Feminists like to complain that women are generally held to a standard of chastity not expected of men. They call this the “double standard.” They don’t like it.
But let’s consider the circumstances. We employ different standards for evaluating behaviors all the time. We evaluate 12-year-olds on the middle school swim team according to a different standard than we do those applying for the Olympic swim team, and no one imagines this is a bad thing. On the other hand, we can easily imagine a situation in which different standards would be monstrously uncool; for instance, different standards of prosecutorial evidence based on the wealth of the defendant would simply be evil. So there is an obvious requirement here that double standards correspond to objective reality in some way.
But doesn’t the sexual double standard? Men are biologically programmed to desire sex at a pretty constant level from puberty onward, with only a modest decline over the long term. Women, by contrast, are pretty much wired for chastity. Sexual desire, for them, follows arousal, instead of arousal following desire; they have disproportionately high rates of anorgasmia and other forms of sexual dysfunction, and these problems are less amenable to medical treatment than in men; and their desires are more subject to cultural and social influence than are those of men. I’ve read before that this is an evolutionary adaptation relating to mate selection: women don’t desire sex until after they’ve selected a worthy mate, allowing them to make that selection free of the burden of overweening sexual desire.
Since chastity comes more easily to women than men, and since the vast majority of men aren’t in fact rapists, why shouldn’t women be expected to bear the burden of chastity? It’s easier to police half the population’s sexual behaviors than the entire population’s, no?
Of course, men shouldn’t be let totally of the hook. Women are not leaders, by nature, so we owe it to them to cultivate a society that urges them to jealously guard their honor and not forfeit it to their douchebag prom date the first chance they get. Otherwise, such a standard would indeed be unreasonable. We might enforce this by attaching strong consequences to men who offend against chastity, either by expecting them to honor the implicit commitment they’ve made with their body (i.e., shotgun wedding!) or by attaching disrepute to them for their indiscretions.* But, given such a social order, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect women to bear the burden of chastity, just as we expect men, who are by nature more physically capable, to bear the burden of physical defense of the polity (i.e., military service), another double standard no one objects to.
At the end of the day, though, we know feminists are lying: it’s not the double standard they object to but the object of the double standard, which is chastity. They wouldn’t like a society in which men and women equally bore the yoke of high standards of chastity, either. And the more honest feminists are willing to admit this. And this makes sense, when you think about it; after all, it was never a feminist ambition to achieve equality by ennobling men, but to achieve it by degrading women — to make them clones and replicas of men. Could any society but this one have produced near-ubiquitous porn, Girls Gone Wild, and people like Tucker Max (before his apostasy from perpetual brohood)? If I were a sex-obsessed cad, it seems to me feminism and sexual liberalism, with its emphasis on the impersonality, instrumentality, and interchangeability of one’s sex partners and the meat market method of acquiring them, is exactly the kind of thing I’d want to encourage.
*Believe it or not, this happens, anyway. A kind-hearted but boyishly good-looking male friend of mine in college slept around considerably his first year and acquired a reputation as someone only good for a good time. He didn’t suffer too much — there was always someone willing to put out for him — but the good girls avoided him, and he knew it.