Due to biology (male hormones), men have more upper-body strength than women do. There's an old principle that "might makes right" which precedes and undergirds our modern legal system. It's true that women can bite, scratch, deny affection/sex, etc., but when the chips are down, it's the man's brawn -- and his word -- that wins. (In many pre-modern societies, by the way, women were seen as property.) So sexual misconduct (using modern definitions) by men is seen as less important than that by women. Voila, the double standard.
of course, there are lots of differences among individuals, so that some women have more upper-body strength (or similar) than some men do. But men, like women, form a community, unifying against the "opposite sex" in order to shore up privilege. This means that the implementation and realization of the double standard depends on social structures and processes.
I should mention that women often covertly unite aganst men and undermine their -- I mean "our" -- authority. That says that the double standard is not totally solid and shouldn't be reified. It's "contested." In some, more matriarchal, societies, I predict you'd find that the double standard was very weak if not nonexistent or reversed. Of course, with the rise of "civilization" and male power (as upper-body strength is leveraged into being control over weapons), the double standard has become more institutionalized.
In recent centuries, the advantages of upper-body strength have faded due to technological change, so that we see some openings for the womens' movement and a new questioning and potential fading of the double standard.
On 6/5/06, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> > And I hate open this can of worms again, but there is
> > an obvious sociobiological explanation for the double
> > standard, which does not of course mean it is
> > unchangeable or justifiable.
>
> This may be so, but on the basis of the posts from Miles and Jenny it
> would seem to be far from obvious. In fact the most obvious explanation
> is cultural -- and fairly recent in human history. There seems to be
> _no_ biological evidence that such is the case, or at least no evidence
> has been provided.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jim Devine / "The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." -- Albert Einstein.