Quick post - Sluts vs Swordsman.

Much hay is made in feminists circles about the double standards used to judge men and women vis a vis sexual behaviors. Usually this is expressed as "its sexist that men who are promiscuous are considered "swordsmen" while women who do the same are called "sluts" and demonised" But is it really?

Is there a good rational reason why we might demonise the same behaviors dependant on whom engages in them?
Well yes. While we might think a guy who engaged in Mensur fencing was a little tweaked, but an hemophiliac who did the same would be considered nuts, because they face different levels of risk.
Now apply this same idea to the consequences of sexual activity for men and women. A man who engages in promiscuous sexual behavior with anonymous or little known partners is exposed to far less risk than a woman who does the same. In addition tot he well known fact that STD's transfer far easier from men to women than vice versa, there's the additional wrinkle of parenthood. The truth is a man who fathers children can, if he chooses to surrender his claim to the title of Man, pretty easily avoid the penalties of fatherhood. Yet a woman can not easily avoid the penalties of motherhood once impregnated. Her only options are
1) Abortion - which has a non negligible death rate for the mother, severe emotional consequences stemming from the inherent guilt such an act creates, and possible if not probable negative effects on her reproductive ability.
2) Motherhood - which includes 9 months of pregnancy followed by 18+ years of support
3) Adoption - which still entails 9 months of pregnancy.

Given the disparity of the risk profiles associated with this behavior, isn't this "sexist double standard" really just a societal recognition of the inherent bad judgement and recklessness a woman shows by engaging in such behavior as opposed to a man?