It makes sense, but I disagree with most of it.

First of all, I disagree with the idea that society has made non-sexual intimacy very hard to achieve, specially when it comes to boys. In fact, it's more difficult for me to think of relationships with boys that did not involve a great deal of physical intimacy than it is to think of ones that did. Many kids love to cuddle and society finds it perfectly acceptable, even sweet.

Secondly I disagree that cuddling is a substitute for sex. It is only a substitute for sex in the sense that exercise or chocolate are substitutes for sex; they can be done in place of sex but don't fulfill sexual desires.

As for expecting a boy to commit to a permanent relationship, that is only relevant if you first reach the conclusion that sex is reserved for lifetime partnerships only. If sex is an expression of love available to anyone who is in love without the prerequisite of a lifetime commitment, or if as others would argue, sex is a purely physical activity open to everyone, then whether a boy can commit to a lifetime partnership or not is irrelevant because no one else is expected to make that commitment before enjoying sex either.