Speaking in an ideal context of disease free world, sadly, hedging your bets is not for the womb owner. Care should be exercised in choice of men for women, not in hedge. After all a single woman has only a limited shot at having children, and if she blows it from the get go through hedges she cannot afford (men that dump her, the more burdensome she is with children, the more frequent), she will be very disapointed and frustrated. Men on the other hand CAN afford to have many women and to hedge to spread their risk accross different women, though they cannot choose but only be available through widespread exposure.
In a sex diseased world things get worse though for women especialy. Hedging their bets mean they will get exposure to disease more so to the elusive perfect husband (and lord knows how unfair this search is if one cares to compare the fears of skirted husbandry obligations vs. a government in charge of single women that is hardly sinless, liable and responsible). Men on the other hand become those vectors for disease, but men were always expandable in the first place.
So in the real world men's conditions remain the same, it is women and society that suffer most from immorality in the end. Whatever the feminists will say, expanding man was always the goal, and by tracking down men and attempting to feminizing them, they are destroying morality, women and causing society to suffer a backlash in men dominance. Even "socialy" progressist nations like the Soviet Union or China are very much dominated by men. Sure, I hear now and then a Russian policeman will go to jail for running after his wife with an axe, and she will consider herself happy if it happens once a week.
Disagree. Men also suffer greatly from immorality, including sexual morality.