What about the part that says "in sickness or in health"?
That is part of the contract, sure... so what?
One Stipulation in the contract can not void OTHER stipulations in the contract.
It IMPLIES sexual congress.
It doesn't say, In sickness or health and, in the event of sickness preventing consortium on the part of one partner, the other foregoes all access to sexual congress for life.
If it said that... how many people would would say "I do"?
It says the wfe shall cleave unto her husband. If she can no longer cleave.. then she can no longer keep her promise.
In that event... the contract becomes either null... or open for re-negotiation.
In olden times we had what was called the double standard... which feminists tried to paint as a BAD thing for women...
But in an age before birth control, affluent women gave up on sex if they wanted to live to see their children inherit.
The deal, then was, She would not be made to have more children ... and would turn a blind eye to her husband's discrete philandering... and for HIS part... he would never leave her nor divorce her.
It was an accommodation borne of the recognition that men could not be expected to give up sex...and that women could not be expected to give up security for their children.
seems to me, in modern times... a woman who wants her man to be able to stand by her despite her total inability to be a sexual partner ought to be willing to negotiate something similar.