In response to:
Is such injury an inevitable or even a high-probability outcome?
...of sexual contact between a female in the first or second decade of life and a physically mature male, we see posted:
The default assumption in our culture is that sex is a very emotionally intense experience, and thus females are in constant grave danger from men who would exploit them for their own gratification.
Because it's the woman who gets pregnant, women tend, more than men, to reject the view of sex as being legitimate as a mere physical pleasure, and instead see it as belonging to a context of a committed romantic relationship.
Traditionally, of course, our views derive from a situation that no longer exists to the same extent in the developed world. A peasant farmer family keeps its sons home to work on the farm; the daughters can't work as hard, so they're married off. If one loses her virginity, that becomes impossible.
While we no longer quite have the strict morality of those times, that still very much forms the basis of our society's thinking in these matters.
In the context of the present discussion, and with emphasis upon a sociocultural setting in the AnCap society of Ceres and the Belt stipulated as being significantly different both from subsistence-level agricultural economies (the default state of humanity for most of recorded history) and our prevailing Western industrial economy, the "
default assumption" mentioned above simply does not obtain. Should it be accorded any weight at all?
Indeed, it is false to assume that in a subsistance agriculture setting "
A peasant farmer family keeps its sons home to work on the farm," if only because natural population increase over the generations must result in too many people trying to get their living from the same plot of arable land. Forget about how "
the daughters can't work as hard." A farmstead perfectly adequate to support one married couple and their children will
not sustain the third and fourth generations of offspring and their families, even with "green revolution" advances in productivity.
Ceteris paribus, you ain't gonna keep 'em down on the old farm, whether they've seen Paree or not. New land must be taken into cultivation, or other ways of getting a living have to be found.
Anybody reading here ever given much thought to the present condition of the Pennsylvania Dutch and their response to the ever-increasing prices of farmland in Lancaster County and regions hitherabouts?
Again, we have the fundamentally false consideration of "society" as if it were a concrete entity with conscious purpose and intention ("
the basis of our society's thinking in these matters"), and that is incredibly stupid. What we should more properly speak about are prevailing suppositions and prejudices, none of which have real force except as they are codified in statute law and similar ordinances which have effect in the affairs of human beings only as they are imposed upon people by way of violent government action.
No aggressive government violence - as in the AnCap society of Ceres and the Belt - and there's no "
basis of our society's thinking" on matters pertaining to consensual sexual activities undertaken by competent moral agents.
Now can we speak about the criteria by which people in a society not burdened by government thuggery might decide moral agency?