"""Could lead", but "may not be as catastrophic". Note that these two contrasting statements are actually equivalent."
This is nonsense. I explained immediately after why it is not as catastrophic..."
And I pointed out why selling a house may not be as catastrophic.
"Yes, that's why I said "could lead"... That it also may 'not lead' is implicit. What is your point?"
That there is not a huge qualitative difference between selling a house or losing virginity. Both may lead to a disaster, but also may turn out well.
"Yes, and this is true for any woman of any age..."
"One major criticism I have is that you seem too concerned with present social realities and perceptions/morals. These are things that are variable across time, and across cultures. A good philosophical argument/approach should be concerned with constants, to the extent that that is possible. Things should therefore be analysed through harm, theft, or fraud. That people might slut shame or spread gossip about a girl is irrelevant since these behaviours can be discouraged or encouraged by a culture."
These things are highly relevant. The consequences to the victim, and therefore the moral implications of the act, of defrauding her out of 1 million Zimbabwean dollars are vitally dependent on precisely when it happened.
"Another problem I wish to address is the fact that your arguments do not apply exclusively to teenage girls or, more specifically, females under an arbitrary age of consent. They apply to all unmarried females, because virginity/signals about sexual reliabilty are assets to all unmarried women."
And that´s the point. Both adult women and minors can be ruined by selling a house, so why are adult women allowed to sell houses?