Addressing a few apparent misconceptions and concerns from the sex post:
All of this should assume "…given the full agreement and consent and participation of my partner, with whom I have fully discussed all the potential issues, pitfalls, and dangers, and who is still keen." Manipulation, coercion, exploitation, use and abuse are all completely uncool. Look, I'm not a selfish person, I would want what's best for my partner too. Principle of least harm, okay?
This isn't attempting to be a "should I have sex with X?" flowchart, this is just my attempt to think through some of the more glaring moral issues I can see. There are quite obviously whole swathes of things I haven't even considered, and which I would consider in that situation. (Or which I have been considering, but didn't fit easily in the original piece.)
I'm not saying everyone is incomplete without sex – Greg is correct, some people seem to do just fine without. All I'm saying is (in an intentionally vague manner), I feel incomplete without some way to (healthily) express my sexuality. Come on, I thought we were post-moderns? Subjective personal experience is all that matters, right?
There's another whole question in there; that of how we relate to our (supposedly God-given) genetic heritage – the "animal bits." Traditionally, Christianity says "spirit good, flesh bad," but I think that's pretty destructive and (here it is again) gnostic.
Jim raises an interesting point in asking: what should we expect to get out of sex? Is it about me getting my rocks off, or two people sharing a moment, or both, or something else? I set up a physical/spiritual dichotomy, but I really did completely leave out the emotional and mental, both of which need to be considered. These were outside the scope of the piece, but are important questions nonetheless.