Why is the image of women as the guardians of male morality still so pervasive?

Yes, it does make better sense in terms of breeding and passing on one's genes, for a woman to have lots of different sexual partners. THis is the reason why women's sexuality is so heavily socially controlled - because men-as-a-class know the best way to pass on their genes is to own women for breeding purposes and make sure they do not have sex with any other men.

I remember reading some/a (?) article about societies where it was considered normal for women to have multiple male sexual partners because then more of the men in the community would be invested in her children.

I think it was posted on here.

Fetchez - if one views sex as a means of passing on genetics, woman needn't be (as) driven as men towards promiscuity - if a woman has a baby, she can be 100% sure that it shares her genes; a man cannot be so sure.

I personally don't buy the primitive sexual urges thing. It just as much sense, surely, for a woman to be promiscuous, on that basis? The more men she has sex with, the greater the chances of encountering viable sperm.

Exactly solid, if chastity was all so "natural" for women they wouldn't have to stitch girls' vaginas up.

Same old shit, really. It's based on the idea that sex is a commodity that women 'have' and men 'get' from them. What is percieved as 'morality' in sexual behaviour is women trading sex for something else and getting the 'best deal'.
Because, of course, when it comes down to pure biology, what makes the most sense in breeding terms is for women to have lots of sexual partners when they are fertile, to ensure superior sperm - but for men to ensure their genes get passed on, they need to have lots of sex with one woman in order to ensure that no one else impregnates her. Because men made the rules, women get told that it's their job to catch one man and keep him happy by allowing him just enough sexual access to stop him moving on to a more compliant woman. Just think about how nearly everything that is peddled to us about 'natural' and 'right' sexual behaviour boils down to 'Men should be allowed to do what they like and women should put up with it' and ask yourself how natural something is when it has to be enforced and reinforced with social sanctions and threats of violence or even death.

I agree that women shouldn't be judged more harshly than men in this situation (and certainly no more than the deceitful spouse!), but the behaviour itself is absolutely blameworthy. Just as it would be, if an OM were having an affair with a married woman. Each individual is responsible for their own morality, no-one else's, but if that individual morality permits colluding in lies to, and deceit of, another person (even a stranger), then that's a flawed moral compass.

It also works both ways, with OW who blame the man's wife for a wide range of behaviours, ranging from being so neglectful that he was "forced" to cheat right through to blaming her for wanting to work on the marriage, even after discovery.

Ultimately, we shouldn't be surprised by, or in harsher judgement of horrible female behaviour, but neither should we hold back from judging it. Women have the right to be just as amoral as men and have equal responsibility as men, not to do harm to their fellow human beings.

NotADude, that's very interesting and explains the existence of the madonna/whore dichotomy which can be so restrictive to women. You are judged as being either the angel (which is boring) or the slut (which carries social penalties).

Personally I think it's socially constructed. When I was a teenager my DF had huge double standards for me and my bro. My brother was allowed to run about willy-nilly (sorry for pun!) whilst I was held on a tight leash. I tackled him about it once and he said that he "expected higher standards" from me. I think that's how it gets us and keeps us in place; we feel like it's a compliment yet in reality it just restricts us and makes us feel bad for enjoying sex.

Well, in response to the naturalistic argument I'd really want an answer to this:

There has demonstrably been a turn by roughly 180 degrees in how gender and morality are perceived.

The mediaeval view on this which was still predominant in early modern times was very much one of woman as a temptress, seductress, consumed by the sin of lust.

By the Victorian age we have woman as the pious angel in the home, some kind of quasi saint. In fact, the supposedly positive influence of women's morals was cited by some campaigners as an argument in favour of woman's suffrage. Because women, of course, would always vote against vice and loose morals, whereas men were so much more susceptible to loose morals.

IMHO a strong pointer towards a more socially constructed view of the entire question.

He doesn't even need to blame the two women involved, since that's being done for him. He can just shrug vaguely and drift on, doing whatever takes his fancy.

Odd isn't it that men pride themselves on being the stronger sex - yet apparently not strong enough to control a few inches of trouser meat?

Wife: The wife is doing what society expects of her - blaming the OW.

OW: she is held to a standard that would not apply if all the sexes were reversed. Is a man who gets involved with a married women ever seen as letting other men down?

Husband: he comes out of this situation rather well: if wife is bitter, no wonder he strayed. It is the OWs fault, the harpy, she is so wicked she even lets other women down.

(so he gets to have his cake, eat, then blame the two women involved)

That letter is a depressing read, isn't it? "The letter you wished you'd written" should surely be to the person you've invested in a relationship with and who betrayed you, no? It's hugely disparaging to the man to say "if it hadn't been you it would have been someone else." She came across as bitter and in need of some time and perspective. Such a shame that her bitterness seemed aimed at the OW only, not her H. They were BOTH at fault!

Absolved, FFS.

"They are then resolved of all responsbility" meaning "abolved" and "they" being men... Don't type tired

Where's SGB? Suggest that JLK has a read of this thread.

I suspect that the reason that women are held as the guardians of male morality is that they are then resolved of all responsibility. It suits them. It can also suit the wronged woman (I currently am one fwiw) to blame the other woman rather than face up to the fact that, perhaps, her partner simply preferred someone else. Or didn't think enough of them to not keep it in his trousers.

JLK2 your argument does not work on the numbers: say one man impregnates 5 women. If we say there are approximately the same number of men and women, what where the other 4 men doing? They weren?t impregnating the 5 women because the women were already pregnant.

You ignore the possibility that women might enjoy sex, JLK2.

Men are more driven to have sex with lots of women than women are driven to have sex with lots of men. It makes sense, a man can get many women pregnant but a woman can only get pregnant by one man at one time.

Why? Because it suits men to have women blame each other for their bad behaviour. Maybe infidelity is not abuse -I don't think that it is, actually- but it has an element in common with abuse i.e. men saying: 'she made me hit her', 'if you put your put down with me, I wouldn't have done that'.

It also suits women to blame each other, too, because, obviously, it is easier to blame a third party (i.e. the 'hussy' that your husband has cheated with) than accept that you've invested a lot of time into somebody who has turned out to be a cheat.

I agree. I was thinking about this today as there was what I thought was a deeply unpleasant thread on relationships last night/this morning where a woman posted that she was feeling attracted to her boss and was contemplating cheating.

She came in for a lot of very unpleasant comments and was clearly seen as the one at fault, but also as just a "hole" to him. very depressing reading I thought.