I think you are basically right, though I don't think the explanation needs a specific hypothetical victim. Lying, like violence, is often used to advance the perpetrators' interests at the expense of others. When there are victims, most of us, I think, empathize with them and regard the perpetrators with at least distaste, even if we are at no risk of being victims ourselves, and even when the victims are unknown to us. If this were not the case - if we were only concerned with our immediate self-interest - ethical society probably could not exist.
Furthermore, knowing that someone has lied in the past leads us to distrust them, and even warn others about their behavior, even if there is no apparent victim, or even without clear evidence that they are currently being deceptive. Reputation is an important part of the network of trust that an ethical society depends on, and furthermore, we have probably all learned to be wary of deception even when we cannot immediately see the harm. Liars are suspected of being up to no good, and for good reason in general.
It also seems to be that blatant lying provokes more anger, even though subtle, minimal lying is often more effective, perhaps because blatant lying signals confidence in the perpetrator that he will prevail. In this case, the lying is blatant from the perspective of the author, who is knowledgable about the domain.
I recall a study from years ago - some sort of game-theoretic simulation - which showed, given its assumptions, that it was not enough that rule-breakers be punished for the society to remain whole, but so also should those who were tolerant of antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, I have lost track of it so I cannot check the plausibility of its assumptions, but note that someone getting away with something sometimes provokes more anger than the original offense, and then it often extends to those who permitted it. To the author, the lame rationalizations of the womens' defenders probably feels like collusion. Also, I see that in this thread, pfarnsworth's 'but there is no victim here' comment has been downvoted, while khazhou's 'no quarter' comment goes unremarked.