Contemprary culture lies to us. It tells us that if we’re chaste, if we’re continent, if we’re sexually pure, then we’re being falso to our sexuality. We’re repressing ourselves. We’re turning ourselves into neuters.
That’s not true. It’s not ever remotely true. It’s the opposite of true. Consider Theresa of Calcutta. Was she less a woman because she didn’t have sexual intercourse? Did she strike you as a neuter — as somebody without a strong character or flavor of her own? Did she give the impression of feeling deprived …?
Chastity didn’t neuter her. It intensified everything about her including her femininity, her womanliness.
How could that be? How could chastity intensify her?
Here’s the answer. Sexual intercourse, of course, is what sexual beings do to procreate. But sexual intercourse is not the meaning of sexual polarity itself. It’s not the meaning of being masculine or feminine.
J. Budziszewski, The Meaning of the Sexual Powers (beginning at the 50:00 mark)