There are plenty of those to be found if you’re looking. This looks like an in-the-moment response. Adding something to the discussion would have made a more interesting comment.

And although I think he’s joking, I also think that he’s not totally wrong. Whether due to society, the “classical” role of women or female needs, I’m fairly convinced that often women are prepared to do quite a lot to have or stay in a relationship…even, believe it or not, “pay” with sex. I’m not saying that this also means they are in a happy relationship.
As for enjoying or liking sex..I think we can agree that we do like it, but many of us with different expectations or under different circumstances than men.

Hmm, can’t reply to your other reply for some reason but yes, having now more than skim-read (that’ll teach me) I can see he does go on a bit.

I’d picked up his use of the word ‘relationship’ but seeing him go on to ‘boyfriend’ and ‘commitment’ I can see your point exactly.

Be interested to hear how the whole article goes.

With you on throwaway comments and context – I have to be so careful at work my writing style has meant some people assuming I’m a generation older!

Yeah, I had a grandad who’d say stupid things like this. (“What do you want to educate those girls for?”)

Did he mean it? Maybe he was being ironic, or funny, or maybe he would have responded to criticism after a while, but regardless, the other grandfather was still our favourite.

Er… sure. Because women have always been allowed sexual independence with no fuss or opposition from men. “We want somewhere we can find a stranger to hook up with for the night?” There’d have been fucking riots.

Hmmmm. Coming back the next day after doing a bit of brow furrow!

The more I re-read Fry’s quotes the more I think he was probably chortling with Attitude over tea, made some silly we’re-so-rad asides, and that was that. Magazines like to quote the most polemical bits of any discussion. And the way it’s quoted, what he says is faintly ludicrous, and does sound like someone who’s grown used to pontificating sweepingly with a humourous intent as his shtick. Lazy humour, but now that I’ve reflected a bit, we shouldn’t boil him in the cauldron of our mighty rage unless he is on BBC news blanket-stating this stuff to News At Ten. I think we have better things to focus on, in fact.

I might try and see if Attitude is on sale anywhere near me and see if I can read the piece itself – I think Alasdair has a point, and not having the source also really bothers me.

I’m just thinking what would happen if the BR team were interviewed one day and one of us made a ribald joke that looked terrible in print, with the wrong framing. We’d be so screwed.

On the other hand, as asides go, it reads as a silly one that goes on for several lines. The humour is lazy. The generalisations are yawnsome. But he’s been flippant about ladies in comedy before too, on QI, if memory serves; this should not come as a great shock.

I would be interested to read the original context, now that I’ve gotten over my “WUH?” reaction.