I guess I should have expected the narrow, moralizing, condemning responses to my original post and of course there were several erroneous assumptions. At this point, I don’t expect thoughtful discourse, but I will attempt to respond to one of the initial responders, Newbie2, and then let it be.
1.While medical opinions are not universal, like many other medical issues, there are some medical authorities who believe infrequent sex does have a negative impact on prostate health. Below is just two, but there are others. I had to cut out most of the article because of posting message size.
From Prevention Magazine
Is lack of good sex the cause for the rising rate of prostate cancer?
Recent articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association note an alarming trend in the increasing incidents of prostate cancer. Author Plato Rosinke says young men as well as old are suffering from prostate problems. The cause is simple: not enough quality sex.
Rosinke believes regular prostate orgasms offer the most promise for prostate health. The problem: most times the orgasmic contractions of the prostate gland are not as long or as profound as they could be. Why is this?
The prostate gland is the root of a man’s integrity. A man with a healthy prostate gland stands present in his masculine power, and is a law unto himself. From childhood on through adulthood, modern society systematically strips away our awareness, our choices, and finally our manhood itself. Is it any wonder that prostate problems are occurring in younger and younger men?
What are the health implications for entire generations who have had their connections to their bodies severed by MTV, video games and text messages? How disempowering is it for a man to have had his natural sexual programming overwritten by a tidal wave of internet pornography?
From a reprint of an article in Forbes Magazine:
Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. “Saving yourself” before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There’s no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it’s harmless when practiced in moderation.
In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:
- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. A happier prostate? Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it’s better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male.
2.“The Church does certainly address disparity in sex drive; the solution is a concept called “Chastity” or “Abstanance”.
This is not a solution; it is a policy of ignoring the problem. In other words, if your partner has a problem, the Church says just suck it up. All of the official material I have read, including, the Vatican site, says sex is for pro-creation period. I think that ignores many other positive aspects that married couples enjoy and certainly a vast quantity of psychological evidence to the contrary.
And of course everyone assumed that my comments about my wife gaining weight meant that I was rejecting her without considering that her diminished self -image may be one of the reasons she was shying away from sex. Everyone also ignored her lack of exercise which made her susceptible to various everyday illnesses and less wanting to engage in sex. Through all these years I have encouraged her to eat healthlier and encouraged her to get more exercise. I have never suggested that she was in anyway a less desirable partner or that she was the cause of our diminished sexual communion.
If the current track record of sexual abuse in the United States and Ireland is any indication of the Church’s ability to council individuals with sexual problems, then we would be better off not seeking council from a priest (with no experience to draw from ).
As I expected, I am left to deal with this problem on my own and at this stage of my life, the medical consequences of our problem whatever they be.
…
(go ahead google it. 
) also to go on I don’t take the verse to that extent but it must also be stated that jesus was quite adamant about this as n the next verse he tells you to cut off your arm! but taken as it is the eyes and arms are neccesary to normal function of a human being, the prostate however isn’t!