Spectator article on author feeling horny after watching a lecture by a female academic at Cambridge University and then hiring a prostitute

I think it was Trump's defence team who recently asked the jury, "I mean, who HASN'T paid for sex, right?"
Maybe he is trying to stay current. The rest of the Tories seem to think sex scandals are part of life...

Don't be silly kit it won't be women it will be people who aren't men! Get back to the kitchen.

According to him "On his critics, he said those “tend to be people who aren’t men and who haven’t actually been in that situation."

He has even defended the article since it has been published and doesn't understand what everyone has a problem with. Of course, it's women who have the problem so they don't really matter anyway, right?

And it's not even well-written; or well-edited. The last line reads "The lunatic I am chained TOO is invisible, thank God."

Awful writing, awful editing, awful article, awful man.

Makes me wonder if there's someone at the Spec who thinks Lloyd has passed his sell-by date.

If I were his editor, the first question I'd have asked him is "mate, do you really want the world to know this about you?"

The worst part of this is the amount of identifying details he gives on the woman he pays for sex. Her appearance, her approximate age, her first name, who she banks with, how many letters her surname has.

She cant be identified by strangers of course but that is probably enough to out her to her friends and local community.

Perhaps it is his way of getting revenge on her because he seems himself as the victim of his "lunatic libido"?

There's a quote from him in the Telegraph where he pathetically plays the victim:

'On his critics, he said those “tend to be people who aren’t men and who haven’t actually been in that situation. I mean literally it’s rather exposing you have to take your clothes off, in a brand new building, and you’re fully naked and I find that quite humiliating and difficult”.
“I’m not pleading for sympathy but it’s not quite as you imagine it is when you read these accounts of what goes on in these places written by feminists who haven’t actually encountered the experience themselves.” '

The fact the piece was published suggests someone thought there was some merit in it. That it would be either informative or entertaining for the reader. Well it was certainly informative, but not in a good way. What were they expecting the reader to take from it?

Grim reading. Another example of a man who can't understand women are more than body parts put on the planet for their pleasure. How on earth was this piece green flagged? A lot of heads should be rolling here, but it's a conservative rag so they probably all agree there's nothing to worry about.

Absolutely they shouldn't.

Being openly judged on looks regardless of anything else is another layer of misogyny for women to wade through in an attempt to get anywhere near equality.

Would they have published a racist story? Or a homophobic one? Why is misogyny never understood in the same way? (Rhetorical question, it's because it only affects women).

It doesn't make it particularly better that on this occasion the man had a favourable opinion of the looks of the woman named in his article. It serves as yet another reminder that we're always on show as public property to be judged and used. The tax we pay for that is mental, time based and monetary.

The Spectator should not have published such a vile piece.

IANAJ but this tosh got through whoever commissioned the article, whoever edited it, whoever agreed it was ok to publish - do they all hate the author, or did they all think it was perfectly reasonable to put out a piece where a man describes buying sex from one woman to stroke his ego because he couldn't have sex with another?

That is the point though, she may be a senior academic but as far as men like him go she only has value in terms of shaggability.
It's how men like him degrade successful women.
She knows her place now.
The Spectator should not have published such a vile piece.

Yes, but more than that he was left feeling "heroic and magnificent"
Maybe the real lunatic he is chained to is his ego not his libido?

@PrawnofthePatriarchy my exH was in the music business and I went on tour frequently. No prostitution anywhere. The band got laid all the time.

He had no power over the academic, and so couldn't make her do what he wanted. He had all the power over the prostitute who had to "be nice" to him.

😂👏

To summarise:

Man sees clever woman in position of respect. Man is sad because clever woman unlikely to sleep with him. (She is likely stuck up). Man goes to prostitute. She is not in a position of respect. She is nice to him and lacks confidence, and makes man feel good about himself.

The end.

No visible distress, maybe.

Eh? Damn all men to ignorance because one middle aged (I assume from his career length) journalist happens to attend a lecture and then write something vile?

Of course the notion of just not having sex at all, paid or desperate fans, whilst they were on tour didn't cross the poor little mens brains...

I've Just read the whole thing and will be filling his ramblings under things that never happened. what a perverted tosser!

My lovely late husband worked in the music industry. He told me some band members hated the idea of exploiting the desperate fans and preferred prostitutes as the deal was more impersonal. He told me that when the tour bus left in the morning heartbroken girls would be weeping as they waved th3m off. The prostitutes would be long gone with no distress. I could understand the band's perspective.

It’s the convenience. Truth is, a lot of men really don’t like women. They want sex, but they can’t be arsed to talk to them. Charlie Sheen said he paid prostitutes not for sex but to leave after sex. Colin Farrell said the same. I can forgive a teenager, but men like Charlie Sheen, who are rich adults, should know better.

Ew. Should we still be letting men into universities? We know they sexually harass and abuse students and colleagues, but if they're starting to perv on lecturers and use them as excuses to exploit impoverished and trafficked women, maybe its time for that door to close. Women couldn't get degrees at Cambridge for centuries, not until 1948, so it's only a re-balancing if men have to sit out higher education for a few hundred years. They clearly aren't managing to police themselves or each other, and they cause a lot of damage, so why are they there?

I will never read a Spectator article again. It's enough that the editor let this be published, naming her, that I no longer trust anything else they allow to be published either.

Even Paul McCartney claimed to have had an orgy with prostitutes when he was in the Beatles.

This is always such a red flag. The most famous men in the world, could shag any number of willing women, chose to use prostituted women. It's so ugly. They actively wanted women who DIDN'T want to sleep with them, instead of all the women who did.