I hope what you guys said about sex isn't true, it's the source of life after all. I've always thought it would be a great idea if couples could become totally close and committed without living together (even married), and have sex of course, though raising children would be more difficult. I've read that not seeing each other every day can raise "pleasure chemicals" in the brain, that possibly could offset the damaging effects you describe, which could be caused by cohabiting instead. I've heard of extramarital affairs where the principals stay in love for decades- they have sex of course, they just don't see each other that often!
Or why not just have fewer orgasms instead of giving them up for good?
Your proposal is certainly an option, and a very common one...couples often create such spaces in their relationships in one form or another. There's an assumption in your question that nothing could be better than conventional orgasm, and that it's worth saving at the price of greater and greater distance in your relationship. Many who have had a chance to experience the alternative would not agree with that assumption. For example, have a look at "The Karezza Method," a short book, written 75 years ago by a man who would certainly not agree with you.
As scientists are learning more about how important touch and trusted companionship are for our health, it is becoming clearer that big gaps of distance in our relationships have a high, but hidden cost of their own. The costs can best be seen by experimenting with this other approach. For example, my husband experienced radical improvements in his health: he sleeps soundly, is calmer and more productive, was able to drop a long-term addiction and heal chronic depression (dropping antidepressants). I dropped chronic urinary tract and yeast infections. We learned later that such improvements have been noted by other practitioners of sacred sex (the man wrote "The Karezza Method," John Humphrey Noyes, and the ancient Chinese--who specifically observed that frequent sex without orgasm was more healthful than occasional sex with orgasm, see "The Art of the Bedchamber" by Wile--etc.).
Once we humans really understand how sex could heal if used differently, we might all be willing to at least experiment with the alternative long enough to compare. Only then are we really in a position to make an informed choice, as I see it. No one is willing to give up orgasm unless he finds something better...but only by giving it up for a while...and making love a lot...can he learn what else is possible. Hence my strange mission in life. I am convinced that a lot of hidden emotional/sexual separation, broken relationships, and illness could be avoided with this other approach to sex. Not only that, many find it a delicious way to make love because the magnetism between lovers stays in place pretty much all the time, giving the relationship far more sparkle than the occasional orgasm would supply.
This option is well-hidden behind our primitive brain programming, however, and it's hard to believe in its existence until you experience it for yourself. Meanwhile, most of us continue to act like obedient gene machines, increasing the genetic variety of our offspring by changing partners, or adding lovers on the side, just because of our compulsion to "keep passion alive" at any cost. The price may be higher than we think.
I'm glad you wrote. Feel free to continue the dialogue.