If you look carefully at American history and see who the real movers and shakers have been; you will find that organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, Daughters of the Empire, etc. played an absolutely pivotal role in such things as banning booze and banning prostitution.
This sort of thing is more about controlling the behavior and resources of committed (or at least supposedly committed) males.
It is generally accepted these days that when a man is committed to a woman; she has full access and prioritization in terms of his time and material resources. She is hypergamous, meaning that in all likelihood, she believes she could do better than him. (Whether she could or not is debatable; but she THINKS she could, which is what matters.) Therefore, on her ledger sheet; when accounts are balanced, the man always owes. [I am speaking generally here. I realize there are many many exceptions to this.]
So nothing of his is his. We see this reflected in various rules governing divorce in which a woman; having been married to a man for a certain length of time, can divorce the man but still retain access to his resources sufficient to support her in the fashion to which she has grown accustomed. It is also reflected in the fact that even though men may statistically earn more money; women exercise control (i.e. spending decisions) over 60% of wealth -- meaning they control 50% more spending than men. (That is OVERALL, for household spending, women control 83% of resources.)
Women with committed males generally do NOT wish their resources (because all that is their husband's is theirs) expended on wine, women and song. Such expenditures in a finite pie take away time, effort, attention and money from the woman and/or family. And, again, as the woman is hypergamous she generally feels the committed male should be DAMNED GRATEFUL.
Of course, men being risk-takers, generally possessed of at least SOME polygamous tendencies, etc. are not so keen on being controlled to the micromanagement level. And exercising such control becomes increasingly difficult with the male's perceived social status. (The attributes that convey status will vary with context.)
It is my guess (no data to back this up) that a certain proportion of workaholism is simply men asserting at least some inarguable level of control over where they will place their physical bodies.
And this is essentially what provides the cover for assertion of self-will by "committed" males. They go out to the club with the guys from work to talk business. "Sorry babe, you know I hate those strip clubs, but I gotta do it to be "in" for that next promotion." Or "I'll be in an important meeting for a couple of hours this afternoon and can't be disturbed, but will call you later." Or "I have no idea why they book these shindigs for Vegas. I hate flying but I hafta go. The big boss will be there and everything."
In many respects, the more desireable the committed male; the harder it is to exercise physical control.
And, let us not forget that up until modern times adultery has not only been cause for divorce; it has actually been a criminal offense. So the woman in the equation has a statutory legal monopoly on the committed male's sex supply. This monopoly exists without regard to the fashion in which she chooses to wield the power such a monopoly conveys. But, ultimately, in many relationships, that power is sufficient to assure a great deal of other power in otherwise unrelated realms.
(This is, btw, a dangerous game for a woman to play with any man with an IQ above room temperature. I had a girlfriend once who played the "no sex until you agree to my unreasonable demands" game. At which point she was informed that I would never again have sex with her for any reason and under any terms. You can't manipulate me by taking away something I no longer want. lol
She could still be my girlfriend if she wished; but my sexual needs would be provided by others. Oops.)
So ... GENERALLY (though not always) ... women who have committed males wish to maintain absolute precedence in all matters involving the man's time and resources; and maintain an absolute monopoly on the sex supply which allows leverage over many other matters.
But -- again -- the more desireable the male, the harder he usually is to control.
If you can't keep men from spending their paycheck on booze -- then ban the booze. And organized women's groups were pivotal in bringing about bans on many substances, not just alcohol. If you can't keep them from spending money looking at other women naked; ban the places where it is allowed.
And, prostitution above all must be banned as well because unlike an affair which gives evidence aplenty and for which there are usually few rational takers ... it is easily engaged on a lunch break. When the husband can easily get sex elsewhere, the wife's monopoly (and the control she can exert through that monopoly) is broken; thus altering the balance of power in the relationship.
(Of course, if sex is not used as a weapon or tool of manipulation; a woman of merit can STILL maintain a balance of power through fair trading of value for value.)
If you do some research, you'll find the biggest pushes to ban prostitution in this country were supported by major organized women's groups largely composed of married women.
So this sort of thing is most often driven by women who try to control other women indirectly in order to exercise control over committed males that they would otherwise be unable to assert effectively.
If they are unable to do this; they are forced to undertake relationships under different premises. To wit, that even with a supposedly committed male, he has to be earned every day -- just like SHE has to be earned every day.
