markk

Two chapters in, and I'm already finding myself at odds with Wilkinson's argument. In his early chapters he's referred to Lloyd George as both a "sex-pest" and a sexual predator, yet provides no evidence of this beyond references to his well-known philandering. Does philandering make someone a sexual predator? Perhaps in the most literal sense of someone who actively pursues sex partners, but the use of "sex-pest" suggests that Wilkinson intends a far more pejorative application than that. The problem with that, though, is that he doesn't cite any examples (let alone sources) that Lloyd George's sexual advances were unwanted by his partners; to the contrary, he follows his use of the label by describing Lloyd George as "irresistible to women." It amounts to guilt-by-conjecture, and it's pretty disappointing to see in a book that aims for scholarly credibility.