"When I say they can wait a few years, I am talking about the role of sex in leading the good life, not satisfaction of urges at the moment."

Yeppers.

Here the underlying assumption is revealed. Even for adults you feel free to dictate what uses of sex are good and which are bad.

Actual questions of harm and consent are irrelevant when it comes to this "good life" you would impose on others against their will.

Of course if they're adults who could punch you in the snout for trying to tell them what they should want, you back-off. Like all bullies, you avoid the fair fight and concentrate your coercive efforts on those who are smaller than you.

Not every human culture throughout history has felt that an act of physical affection has to be treated as a permanent state defining a lifestyle.

Sex is what it is.

Our rigid notions that any expressed desire is some permanently binding compact stem from notions of religious purity; not from how children ( or even most human cultures ) treat the "permanent" and "defining" act of holding hands.

Sure, if you're among pathological freaks caught up in a sex-panic, then holding hands could get you stoned to death as a homosexual or adulterer. But there the problem is the culture, not the act.

It seems to me that sex outside of a committed romantic relationship has no role for you as part of the "good life."

And yet, we know that much of childhood sexual expression is exactly THAT.

Or do you believe we should hold shotgun weddings for any LB caught playing doctor with our daughters?

Here I expect qtns to agree, but no other. ;p

Dante