That pulls the rug out from under almost all the laws about wasting seed.

And in honor of a joyful Elul I will write:

Maybe the prohibition is only when the purpose is the destruction of the seed, like Er and Onan, and not simply for pleasure, which was never prohibited?
And maybe it is even more limited, only in the case of threshing inside and scattering outside with his actual wife, exactly like Er and Onan, while in other cases it was never prohibited?
In any case, the enumerators of the commandments did not include this prohibition,
which would mean that it is probably rabbinic.
And maybe, as with many rabbinic prohibitions, it does not apply
in a situation of suffering / illness / major financial loss, etc.

1. There is no necessity to interpret Rabbi Ila’i as meaning that the person in question has no free choice to withstand the test. It can be explained that if a person has already chosen, of his own free will, to commit a certain transgression, even then he should not completely cast off the yoke, but should refrain from doing it in a way that involves a public desecration of God’s name.

2. As for sources for the idea that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not put a person to a test he cannot withstand, see: https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=22363

3. One should note that the concept of a “test” in the words of the Sages is far broader than the narrow meaning of the difficulty involved in keeping commandments under certain circumstances.

4. And to Eshkol the Buyer: if the enumerators of the commandments did not include it, that may not be because of the status of the law, but because of the rules governing the counting of the commandments. For example, if it is a specific law within a more inclusive commandment.
And as for the narrowing reinterpretations you suggested, they require substantiation; it is not enough just to toss out “maybe… and maybe….”

1. It is not necessary, but that is the straightforward interpretation. And that is also what emerges from the words of the Rif and the Rosh there in Moed Katan, who reject this as Jewish law on the grounds that everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven. And it is not brought by the other halakhic decisors either (the Tur and Shulchan Arukh, and Maimonides).
Your suggestion does not need to be said. If someone ate garlic and his odor reeks, should he eat more garlic?!
2. I did not see any source there. Other than a few pietists who decided that on their own.
4. When people raise suggestions, there is no necessity to substantiate them. If the prohibition is less severe, one can argue that they permitted it under various circumstances. That is how the halakhic decisors have always operated.

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 ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

🙂
I dealt with this in discussions about homosexuality. See, for example, Column 728. In my opinion, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein assumes this without any basis whatsoever, and I leveraged his remarks in a surprising direction.