I like where you're going with this discussion in terms of creating economic incentives for the behavior we want to encourage in society (the empowerment of women). What I fail to understand is the deep psychological exploration of a very simple concept (to me): self-ownership is violated. If someone does something to me or my property which I didn't give consent for, there's no need for deep introspection, it's simply wrong.
Do we disagree there?
Are you saying if I do something to someone else's body they don't approve of it's somehow okay because biology?
To me, this is where principled philosophy trumps primitive naturalistic justifications for behavior that causes people harm. Self-ownership is key to a voluntary society. It must be protected.
On the other hand, maybe it wasn’t harmless at all. Maybe it was done by a guy who is an asshole and did it to scare, harass or intimidate her, to make her feel like he has control over her, that he can touch her body with impunity and there’s nothing she can do about it. In that case, maybe the guy really is a threat.
THIS! Okay, now we're getting somewhere. This is the entire point of what I'm trying to explain. If there's ever something done to someone else's body (which I view through the lens of self-ownership because because the owner of that body has a higher claim to it than any other conscious being), then a violation has taken place. Those who discount this are, from my perspective, bad actors because they are knowingly violating this principle of self-ownership. Bad actors do this in work environments, for example, that have strict rules against such behavior. They do it anyway (and often get away with it) because for far too long the behavior was normalized and explained as "natural" and something they should just get over or deal with as part of being a women. We're starting to see society change in this regard as more people take a stand and say, "No, that's not okay. You have no right to treat that women like an object unless she gives her consent for you to do so." I don't think we should normalize behavior that violates consent.
Again, people technically can "think" whatever they want (such as mentally objectifying women without their consent), but that doesn't make that thinking "good" especially if it leads to "bad" action.
Once mutual consent is obtained, by all means, have fun doing whatever.
All that said, I do think you and I agree quite a bit in terms of the various toxic aspects of sexuality imposed by the state and by religion. I think we can both imagine a better future there, but I also think our voices don't matter as much as the voices of the actual property owners in the discussion: the women.