Men are never sure who is the real father of their offspring. This created the legacy of honour.

I am no expert on this. This is entirely out of my anus.

Primates, like humans, like all organisms are interested in passing down their genes. Both females and males, are programmed, biologically and thus psychologically, to do so.

Females have a critical advantage over males because they own the means of producing offspring. They are always sure that their kids are theirs. That their offspring carry their own genes. Both, however, are not programmed to care much about who was responsible for the other half of the genetic load carried by their child.

Fish don't care much about their offspring. A male fish will fertilize the eggs by spraying some sperm over a collection of fish eggs. A male fish will be proud of its fatherly duties for a second or so.

To ensure their survival, mammals can't produce offspring and leave them to the wilderness. Primates need to nurse their offspring for extended periods of time. This time is at its maximum in humans.

For males, providing for both the mother and the offspring -- the mother to nurse the offspring and whatever is necessary for a father to do in nurturing his child -- is a cost.

Honour, that is women's virtue and chastity, is, in my opinion (I am sure this is not a new thing), an invention by men to make sure they are not raising children that are not their own. It is of their best interest to funnel these costs to children carrying their own genes first.

The social invention of honour is critical to men because they can never be sure if a child is theirs. So they created a social program that they think will work to minimize the number of men a woman can get in contact with. The more strict the better, the more sure they will be that their kids are really their own.

From dress codes to the acceptability of honour killings. Moral mechanisms were put forward by religious people, politicians and law makers across history. Fields that we know, were never really welcoming to women in the past(at least in these parts of the world)

A modest dress or a dress that will not be revealing to a woman's body will, supposedly, be inviting for other males thus increasing the chances that women collectively, in a given society, have a higher risk of being impregnated by someone else. This idea is concealed in a mixture of both honour, religion and acceptance.

Other mechanisms are more twisted, suppressive or bloody.

Female genital mutilation, the concept of virginity and the elusive hymen and may be the inferiority of women or their constant need to be taken care of by a man.

Men decided to be unmoved about men who kill their own wives while she was in an act that 'disturbs the fabric of society' to, indirectly, warn women of how a society ruled by men will not tolerate kids that are not their own.

On the other hand, they will not be available to comment on an equal punishment for if the roles were reversed. In fact they will advocate plural relationships for men only, because they don't care about the other half of the genetic load.

I think that these futile mechanisms (they are futile because men will still not be really sure that the kids are theirs) are more common in societies that find raising a child more costly and ruled by men.