For example autor says:
His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.
This is, to my mind, an extreme and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas.
But in AN V 192 Buddha makes distinction between bramins:
And ... what is bramin one who remains within the boundary? ... Why doesn't he couple with a woman out of season? Because his bramin wife does not serve for sensual pleasure, amusement, and sensual delight, but only for procreation. (...)
And ... what is bramin one who has crossed the boundary? ... His bramin wife serves for sensual plasure, amusement, and sensual delight, as well for procreation.
Do not mention Sutta AN VII, 22 : Ananda,
(translation: Bhikkhu Bodhi)as long the Vajjis do not decree anything that has not been decreed or abolish anything that has already been decreed but undertake and follow the ancient Vajji principles as they have been decreed, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.
What is even more strange, commentaries under Ven Sujato article are for the most part positive.