Is there an argument to be made that a man cheating on his partner (with a woman) is more morally justifiable than a woman cheating on her partner (with a man)?

This may be a controversial topic, so I will preface with: I do not think it is ever justifiable to cheat on someone, and if you do, you should own up to it and accept the consequences. <br><br>That being said, if we compare the two from a purely philosophical perspective, I think it's clear that there is a double standard that exists, and I would argue this is not without reason.<br><br>From a purely Darwinian perspective, a man's infidelity threatens a woman in that if a woman were to raise a child that is not the man's, she is depriving the man of his opportunity to spread his own genes and instead forcing him to devote his resources to the upbringing of another man's offspring. On the other hand, a man's infidelity does not threaten this to the same extent. In other words, while a man's infidelity may be disrespectful and hurtful, it does not threaten the genetic imperitive in the same way a woman's infidelity would, as a man would know 100% that any offspring he has with his partner is his own. <br><br>Furthermore, I think it's worth noting that historically women have been the primary caregivers while men are expected to be breadwinners. Therefore, in cases of infidelity, it historically makes more sense for children to stay with their mother, as she would be better equipped to care for them, even if they are not the offspring of her partner. <br><br>I guess what I'm asking here is, given these two points, is there a philosophical argument for the notion that a man's infidelity is less morally reprehensible than a woman's?