Indeed. One of the very obvious untruths that feminists spout is that women's sexuality is policed in history much more than men. Whereas in fact the reverse is true. We know quite a lot about men because there has always been explicit policing of male sexual behavior by ecclesiastical and secular authorities. What is fascinating is feminist "evidence" that men were 'condoned' by "society" in sexual license is actually the parade of recorded legal cases over centuries and tirades by Religious leaders and others in authority, all very definitely not condoning the sexual misbehaviour they proscribe and even prosecute. That sometimes some aristocrat "got off" with exile rather than execution or a fine rather than jail shows money and status could gain some privileges but still that "society" had written statutes and was alert to policing men's sexual behaviour, but sometimes was less effective in punishment. And there are very few such statutes about women, other than those about marriage and assuring legitimacy of children. The very evidence used to say men were "condoned" actually contradicts the thesis because the authorities clearly were busy policing male sexual behaviour and in doing so actually generated information about what the policed and prosecuted!