Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[Marianne]

She really needs to edit her blog to delete all the time where she describes his sexual partner and future father as a children. There's something wrong when you have children with someone you see as a children.

Second, I've a question about american law. Here, you can't post picture of someone on the internet without his consent. Parents give the consent for the children. What about Cale ? Is he considered as responsible for giving his autorization to post personnal info and picture on the internet ?

[nelliebelle1197]

Well, I could also make the joke about wives sleeping with the gardener, the handyman, the TV repairman (since my DH can't be the only one who has taken a TV apart and fixed it), etc.

My point is basically that we all do things for our spouses that could also be professional services (cleaning, cooking, childcare, gardening, whatever). But a wife who cleans isn't a maid -- it's okay to kiss one's wife, but not the maid.

A wife who gives care to her ill husband isn't the same as a nurse or court appointed person -- and her motives for giving that care are very different. To me, the fact that Caleb chose her for his wife before his injury shows that his intent while he was fully "with it," for lack of a better phrase, was to be with her forever. That's a bit different from a patient who is preyed upon by an unethical nurse.

No, because the crux of the medical-ethical issue lies with power differential. Kathleen has all the power. Why would it be any more ethical for her to make choices than a nurse? A wedding vow that happened before the injury? Is Cale the same person now? These are huge ethical issues that cannot be broken down easily and aren't black and white the way some posters have argued. This man has no agency, no choice. Is a wedding vow from another lifetime carte Blanche for Kathleen to make the choices that best benefit her over Cale? In a practical sense this baby is good for Kathleen. How is it good for Cale? It will divide the only caregiver he has known in his new reality and it will upset his entire universe.

[latraviata]

No, because the crux of the medical-ethical issue lies with power differential. Kathleen has all the power. Why would it be any more ethical for her to make choices than a nurse? A wedding vow that happened before the injury? Is Cale the same person now? These are huge ethical issues that cannot be broken down easily and aren't black and white the way some posters have argued. This man has no agency, no choice. Is a wedding vow from another lifetime carte Blanche for Kathleen to make the choices that best benefit her over Cale? In a practical sense this baby is good for Kathleen. How is it good for Cale? It will divide the only caregiver he has known in his new reality and it will upset his entire universe./quote]

And, how is it good for the baby?

[thekate]

There's an imbalance when you have someone with an adult ability to reason, and someone who is mentally a child. Two 14-year-olds having sex isn't a crime. Someone who is 30 having sex with a 14-year-old IS. Children can't consent to sex with adults. They aren't on the same level. One has a bit of authority over the other.

Cale is mentally a child. If Cale was a woman with the mental abilities of a very young child, do you think it would be right for a neurotypical adult man to have sex with her if he knew how to get her aroused? How would you feel if you knew that sometimes dubious consent is obtained because the disabled adult feels implicit trust for someone, and so is consenting because they think they should?

I already addressed some of this in a later comment, but I've agreed the article is not a perfect fit. It just raises some questions about quality of life for Cale.

It's a tricky situation, and the power differential is an issue but not one in my mind that automatically precludes sex. The marriage obviously does not give blanket consent to all future sexual encounters, and I did not mean to imply that,just that it could shed some light into what Cale wants.

Do you think Cale should find a new sexual partner closer to his mental level? Or do you think he should be celibate for the rest of his life? Those are the other two options in the scenario provided.

Consent to parenthood is a separate issue and one that makes me much more uncomfortable in their particular situation. It does make me question her judgement and whether he were coerced, which is why I specified in my original comment that he could have the ability to consent, not that he did consent.

[louisa05]

She really needs to edit her blog to delete all the time where she describes his sexual partner and future father as a children. There's something wrong when you have children with someone you see as a children.

Second, I've a question about american law. Here, you can't post picture of someone on the internet without his consent. Parents give the consent for the children. What about Cale ? Is he considered as responsible for giving his autorization to post personnal info and picture on the internet ?

