Was Candide's punishment deserved? (according to annie this is the question this week)

I'm not really sure how to judge this. Candide was written in 1759 (I totally knew that and didn't look it up on wikipedia just now.) So not only was that an entirely different time, but the book really takes place in a fantasy land. It might have been normal for this kind of punishment to occur in 1759, but I think this is an exaggeration of even the harshest punishments. It's also an obvious plot device used to set in motion the entire rest of the book. So was it deserved? Absolutely not. Not only is it ridiculously harsh, it's stupid to even punish him for such a normal and healthy act. There's not even any real justification offered. It's assumed that it's because Cunegonde is so high status she's expected to not do anything, ever, with any man until she's married. But then why isn't she punished at all? This is a really weird question when I think about it and if Annie's wrong about what the question was this week then I'm going to feel dumb.