Mr. Schulman is straining credulity to only consider as sexual, those acts which are, or are designed to be, pro-creative. Seems terribly silly to me for someone to try to push that notion. If an action involves the use of ANY sexual organ, it it a sexual act, plain and simple.
Because of this notion, he's twisting the meaning of celibacy. Yes, one definition is someone who remains unmarried, but the definition used by the Church in dealing with priests, or men and women in the committed religious life means not having sexual relations with anyone, whether those relations are pro-creative, or not.
And that is where he lost me as well, Suzi.