Firstly, I am undoubtedly taking this too seriously, but I don't care.

I just read this interesting Telegraph article, and nearly fell off my chair at one point:


PARDON? Haven't women been tuning into the last 3 series of this show then? I for one have watched it from the start.

I don't know whether to be more insulted by the daft sexism of this assumption, or the suggestion that I might find any of this year's motely crew attractive. The bloody cheek.... and if the article's author is female, then she needs a good slap followed by an eye test.

It's insulting that they believe all women are shallow and only pay interest in a programme due to the attractiveness of the male contestants... I watch the Apprentice purely because it's interesting and entertaining.

Besides, if I was watching just for the 'totty', it certainly wouldn't be in the form of Lee and Alex, but rather Raef and Simon.

I thought it was a pretty fair assessment.


















(Joke ladies)

This piece could have more to do with the gender orientation of the writer, projecting his own reactions onto women viewers about whom he evidently knows little and researched less.

Off with yer head!

Just joshing.

Alex isn't the stud he thinks he is, not judging by some of the comments on this forum

That is a very articulate and polite way of saying "he's a clueless moron". Well said and delicately put.

I dunno what so many people see in him... he seems rather bland, with a sly streak that occasionally makes him less boring.

Oh hang on... I forgot, I'm only qualified to comment on his looks, aren't I, being female.

LOL.

He's a fairly good looking chap, but I think anyone not from Ilford,Essex would like to see a little bit more than that.

(I'm allowed to say that as an Ilfordian)

Exactly....I do find tht article mildly insulting.

And Lee and Alex are not attractive in the slightest anyway, Alex in particular....

I really couldn't care less what they look like....:yawn:

Agreed. Precisely my point.

This non-debate reminds me of a poor misguided fool I once knew who, after praising me for learning to play guitar and getting into a band, promptly declared that women only like music because of attractive blokes on the cover of CDs.

He was deadly serious.

No, really.

He couldn't understand why I was still laughing myself hoarse 10 minutes later.

Nor did he understand my declaration that it is futile to attempt to reason with an imbecile.

Hold on a minute. After the first show of this series, this and any other internet board you cared to visit was brimming with comments from female viewers about how good the male totty was this year and now female viewers are supposed to be offended that someone has stated the same blatantly obvious point in a publication.

Personally, I couldn't care less what any of 'em look like.

What I took umbrage to was the suggestion that the inclusion of so-called 'totty' is what has attracted the female viewers, and nothing else, which is what the article suggests. It's nonsense. As is the completely laughable assertion that the Apprentice is more likely to appeal to men than women (first line of article).

As a female who has watched the show from the first series onwards, and as someone who couldn't give a rat's backside about the candidates' appearance, I am irked by the ridiculous assumption that this is what attracts me to the show. Hence I have said as much and will continue to do so.

Thank you and goodnight.

I think that's something of an exaggeration. I think there may well have been one or two threads of that nature, but I don't think you can take that to be representative of the view of the majority of the DS forum members at all. I certainly never posted anything of the sort myself.

Indeed. It doesn't accurately represent the female DS posters on the whole, let alone encompass the majority of female viewers "in their millions".


Nor did I. In case anyone was in doubt!

Was the journalist gay????????

In this series more than in any other, there is more footage on physical male bonding -- on the laundry task there was a group hug-in bigger than on any football pitch. Then there are the looks of Raef, and the alleged mutual admiration between Raef and Michael. The BBC2 guy picked up on this.

No doubt the gay perspective found this exciting, and the journo made the mistake of assuming women were similarly aroused to a frenzy.

Sara goes incandescent when she is not understood in two seconds. I bet she shouts at Indian call centres. As I do.

It's all heat's fault. Before the series even started they were publishing 'we love alex' campaigns all over their pages and their magazine, regardless of his business acumen (or lack thereof). It just gives the impression that the only reason a woman could possible enjoy the show is down to its totty!

I swear to God, that magazine would make the Suffragettes roll in their graves.

Fortunately that seems to have died down a far bit once they realised most people didn't actually like Alex very much...but I agree the damage was probably already done.

Ah yes, Bleat magazine. Ugh. You have an extremely good point there, methinks.


Still, what type of grown adult would actually believe that to be the case?! I could understand it coming from ateenage lad who is impressionable enough and naive enough not to know better, but not from anyone mature.

Nonsense! I've been watching since series 2 and not because of any totty whatsoever. As for that article, well, call me odd but I find Raef far more attractive than any of the blokes mentioned.

Amen.
Or should that be awomen.

I'm sure many women do find some of the male contestants attractive. But then, don't many men find some of the females attractive too? I know I fancied a couple of them!

The point is, most people, male or female, don't really watch for that reason.

Precisely. Nuff said.