That men can more easily evade the consequences of their immoral behavior does not IMO make it any more moral.
It’s quite obvious we differ strongly on this point. In my opinion the “double standard” set the stage for our present disaster by making true defense of traditional morality very nearly impossible.
The whole idea behind the Pill and “abortion rights” has been to give women the same sexual freedom men had under the double standard. Since you apparently see nothing immoral with men, who can’t get pregnant, acquiring as many “conquests” as possible, then presumably you also see nothing immoral with women (who can’t get pregnant because they’re on the Pill and can get rid of the consequences if it fails) doing the same.
The Ann Landers argument actually supports Fluke’s position.
Biological nature and morality are often in conflict. Male human beings have a biological interest in spreading their genes far and wide. Female humans have a biological need to keep the fathers of their offspring home, supporting and protecting them and said offspring. Judeo-Christian morality supports the women’s biological need, and is in conflict with the man’s. It has the effect of preventing wars because one of the benefits to men who are victorius in war is access to more women.
Modern technology has taken the edge off the biological need of women, and has made of them the kind of sex objects that the feminists claim to hate.
BTW,we referred to overly promiscuous men as “dogs”.
On the lighter side, I think Ms. Fluke will have the honor of joining Ms. Lewinsky in lending her last name to a sex act.