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

[PlumDog]

See below (it's vile):
https://twitter.com/itaintwhywhywhy/status/1780888612780835302

"Lloyd Evans started writing for the The Spectator in 1998 and later became its poetry editor and theatre critic. In 2005 he co-authored a play, ‘Who’s The Daddy?’ based on sexual shenanigans at the Spectator."

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.” '

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?"

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.

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?

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."

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...

'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.” '

Aka womens opinions dont count because only people who are men count (he couldn't even call his critics women, they had to be not men)

Given his comments about humiliation I would assume that he has some kind of humiliation fetish and has dragged all the readers of his article into it

It doesnt seem to have occured to hom that he can skip the difficult and humiliating experience by just not doing it, unlike the potentially sex trafficked woman who might have had no option to avoid the difficult and humiliating experience for her

Another selfish man, pretending his "humiliation" isn't pure selfishness in disguise. Fabulous, just what the world needs.

I'm not sure it is socialised (entirely). I really think it's down to biology. Men's sex drive needs to be tamed/redirected/distracted somehow. Or they end up as pervs/incels.

It's a bit like Clarkson when he realised that he had got too personal about Megan Markle. Backpedaling.

Evans should have recognised how personal it was. Very stupid. I do think someone in the Spectator wants rid of him, it's too stupid.

He's given so much detail about that woman that anyone in her life could recognise her! I'm desperately hoping that this is all made-up, as part of his own humiliation fetish, as well as part of an attempt to humiliate the academic.

It would explain why he made sure to include a reference to running out of money after that ATM took his card.

you have to take your clothes off, in a brand new building

No Lloyd. You really really don’t have to do anything of the sort. Unless of course you’re a trafficked woman whose life depends on it.

But, if one was to say that out of context it would be tarring all men with the same brush. Not all men. But also (when it suits) you can't expect men not to act like men.

I would take the passive tense out - "Men need to tame/redirect/distract their sex drive somehow". If they can't do that the solution is to manage those men - not give them a woman's body to use and a newspaper column to write about themselves in.

Come on, having a sex drive is one thing. Being this publicly grubby is quite another.

Dirty grim dickwad.

Lloyd Evans has whined that people have labelled him a pervert. The Mail has a story on it and the comments are far from sympathetic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13326719/Lea-Ypi-academic-Spectator-critic-appearance-sex-column.html

I've no doubt he'll be having a lovely time with himself at all the disgust.