CONTEMPORARY MATING PRACTICES ARE NOT EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE.

So I noted two years ago, hailing an essay by self-styled feminist Louise Perry.

She's back, and not confessing error.

Hookup culture benefits some men, at the expense of most women.

That’s because male sexuality and female sexuality, at a population level, do not match. On average, men want casual sex more often than women do, and women want committed monogamy more often than men do. Hookup culture therefore demands that women suppress their natural instincts in order to meet the male demand for no-strings-attached sex. Some women are quite happy to do this, but most women find it unpleasant, or even distressing. This is unfair, particularly given that sex carries so many more risks for women, who might end up with an unwanted pregnancy, or being slut-shamed, or even being assaulted.

But even though hookup culture is a terrible deal for women, it is often presented by liberal feminism as a form of empowerment.

It's not, as we noted some years ago.

I can't help you with better. But I can help with "efficient." And there might be an efficiency argument behind social construction, namely institutions evolve to conserve on transaction costs.  But even that notion is controversial.  Let me propose one hypothesis.  Slut-shaming is a dishonor tax, and feminism is a tax cut.

Some of us have known this for two score years.  Reality is socially conservative, and sometimes reality dawns after all life's illusions have disillusioned.

[W]hy should we accept a sexual culture that puts pressure on people who don’t particularly want casual sex, just to satisfy the demands of people who do? In my view, a truly feminist project would demand that, in the straight dating world, it should be men, not women, who adjust their sexual appetites. If that seems unfair, then I’d also add: Unwanted sex is worse than sexual frustration.

Sometimes it is hard to resist saying, "See, we told you so."

[T]he evidence doesn’t suggest that today’s young women are reveling in sexual liberation. Instead, it suggests that a lot of women are having unpleasant, crappy sex out of a sense of obligation. And to add insult to injury, this doesn’t actually increase women’s value in the eyes of men.

People may be reluctant to actually say so outright, but the truth is: Whereas promiscuity in men is generally viewed neutrally, a woman’s reputation is damaged as her number of sexual partners increases. When looking for a long-term partner, anonymous surveys suggest, the vast majority of straight men prefer a wife with a limited sexual history and little interest in casual sex. Women also prefer a husband who is not unusually promiscuous, but their preference is not as strong. Most are willing to accept a man who has historically enjoyed casual sex but has since settled down.

Importantly, however, men generally don’t mind a more extensive sexual history when they’re looking for a hookup. Then, in fact, promiscuity may increase a woman’s appeal.

Deconstructing double standards by deconstructing all standards becomes an evolutionary dead end.  The lady with a reputation is still ... a lady with a reputation.  Red State's Ed Morrissey summarizes.  "These are not new concepts. Human societies used to understand this, and ordered their mores and courtship practices to protect both men and women from this kind of exploitation and misery, not to mention the longer-term social consequences of promiscuity."