Fitouchi et al.'s target article is so capably written, so bold in ambition and scope, and so rich in ideas that seemingly only a churl would choose to dwell on its faults. Alas, churls we must be!

For, insofar as control and strident suppression of sex (Baumeister & Twenge, Reference Baumeister and Twenge2002) has always been at the core of puritanical morals, it seems that explaining these morals requires some type of account of why the said suppression has been far more intensely concerned with one half of our species, that is, the human female.

But therein lies the rub. Not only do Fitouchi et al. not give an account of this pattern, but their model, it seems, should indicate the reverse. That is, if the principal aim of puritanical morals is to reduce the occurrence of “antisocial” acts that stem from indulging/expressing one's “hedonistic impulses” (related to sexual longings), the morals' proponents should channel the bulk of their puritan efforts toward the male libido. Not only is it rather clear that males have stronger desires (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, Reference Baumeister, Catanese and Vohs2001; Frankenbach, Weber, Loschelder, Kilger, & Friese, Reference Frankenbach, Weber, Loschelder, Kilger and Friese2022), but males also appear to be more willing and able to use violent means (be it against their partners or their potential rivals) (e.g., see Buss [Reference Buss2012, Reference Buss2021] for an overview) toward their sexual ends. Moreover, the contrasts in question are so strikingly clear that they cannot be ignored by any puritan scheme that runs on the functional logic Fitouchi et al. stipulate. Thus, given the facts as they stand, it seems that Fitouchi et al. should make a clear prediction that it is men everywhere (the less “disciplined” half) that puritanical morals would target first and foremost.

Yet the reverse is the case – Baumeister and colleagues (Baumeister, Reynolds, Winegard, & Vohs, Reference Baumeister, Reynolds, Winegard and Vohs2017; Baumeister & Twenge, Reference Baumeister and Twenge2002) provide a broad overview of the historic suppression/control of female libido and Kreager, Staff, Gauthier, Lefkowitz, and Feinberg (Reference Kreager, Staff, Gauthier, Lefkowitz and Feinberg2016), Marks, Young, and Zaikman (Reference Marks, Young and Zaikman2018), and Endendijk, van Baar, and Deković (Reference Endendijk, van Baar and Deković2020) report a range of results that seem to support the persistence of a gender-based double standard that leads to more disapproval of women's sexual conduct than similar conduct by men. One could also advert to the historic existence of Magdalen “homes”/asylums for so-called “fallen women” (with no counterpart in the form of “womanizer asylums”) as well as the fact that the language (e.g., English, German, or Russian) includes more pejorative terms for so-called “promiscuous” women than so-called “promiscuous” men (Endendijk et al., Reference Endendijk, van Baar and Deković2020).

There have been varied attempts, some more persuasive than other, to make sense of these facts (Baumeister & Twenge, Reference Baumeister and Twenge2002; Baumeister et al., Reference Baumeister, Reynolds, Winegard and Vohs2017; Rudman, Reference Rudman2017), but all of these varied attempts at least begin with the premise that there is, like it or not, a clear cultural pattern – the gendered suppression of sex – that must be accounted for, a premise Fitouchi et al. appear unable to grant.