Most definitely. That's a good way to say it. I would add that in times of plenty, though, when the food comes easy, the perilousness of existence is less of a factor. Necessity-based functions become values over time by becoming familiar, "the way things are." Changes to the level of necessity bring about ideology. Does that society practice birth control? Is there a purpose in limiting pregnancies necessitating limits on casual sexual encounters? Would lifelong pair-bonding be a value in a matriarchal society? Why or why not? And how does that factor into a sense of what is promiscuous and what's not? Are males just studs, for nothing much more than breeding? Does the stock need to be controlled? Does the male have some level of status that makes it important to know who the father is? Would promiscuity be a lager issue amongst lower classes or upper classes? Promiscuity by women in patrilinear arrangements, in the ruling class especially, is not good for patriarchy because genetic testing didn't exist to verify lineage from the male side, so breeding control was important to control for the male parent, but the mother was always self evident -- so would the same necessarily be true in a matrilinear arrangement? The mother would always been known. Is promiscuity defined heterosexually (reproductive/emotional), homosexually (recreational/emotional), both? I suspect male promiscuity in consorting with females might be more of an issue than promiscuity between males if control of reproduction is the factor, but I'm not sure that reproduction control in matriarchy would necessarily be all that important -- it would depend on other values, like some notion of racial purity, or disease control.