I think its wrong, and I would deff. like to wait, but idk if can or will. lol everyone has urges

The same goes with your claim, with real case study instead of hypothetical pseudoscience. When a human baby without the socialization of touch alone will just simply die, irregardless of the fact that all biological needs were met. And we only came to the discovery of this fact because at one point of contemporary history of nursing, parents were intentionally socialized by health experts to purposely neglect their babies through lack of touch. So that they won't ended up spoil their babies.

Finally, your genes alone is only telling you to mindlessly aping whatever that you were socialized.

Immaturity has nothing to do with it. Sexual experimentation is a natural part of kids' lives. At least to a lot of them.
It's really not that uncommon.

However, adults who hasn't experienced it, seem to think that such things are unnatural, which results in a common idea when it comes to "the talk".
A lot of people don't have "the talk" until they are at least ten. Some don't until their schools teach them even, which at my school was at age 13.

My parents had given me the talk beforehand, though, but not when I was eight. Partly because I'd never expressed any awareness of sexuality in their prescence.

You do not understand what I am saying. Let us suppose that you are right as regards an infant dying in the absence of touch, whilst the issue is not of the essence, it serves as a good example. Why, might I ask, does an infant die without touch? Where is it 'written', where is it 'contained' that without touch an infant 'must' die? If infants consistently die, caused by a lack of touch, then surely touch is a biological necessity fostered by genes, with a small margin of error.

I personally feel nothing about sex. It means absolutely nothing to me, no attachments, nothing. I'm quite sluttish, which isn't always good, but I just see sex through libertarian eyes.

So are you telling me that this is unnatural for being human kids? Who are you to dictate that? Based on what rule, the dictatorship of the majority? AKA the tyranny of the mob.

But you're willingly ignoring the importance of nurture, while science alone had been proving the fact that it's nature and nurture, when it comes to social animals like us humans. In fact, the margin for socialization when it comes to humans is huge. And this genetic trait wouldn't even be allowed to exist at all, if not for the fact that natural selection happening in nature well over 10,000 years ago, before the existence of neolithic culture, had chosen our dependence on socialization to be our key feature of survival.

You want the ability to choose your own fate, and that's still due to the fact that you've adapted to a society where you've been socialized to exercise some choices by your culture. But whatever happened to our genes that determined our dependence on socialization was due to a mutation at first, then natural selection came along and dictated for us that this is a valuable trait for the means of survival, thus it's worthy to pass down through evolution. The rule of the game was already written by nature alone, you cannot change that when all you managed to do insofar was ignoring it. And that's still your choice, or isn't it?

Well there's a bleeping contradiction, as in what libertarian value system made you to attach your sexually sluttish self with a meaning of "not always good?"

It's not always good because other people are judgemental bastards. I enjoy the freedom of casual sex, and seeing as love is just a cluster of chemicals it means nothing to me. I'm a nihilist, but also a nice person, just because that's who I am, yet I've lost friends and the respect of peers simply because I enjoy the freedom of sexual expression. That's why there's a downside.

I never said anything about something being unnatural. I just said that to a lot of kids, sexual experimentation is natural.
To others, it's not, but to a lot of kids, it is.

Those "chemicals" were to help you establish attachment and encourage reciprocity, trust-building, and collaboration with your partner. But instead you just turn them around to make yourself feel good whenever you want.

If kids were educated about human sexuality, instead of themselves being dictated by mainstream culture of sexual objectification. They wouldn't be like you at all. So don't make careless assumption through naturalistic fallacy.

When I was eight years old, I didn't pay attention to anything in the mainstream media. My sexual encounters came from curiosity and curiosity alone. At least most of the time.
And i know several other people who had similar experiences. Some more than others.

So don't act like you know anything about what happened. Everything you do is assume. And you've been wrong every time so far.

Of course it's ok to have sex before marriage. What a stupid question.

That's exactly my point, it's simply gratification. I honestly don't see what your problem is.

The same can be said about yourself, as in you just assumed that it's "natural" that everyone is "curious" about sex.

Yet you answered to what you referred as a "stupid" question, so what does that make you?

It means you used your partners as mere means for achieving your own ends. They're nothing more than objects that you interact with, who they are as persons means nothing to you and have no values to you. So instead of you having the freedom to create alternative values and meanings about the sexual relationship you have with your partners, your nihilist belief just devalues everyone you know, Yourself included.

In fact, based on your belief alone, you probably thought that's why they approached you in the first place. Without yourself knowing just what they thought about you, how much you meant to them, and why. Seeing as how you don't like to be judged.

Nice job avoiding my point by accusing me of something.
And f.y.i. my basis on sexual curiosity is NOT an assumption. It's observation. I've talked to lots of different people about it, both in real life and online. That is not a coincidence.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality

It means you used your partners as mere means for achieving your own ends. They're nothing more than objects that you interact with, who they are as persons means nothing to you and have no values to you. So instead of you having the freedom to create alternative values and meanings about the sexual relationship you have with your partners, your nihilist belief just devalues everyone you know, Yourself included.

In fact, based on your belief alone, you probably thought that's why they approached you in the first place. Without yourself knowing just what they thought about you, how much you meant to them, and why. Seeing as how you don't like to be judged.[/quote

I find my nihilist belief comforting, thank you very much. I don't treat my casual sex partners badly, or look down upon them. You sound very bitter, and you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I have no problem with people simply viewing me sexually, I find it a lot easier that way, I'm okay with being alone.