There are really no legalities about posting pictures here. The only issue is if you don't have legal copyright to a photo but even that is not an issue most of the time. Schools and other institutions that work with children ask parents for a release, and, once in awhile, parents do not sign one and care is taken not to include their children in posts. But everyone can tell you that friends and relatives freely post your picture and your kids' pictures on social media whether you like it or not. Some people don't like it and ask that they be removed or not posted. Decent people try to respect that.

[theologygeek]

That is an apples and oranges comparison.

For one thing the planned marriage is illegal, so just on that basis alone, within the girls own social norms, her sexual relationship with a 45 year led man should not be permitted ( although, of course, people break the law all the time. The marriage between Cale and Kathleen was entered into legally.

It's as illegal as jaywalking is in the US. Not a big deal, not enforced.

An I.Q. Test is not required or administered before a couple has sex for the first time....although that would make for an interesting themed nightclub.

This isn't about sleeping with someone from a nightclub who's not that bright. There are laws to protect the disabled, and if a person is not mentally able to give consent, it's rape.

A girl with an eleven year old body is more likely to suffer disabling injuries or die in childbirth than a fully grown young woman. Ethically, it is a significant enough risk that it should give her family and future husband second thoughts, even if the girl dies not fully comprehend the risks.

I was comparing the girl to Cale, not comparing her to another girl. She willingly went into the marriage, and was even excited about it. He willingly went into sex and fatherhood. The girl is more intellectually advanced than Cale is, so the difference is what?

[theologygeek]

And, how is it good for the baby?

Exactly. This child is going to have all kinds of issues. Her mother is whacked. Not only is she whacked, but she's an abuser. Throwing water in the face of a mentally challenged person is abuse. A nurse could get fired for that. How does Kathleen get a pass? Because she's stressed? I don't care how stressed a person is. Abusing the disabled is horrid.

[theologygeek]

This is interesting. Does it sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abu ... sabilities

[latraviata]

Exactly. This child is going to have all kinds of issues. Her mother is whacked. Not only is she whacked, but she's an abuser. Throwing water in the face of a mentally challenged person is abuse. A nurse could get fired for that. How does Kathleen get a pass? Because she's stressed? I don't care how stressed a person is. Abusing the disabled is horrid.

And all shared with the world on her blog, how is that going to be for her child??

[Mama Mia]

I'm not sure I see what you are seeing.

Others have pointed out the discussion is specific to an acquired cognitive impairment, not a blanket statement on disability. I read most of the views in that vein in fact even more specifically to that of this couple in particular. I may not agree with all sentiments expressed but I certainly do not see what you appear to.

I think all of these situations are unique. I also think everybody has breaking points regarding consent when discussing sexual relations. Example being and I am not sure if this exists in all countries but 'Capacity.' When an individual is deemed to lack capacity then another is called to do that for them.

Recently the issue of dementia and sexual relations came up at a meeting I was at. I have very strong feelings regarding this (not sex particularly.) In looking at a persons rights and desires sometimes we get too caught up in the recent 'best practice' the 'right of the individual' the 'recent studies.'

I always tell students I have, look at the persons history, speak to their family, don't get caught up with the 'guidelines.'

If I am sitting in a nursing home in 40 years swearing my head off and hitting people I do not want that. I don't want my 'rights' to expression when and if I suffer from dementia or an acquired injury say, to override the person I was. I would be quite happy in that case to be given medication (no, not some liquid cosh, just enough to allow me my dignity AND social interaction.) I do NOT want to be allowed to express my sexuality when it is not reflective of what I would or would not have done prior to my disability.

This I think is the route of the issue for this couple. Not that the chap does not have a right to express his sexual desires, not that he is unable or able to parent a child. The issue is does he have the capacity to decide if it is in his own best interests.

Considering I doubt he has the capacity to decide wether he has a yearly influenza injection (and I mean this as a basic example of capacity regarding reasoning) then it possibly shows the complexity of the issues being discussed here.

I understand what you are saying regarding negative behaviors and dementia or other mind altering conditions/ injuries/medications. I'm actually going through this with a family member right now, and it is very, very difficult, and unfortunately there isn't some magic medication that will get the person to where they can still interact socially- but in an appropriate way. Really wish there was! I don't think people should be encouraged to just run around being violent because they have a disability.

