with families being more protective of girls, or with moms being more likely to attend girls' events.

Whatever the cause, the phenomenon translates into money. Families who travel with their kids stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, and buy things. Mika Ryan, president of a sporting commission in New Jersey, says she considers the often more lucrative nature of girls' sports when booking events. And now that it has built a new softball complex, the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee is enjoying a boost in revenue from girls and their families. At least one naysayer doubts that girl athletes buy more than boys. Bobby Dodd, president of the Amateur Athletic Union, says, "I have three granddaughters. They love to shop. But I can tell you my boys darn near love to shop as much as the girls." Dodd's words notwithstanding, it's clear that girls' sports are getting attention from families and businesses alike.

Though it's a little sad that families feel they have to "protect" their girl athletes more than their boys, it's nice to hear that the days of ignoring girls' sports are over. Not so, however, for women's sports. On NPR, Frank Deford examines the financial difficulties of many women's pro leagues. The Women's United Soccer Association folded in 2003, the WNBA's Houston Comets are the only major sports team so far to go out of business in the recession, and the LPGA recently fired its commissioner amid a loss of sponsorship contracts. According to Deford, women just don't want to pay to watch women's games.

The solution: sex! Reacting to a Wimbledon official's comment that it's often the hottest female players who are chosen to play on show courts, Deford writes,

Everybody was aghast at such overt chauvinism, only the harsh reality is that until women start stepping up and buying tickets for women's games, then - like it or not - sex may simply be good box office.

Ten years later, what do most people remember about the 1999 World Cup - that Brandi Chastain scored the winning goal? No, that Brandi Chastain took her shirt off.

But apparently teams think only the "right" kind of sex sells tickets. According to Mike Wise of the Washington Post, the WNBA's Washington Mystics don't have a kiss-cam at their games because they're worried about displaying lesbian fans kissing. Lindsey Harding, the team's point guard (pictured, right), says, "We wouldn't broadcast on our Jumbotron about abortion issues because of the religious and political conflicts it would cause. It's a similar, sensitive subject. We don't want to put anything out there to turn down certain fans." A lesbian kiss similar to abortion? Apparently, if all you're thinking about is the box office, yes. Wise writes,

This is a seminal, scary time for women's professional sports. Ten years after Brandi Chastain's ab-crunching moment in the women's World Cup ushered in a new era of empowerment, less than half of the LPGA Tour's 29 events have secured sponsorship for next year. Though attendance numbers are up in Washington, the league can barely pull in an average of 8,000 people per game and many of its arenas hold 20,000.

In a time when TV networks stay silent about male athletes' rape allegations, how come women's teams have to curry favor with bigoted fans? Is it really true that women don't want to pay to watch women play? Or are women's professional sports just too new — and as yet too under-marketed — to capture the kind of audience that men's sports have? Just because we live in a culture where women are more often celebrated for their looks than their athletic prowess doesn't mean all women athletes have to take off their shirts. It just means we need to train audiences to follow women's sports with the same rabid passion they've long had for the Dodgers or the Lakers. And given the fact that families seem to turn out in droves to watch their girls compete, that shouldn't be so hard to do.

Girls' Sports Pack Economic Punch [NYT]
Deford: 'That's No Lady, That's An Athlete!' [NPR]
Mystics Give Big Issue The Kiss-Off [Washington Post, via Pandagon]

But alas! The internet was "negative" and "judgmental" about the "mutually beneficial" agreement that nets her about $5,000 a month. She is back today with quotes from her sugar daddy in a misguided effort to set the record straight. The main thing she wants you to know is that she's not a hooker. She and her sugar daddy are just regular boyfriend and girlfriend. Their relationship is wholesome, you see. Her "sugar daddy" plays golf with her actual daddy, who of course doesn't know the financial agreement the SD has with his daughter. And there's more:

Q: So the majority of bloggers felt that our relationship was prostitution, with me as the prostitute and you as the john, mainly because of the financial aspect of our relationship. What would you say to them?
A: Well, I would say that I think of our relationship as pretty much a marriage. Just like a husband provides for his wife, I provide for you. I'm lucky enough to be able to financially give you anything you could want, and if people resent that then that's too bad for them. I think the biggest misconception with some of the readers was that we aren't monogamous. Neither of us have any other kind of relationship, whether emotional or sexual, with anyone else.

Well, Ms. "Beech", no one "resents" the fact that you're financially blessed any more than they resent any other rich person. The upswelling of negativity was because of the heinous, braggy attitude you had about the whole sordid thing. In this piece, you say your lifestyle should be the "envy of any young woman who enjoys life." And in your last screed, you bragged at length and in great detail about your lux life. Remember?

I rent a $1,600 apartment in the city, for which he pays the rent in full. I carry an AmEx Black card in both our names, and use it for things like shopping, spa trips, manicures, and tanning; the bill goes to him. And the company car I drive costs him around $700 a month for the lease and the insurance. I’ve even managed to build up a little nest egg over the past year—at his insistence—putting away around $12,000. All in all, he probably spends in the ballpark of $5,000 a month on my lifestyle…We went to London and Paris last spring, where we saw the sights and shopped at stores like Chanel and Dior. How many other college students are wearing Christian Louboutins to class?

I'm not going to get into the moral dubiousness of your proposition, or how narcissistic it is to assume that everyone wants to emulate your existence. Whether or not you're a prostitute is actually irrelevant when you consider your gross public materialism. (You even mentioned that the "job market was sliding into decline" in your first essay, so obviously, you know we're in a recession.) To boast about the egregious sums of money being spent on your grooming, wardrobe and upkeep is gross to the extreme in this kind of economic climate; I don't care who's paying for it.

The Sugar Daddy Replies [Daily Beast]
My Sugar Daddy [Daily Beast]

Earlier: Sugar Daddies: Easier Than Work-Study For College Students