An experience that no one can withstand

This throws the ground under almost all seed laws into disuse.

And in honor of the day of Elul, I will write

Maybe the prohibition is only for the purpose of destroying the semen, such as waking up and masturbating, and not simply for pleasure, which is not prohibited?
And maybe it's even more limited to just fucking inside and squirting outside with his wife, just like being awake and masturbating, and in other ways that aren't forbidden?
In any case, the mitzvot commentators did not bring this prohibition.
Which means he's probably a Derbenan.
And maybe like many in Durban, this doesn't apply.
Instead of sorrow/illness/great loss, etc.

1. It is not necessary to interpret that according to Rabbi Ilai, that person does not have a free choice to endure temptation. It can be explained that if a person has already freely chosen to commit a certain sin, even then he should not completely undo the yoke, but he should refrain from doing so in a way that would publicly blaspheme.

2. Regarding sources that God does not put to the test those who cannot withstand it, see: https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=22363

3. It should be noted that the concept of "experience" in the words of Chazal is much broader than the narrow meaning of the difficulty involved in keeping a mitzvot in certain circumstances.

4. And for the group of divergent views, if the mitzvot count did not lead to this, it is possible that it is not because of the status of the law but because of the rules of the mitzvot count. For example, if it is a private law of a more general mitzvah.
Whereas the limiting premises you proposed require substantiation, it is not enough to just blurt out "maybe... and maybe."

1. It is not necessary, but this is the simple interpretation. And this is also evident from the words of the Rif and Rosh in the Mukhtar there, who reject this from the Halacha, claiming that everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the Rif. This is not cited in other poskim (Tosho and Rambam).
Your suggestion is unnecessary. And would someone who has eaten garlic and its smell has gone away eat more garlic?!
2. I didn't see any source there, except for a few Hasidim who decided so.
4. When making suggestions, it is not necessary to substantiate. If the prohibition is lighter, one can argue that it was permitted under different circumstances. This is how the poskim have always acted.

This is probably the source:
Corinthians 10:13
There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which you are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it.

🙂
I have dealt with this in discussions about homosexuality. See, for example, column 728. In my opinion, R.M. Feinstein assumes this without any basis, and I leveraged his words in a surprising direction.