You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.
But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.
So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.
And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.
The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.
You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.
If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.
You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape“, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.
Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.
If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.
High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century where not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.
You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)
The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.
It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.
If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.
Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.