The article that Ben posted is interesting reading. It struck me that the subject had a complex or confused relationship with relationship and intimacy. She wasn't celibate by choice, it seems to me, but celibate due to confusion over the role of sex in her life. She ceased sex only later to resume it, without a concrete sense of why sex ebbed and flowed in her life. I wish her only wellbeing, but she seems not the poster case for mindful celibacy.
Sex is a wonderful thing in the context of metta, love and intimacy. Yet, as I understand from the Dhamma, it is a sense fetter that takes us off the path, like many of the other sense fetters. To have sex in a meaningful way, involves a relationship, with all of its euphoria and inevitable vicissitudes. To really go deeper into the practice, it seems to me, requires this renunciation of the sense pleasures. Food becomes that of sustenance, not a Food Network celebration. Relationships become more geared toward kalyana mitta. Sex is renounced as (in one sense) it tends to obstruct the ability to experience jhana; the experience of jhana is subjugated in favor of the mundane impermanent body sense pleasures. Just not focusing on the next sexual conquest or act might benefit the directed focus of the Dhamma practice.
Being celibate is tough going, but it seems to me easier once the other sense pleasures take second place in one's life, and there is some sense of meaningful, cohesive dedication to the path. I'd be a hypocrite if I advocated that most people on the path be celibate, as there are so many kalyana mitta path who have relationships and partners. Yet, the renunciate path seems best equipped to allow for the uncomplicated, uninhibited, unrestricted and unfettered practice of the Dhamma, and it seems to me that Buddha had it right when he articulated the varied renunciate practices for the monks.
My two baht.