[notdonspaulding]

    > "the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality"

You're paraphrasing in a place where it's much more productive to be specific in what the Bible claims.

    > "sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy"

Again, source? I'm not sure I've heard this idea coming from any popular figures. In fact, the impression I get from modern mainstream observations is that spiritual health is a non-concern for most people.

If you didn't intend to make a claim about spiritual health, and instead mean the modern idea that "I should pursue whatever sexual impulses I have", then I would further argue that we haven't walked far enough along the arc of history to see the repercussions of that play out.

    > do you still find the bible compelling?

Certainly. The Bible's position on sexuality is very comprehensive, without being completely descriptive. I'm just as wary of the "modern" (Aristotlean) idea that everything is good in moderation as I am of anyone attempting to limit Christian sexuality to the Victorian ideas represented in the article. The Bible cuts a line between the two that is both more relevant across centuries, and less concerned with creating a monoculture in marital relationships.