"But weighing more heavily in my thoughts these days is how abstaining from sex past a certain age (like 16 or 18) has a very high cost, as it's part of what makes life worth living. Abstaining before age 16 (and abstaining only with adult partners) is much less costly."

Given that the infant is polymorphously perverse and therefore ALL contact with it is sexual.... AND baby monkey studies......

I think it can be argued that by the time one is 16 or 18 sexual contact becomes meaningless or redundant from a "necessity" viewpoint.

Those who go from puberty to the cloister live to ripe old ages. And who is to say that their lives aren't just as fulfilling as mine?

OTOH what we do know is that before the age where verbal affirmations of consent can be made we have the crucial period which is make or break in regard to erogenous zone touch and the ability to thrive and survive.

If I were an incrementalist, then I'd argue stage-by-stage for a mandated decrease in sexual activity; with peak fertility and health at 16 being the reasonable cut-off opportunity to have offspring and transition into a sexless future. But because I'm more of an absolutist, I can see no point in denying the adult ( for mere entertainment ) that which is necessary in the infant to become a full human rather than some fearful shriveled thing. :)

Dante