A summary and criticism of Kratt's position(Kratticism?)...

---

P1: Virginity is a long-term asset for a ‘minor’ female.
P2: We do not let legal ‘minors’ buy or sell assets (houses/property).
Conclusion: Since we do not let ‘minor’ females buy or sell houses/property, we should not let them give up their virginity (Justifying Age of Consent laws)

P1: Virginity is a long-term asset for a ‘minor’ female.

This rests on the idea that men value a female who will not cuckold them. It is therefore beneficial that a woman be a virgin so that a prospective husband will want to marry her.

P2: We do not let legal ‘minors’ buy or sell assets (houses/property).

True. At present, legal minors are not able to buy or sell property. However, there is plenty of scope for debate about what a ‘minor’ should be. It might even be argued that there shouldn’t be a legal age at which one is permitted to do everything. For example, in Ancient Rome, one had to be male and at least 25-years-old to be able to sign contracts.

Conclusion: Therefore, we should not let them give up their virginity (Justifying AoC laws).

This rests on the assumption that virginity as an asset is equivalent to houses/property as an asset.

Is virginity as an asset equivalent to houses/property as an asset?
Purchasing houses/property can carry a great deal of risk. If one does so in poor judgement it could lead to financial ruin, which may be very hard to recover from. On the other hand, loss of virginity may not be as catastrophic. P1 requires that men can tell whether a female is a virgin or not. Firstly, men do not have a virginity detector. Even if men knew how to inspect the hymen, they are certainly not going to do this. I consider that the only method by which a female’s sexual reliability can be assessed is not by so stark a means as a judgement about virginity/non-virginity, but by observation of behaviour. If a girl is sending obvious signals that she is “easy” and fucks around a lot or, for lack of a better word, is a “slut” then men can assess her reliability. However, a female that has had her fair share of dickings but tells not a soul (and behaves like a Mormon), will not send any signals of sexual unreliability. The whole argument requires that men can perceive a woman's sexual reliability. If they cannot, then it falls apart. Since virginity/sexual unreliability cannot (or will not) be assessed, it is not therefore guaranteed or even likely to be a serious impediment to a female’s mate value. Consequently, virginity as an asset is not equivalent to houses/property as an asset.

Since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, the argument is invalid.

---

As an aside, I would like to point out that what is a ‘minor’ nowadays infantalises humans that are-cognitively- quite capable. The cognitive distinction between the ‘minor’ teenage group and the ‘adult’ group is not actually very significant. If one were to display on a graph the distribution of scores on any particular trait in both those groups it would probably resemble a bell curve. The average score of both groups might not be identical, but the curves would overlap significantly. This means that many ‘adults’ would score less on that trait than ‘minors.’ This begs the question as to whether the model of “you’re 18, you’re competent,” might be flawed. I think it is. Buying and selling property might be considered to be something one has to be competent (financial experience) for, in order to undertake responsibly. So maybe an 18-year-old could rent a house, but maybe not buy and sell major assets until 21, say. This would mean getting rid of the notion of 'overnight adulthood.'

---