Our culture (western) has a bit of a mashup between biological issues and moral issues.

I think it's true that men tend to have much higher sex drives than women and that there are basic, foundational reasons for this. Namely, that men are biologically driven to have as many offspring as possible, where women must bear much of the cost of delivering and raising that offspring. Women recognize the immense personal cost and (ahem) 'down time' of having a child. Women produce a single egg once a month for an indeterminate number of years; men produce sperm on an hourly basis, by the millions. Men have a massive surplus of baby making machinery, women very little.

Our bodies are our property (with apologies to the God fearing). A womans body is her property and her property alone. We could think of our bodies as the house that holds our consciousness.

Now we can ask ourselves which trait is more sacred in our culture; charity or fidelity? If charity were the most valuable, we could not have sluttish behaviour, since being charitable with ones body/house (letting everyone have a go at it) would be highly valued. Sluts (as they are now) would be extremely popular with those persons who had high sex drives like, say.... men. Of course, until fairly reccent human history, those charitable women would end up producing a lot of offspring - an extremely dangerous and time-consuming proposition. And of course, those offspring could be anyones son or daughter, but because the woman fucked so much, it would be very difficult to determine the childs father. She could lie - unless humanity designed some strange institution that declared she was someone's property and that she'd go to hell if she screwed someone outside that institution. (see: "Marriage and other Patriarchal horseshit") All in all, for women, getting fucked a lot was more or less a really bad idea, just on survivability aspects alone.

Now lets imagine that security and fidelity were the most valuable traits in our society. If these are more valuable, we should applaud those people who are more discriminating about who has access to their body/house. Keep in mind that we've established (as did the rest of humanity a long, long time ago) that men like to fuck a lot and they're not particularly choosy about where they deposit their uhhhh... "surplus". Most everyone knows someone (else) that slept with someone unattractive or "gross" and if you're a guy, you almost asssuredly can understand what I'm getting at. Men are not particularly good at being 'discriminating' about their partners, because their sex drive often (sadly and too often horribly) leads them to make poor decisions. A woman can rarely avail herself of this 'excuse' unless she invokes the 'too drunk' or the 'not in her right mind' defense. So a value system of fidelity and security would lead me to believe that women who fuck a lot of men will be ostracized and denigrated for that behaviour by those who value those traits. In a culture like the west, we tend to value our individual sense of discrimination because being able to pick and choose is a part of our 'autonomy', and 'personal autonomy' is among the most highly valued of western concepts. The "I can do whatever the fuck I want" kind of thing. The problem here is that lack of discrimination ("she'll fuck anybody") demonstrates a lack of fidelity. Men are not expected to be cautious or disciminating about their partners because men do not have to bear the cost of child-bearing or rearing. Women do. Knowing this, the wisest path for a woman is to be strongly discriminatory about who they get with. Yes - this all came about before birth control was widely used and available, but morality and ethics don't always synchronize with the latest technological developments.

And yes, it might be true that men get away with this double standard while women don't - but there are reasons for this. Women have a resource that there is great demand for and they're tasked with being discriminating in who it's supplied to.

As far as the queer community, this 'sluttery' seems (I say "seems" because while I've found myself a friend and acquaintance among many queer folks, I am making a generalization about that groups behaviours and attitudes) to be much less of an issue. I suspect this might be so because there are no attending costs (in the form of child-bearing) to that promiscuity, other than perhaps a communicable disease. No one will have to rear a child if a gay man (strictly gay that is) decides he wants many partners or a lesbian desires the same...