ALSO - I don’t see a modern narrative that pathologists adulterous women. I feel like we kind of celebrate them nowadays for their “ journey”.
Thank you for saying that. The "society narrative" has just completely changed here. Years ago, men cheating was excused because "he just needs it (sex) more, boys will be boys". And, unsurprisingly, men did plenty of cheating and exhibited all sorts of bad behaviors. Now, the script is flipped, a man cheating is a "man child without any self control" where a woman cheating is "finding herself" and "because of her husband". Of course, this isn't present everywhere (here, thank goodness, it's almost entirely absent) but, society still has an impact. You tell people (in so many words), "He cheats, his fault; she cheats, his fault" guess what? You get a lot of crappy behavior. Shocker, right?
Boys are taught to be "manly" - and the definitions of that are very rigid and I could see how they would be constricting. But, in school if you were sexually active noone was shaming you. You may have experienced shaming if you were a virgin, and while girls get that too in school, that isn't as condemning most of the time. It was expected, at least in my day and age.
And I think it will be the general story until there's some massive change in society. It's not sexism at work, it's not trying to "shame women" or "force men" or some other grand plan. It's simply biology at work, and it's been the case for pretty much all of recorded history. Sex is difficult to attain for many men (especially young men) and therefore valuable. Sex is difficult to resist (laughably easy to obtain) for many women and therefore the LACK of it is valuable. If that situation changes (sex is easy to get for men, hard for women) the narrative will change, and chaste men will be valued and experienced women will get "high fives".
Want to see this in practice? Obesity used to be highly valued because food was hard to come by. Those who could get enough food to become obese were "high status" people and were greatly desired. Now, the situation is reversed, food is abundant and the thing that's "hard to do" is resist the temptation to eat to much. Now, thin is the "status symbol" and desired. Want another? Being tan, in the past, was highly off putting to the opposite sex. It meant you worked in the fields and were "low class". So much so, that for a period of time, people powdered/painted their faces white to appear as "unblemished by the sun" as possible. Because, of course, it was rare to not have to work in the sun, therefore the lack of a tan was valuable and showed your status. Now, the situation is reversed, most of us work inside all day, and having a tan shows the world that you have the time to "work" on a tan in addition to your day job. It's showing the same thing, "status", it's just that status now is having the leisure time to get a tan rather than the being able to stay inside/out of the sun (which most of us can easily do now because work has changed so drastically).
It's not a conspiracy, it's supply and demand. The moment there's more "supply" of sex from women than "demand" for sex from men, the equation will reverse and then promiscuous women/chaste men will be valued because those will be the "rare" items that convey status.
That said.. Don't hold your breath. There are biological differences in sex drive, and, I just don't think we'll ever get to the point where the above situation plays out in practice. Who knows, I could be wrong, but from all history I've ever read, it's never been different. The easiest way to see this is by looking at sex for money; who's paying and who's paid. With very limited exception, it's always been men paying and women being paid (outside, of course, of same sex transactions). But that's your leading indicator, if you start to see that ratio go 50/50, or slanting towards women, you'll also start to see promiscuity valued in women and chastity valued in men.