I recall myself and Graham here being raked over the coals here for claiming that women are as carnal as men.  I think we are owed a recantation.

“Objection 5.On the contrary, It would seem in this matter the wife ought to have the preference. For the more frail the sinner the more is his sin deserving of pardon. Now there is greater frailty in women than in men, for which reason Chrysostom [Hom. xl in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that “lust is a passion proper to women,” and the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that “properly speaking women are not said to be continent on account of their being easily inclined to concupiscence,” for neither can dumb animals be continent, because they have nothing to stand in the way of their desires. Therefore women are rather to be spared in the punishment of divorce.

. . . .

“Reply to Objection 5. In adultery there is the same sinful character as in simple fornication, and something more which aggravates it, namely the lesion to marriage. Accordingly if we consider that which is common to adultery and fornication, the sin of the husband and that of the wife are compared the one to the other as that which exceeds to that which is exceeded, for in women the humors are more abundant, wherefore they are more inclined to be led by their concupiscences, whereas in man there is abundance of heat which excites concupiscence. Simply speaking, however, other things being equal, a man sins more grievously in simple fornication than a woman, because he has more of the good of reason, which prevails over all movements of bodily passions. But as regards the lesion to marriage which adultery adds to fornication and for which reason it is an occasion for divorce, the woman sins more grievously than the man, as appears from what we have said above. And since it is more grievous than simple fornication, it follows that, simply speaking, the adulterous wife sins more grievously than the adulterous husband, other things being equal.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5062.htm

Rules of thumb, based partly on research, but not from any book:

The incidence of sins against the flesh involving another person, between men and women, is roughly equal. That is, per 100 sins of flesh committed, half are by a woman and half by a man. However, the prevalence of sinners against the flesh is not equal. More men, at some point in their life, have committed sins against the flesh (in all categories). Fewer women have. The women that do, however, tend to be more promiscuous than men. This is shown in scientific research on sɛҳuąƖly transmitted disease, and also in confidential/anonymous interviews.

A quote from the Summa (which I respect greatly, but in which it is still possible that factual errors exist) given by Telesphorus :

...however, other things being equal, a man sins more grievously in simple fornication than a woman, because he has more of the good of reason, which prevails over all movements of bodily passions

A man sins more grievously in many things, but the above statement is applied incorrectly to fornication, because it is an exception:

Research conducted in the past 10 years has shown that in circuмstances where a man or woman is presented with a person of the opposite sex that he or she finds attractive, the man's ability immediately thereafter to make rational decisions, such as those based on money, are impaired, whilst the woman's is not.

Therefore, it could be said that when a woman sins in fornication and adultery, it is she who is the more grievous sinner (on balance). A man's brain turns to mush when he is attracted to a woman, but a woman is still cool and calculating. This is a generalization, but as a rule it is correct. A woman can simply say no, if she so decides. A man can be turned much more easily.

I am not sure what the statistics are on whether women are more likely to fornicate or commit adultery, or the same for men. It could be inferred from statistics of women having abortions or taking contraceptives, but otherwise I don't know.

As for divorce, women are by far the majority of those who initiate it. Men are often completely oblivious that a divorce is coming. Again I would argue that women are more often the wrongdoers, and ironically the divorce courts are stacked with feminists.

I don't believe that for a second.  I'm convinced a husband who is determined to to be faithful to his wife can be so more easily than a woman.

What you say does not contradict what I stated, so long as you don't give an indication of what proportion of men have this quality.

I haven't got the paper on hand to quote directly, but abortions are mostly performed on married women, or women who already have born children. And since women initiate most divorces, this is the smoke that suggests a fire of infidelity on their part (but is not proof in itself of there being an affair). I am saying an unfaithful woman will have not just one affair but will tend to have many in series - the last one leading to divorce (women will rarely flee a nest if there isn't another to fly to). The woman knows full well what she is doing and does it in cold blood. She has absolutely no excuses before God, and society is equally guilty in supporting her case without testing fault.

Men are more likely to be unfaithful as a whole (which I know you may not agree with) but when they are unfaithful, it is usually only one woman. Of course a sin is a sin, but I am saying the psychology of men is such that unless there is this determination (often absent) the man will fall easily. The woman is much more able to say no at the last minute.

The cause of a man's fall into sins of the flesh comes from sɛҳuąƖ lust, whereas a woman's fall comes from her desire for affection and attention (not so much the sɛҳuąƖ lust). So it is harder for a man to resist sins of the flesh than for a woman.

Telesphorous-

What are you trying to accomplish?

Telesphorous-

What are you trying to accomplish?

It seems like he's trying to vindicate our position with a quotation from St. Thomas.

If Christian fathers really want Christian marriage and Christian husbands for their daughters, rather than social esteem, then they need to stop pretending that women are angels and men are monsters.  In an age of feminism, that's a recipe for the ѕυιcιdє of the Christian family.

The shaming techniques used on Graham and I when we say these things can't be used on St. Thomas.

But those shaming techniques are an integral part of the way feminist morality (impunity for women, harsh judgment of men) is imposed behind a mask of traditionalism.

No Graham. There is a theme in Telesphorous entirety of posts lately. Anything and everything that has to do with women is commented on. I am not doing an ad hom. I'm confronting an issue and person directly; I'm not confronting his personality, nor am I calling him a woman-hater, misogynist, etc. But he does seem to be on the constant attack of women. If you can't see it, or see it differently, that's fine. I'm only pointing out what I see. He can respond, or ignore. That's his choice. But this is a public forum. I have a right to call out what I see someone publicly posting on if I think there's a trend.