There ought to be a competition for liberal double standards.
Consider this. Flic Everett is a British mum who is worried about the tide of porn her 12-year-old son is subjected too. So she wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper complaining about the sexualisation of popular culture and noting that "The old argument that no-one's being exploited - we're all adults - no longer works, chiefly because we're not all adults."
Now, as a teacher of 12-year-olds I can only sympathise with her concerns. These children often know way too much and are too precocious in their attitudes to sex.
So what's the problem with Flic's article? A google search quickly reveals a Flic Everett to be the author of books such as "Sex Tips for Girls, How to be a Sex Goddess, Fantasy Sex, and The Sexy Bitch's Book of Doing it, Getting it and Giving it."
I doubt there are two British Flic Everetts in the writing trade. More likely that we have a heavy-duty double standard happening.
It's not uncommon for liberals to accept such double standards. If the liberal idea is that we should be "liberated" from any constraints on our individual choices and behaviour, then it's easier to apply this principle to ourselves rather than to those we rely on.
In other words, Flic may well think that breaking down restraints on the sexual behaviour of women is an acceptable part of liberalism and "empowering" for females. But it's not so easy for a woman to accept the same breakdown of sexual constraints on men. It threatens the chances of women finding love and fidelity in a man.
The problem is, of course, that it's hard to operate double standards. If you preach sexual liberation to women you can't expect too much success preaching sexual restraint to men.
So if Flic Everett doesn't like the consequences of applying liberalism consistently, it won't work well to try to apply it inconsistently. Better not to apply it at all.