I can only invite you to contemplate the Truth. You must accept it or not by yourself. The one sure thing we know is that if I mention some Scripture or such, that someone else will attach a different interpretation to it.
Nor is it about sex, per se, but about what even the RCC champions, procreation or having a family. Something not feasible without sex. Especially in the days prior to artificial insemination and so forth. A man and woman were, essentially, directed to have a large family by the need, in most cases, to have hands to help with family work. Did not even Jesus follow in his (f)ather's footsteps of becoming a carpenter? In those days, as in many that followed, a large family was a NECESSITY.
And families, in those days were often larger than the "nuclear" family of today. The theory is that Joseph already had a family. That he married Mary late in life, to provide protection for her and the Savior. Joseph had many sons and daughters that were step-siblings to Jesus.
So the idea that a large family was needed doesn't fly here. There already is a large family.
So kindly leave off the "wanna have sex with Mary" bs.
Every Protestant I have met seems eager. They can't understand why her womb would be considered holy. Like you...
A woman's womb is not, that I ever heard, a "holy place."
Why don't you contemplate it for a while. Since you have "never heard" of such a thing, isn't it good to consider it? Wasn't God living there? If the Ark of the Covenant was holy and caused great harm to those who even touched it, why should Mary's "Ark" be any different.
You do believe that Jesus was God, right? Isn't a dwelling place of the Lord holy?
SD