But what you are describing are negative behaviors and/ or behaviors that are out of character for the person. Presumably he was having sex with his wife before the injury. Presumably it isn't violent sex inflicted upon their friends and neighbors. So what I am not seeing is why the assumption would be that sex itself is somehow negative and something he can be " allowed" only if he jumps through some hoops?

I think people here are looking at the same behavior from two different viewpoints.

One is that engaging in sexual activity is bad/unhealthy/dangerous for society unless proven otherwise, the other is that unless a behavior is proven to be bad/unhealthy/dangerous for society the person should be able to engage in it.

In that otherwise horribly written Wikipedia article, I did learn that in my state the criteria for consent to sexual activity for cognitively impaired individuals is a simple understanding of what sex is, other states and countries have other standards.

[Mama Mia]

It's as illegal as jaywalking is in the US. Not a big deal, not enforced.

This isn't about sleeping with someone from a nightclub who's not that bright. There are laws to protect the disabled, and if a person is not mentally able to give consent, it's rape.

I was comparing the girl to Cale, not comparing her to another girl. She willingly went into the marriage, and was even excited about it. He willingly went into sex and fatherhood. The girl is more intellectually advanced than Cale is, so the difference is what?

So what exactly would you have Cale and Kathleen do? Should big brother come in and tell them they are no longer allowed to have a sexual relationship? Do you have any suggestions for him regarding a sexual partner once you make the person he loves off-limits? Are you going to find that sexual partner for him? Or just tell him he's not allowed to have sex ever again? How is any of that not horribly disrespectful and insulting?

[nolongerIFBx]

I'm not an atheist, nor am I pro-abortion. I am rather fond of the gays, tho.

Sarah- thanks for reading! I'm actually a conservative Christian; I attend an independent fundamental baptist church (though not the extremist kind). I am pro-life and donate at a pregnancy crisis center with my time and my money. Not sure what you mean by pro-homosexual. They are people just like you and me; I am pro-people. There are all different types of people who post and read here- you are an example! We're not all the same. Just read some of our ongoing arguments!

[Clementine]

I wonder if Cale after his injury has been exposed to something that upsets or annoys him for a longer time. The impression that I get from the blog is that Kathleen's whole world revolves around Cale, and rightfully so since she is his caregiver. When something upsets him, he has a history of throwing fits and getting physical and Kathleen has written that there have been situations when she hasn't been able to contain him on her own.

I guess that her coping strategy so far to avoid his explosions has been to remove whatever upsets Cale or remove Cale from the situation that upsets him.

With a baby in the house, Cale will no longer be number one and that will be a new situation for him. I don't know how much he will understand when he will be told to wait because the baby needs Kathleen or how he will react. He seems rather driven by impulse, with very little patience.

From what I have read, it's not even sure that Cale will understand that he has a baby, but will have to have it explained to him, possibly several times a day.

Screaming babies who can't be calmed and need constant care and attention is a strain on everybody. How will Cale cope with a baby that wakes him up several times every night for the next year or so, or a baby that screams for hours? He hated the dog that Kathleen bought so she had to give it away.

I he gets annoyed with the baby, what is Kathleen's coping plan? Will she remove the baby or Cale from the situation? Does she have a safe room where she can lock herself and the baby up if Cale throws a fit and she can't contain him?

I obviously don't know the whole situation since I am just a blog reader, but there are a number of things that I wonder about. I hope that Kathleen has thought about them and has a plan for everything.

[Three and Done]

(I have not read any of the blog in question, I am basing my thoughts/opinion on the information that has been presented here and personal experience.)

I have several relatives that do not function at an adult level - one due to intellectual disabilities (R1) and one due to a TBI at a very young age (R2). Neither relative has ever been able to live independently.

R1 is a male who is now in his 60's, and he has great difficulty dealing with even the least of frustrations. For example, he has thrown three cell phones in the garbage after becoming angry or frustrated during conversations with family members. He has also thrown his glasses (which he needs to see properly) in the garbage after some incident occurred that we are not 100% clear on.

R1 has indeed had girlfriends, and although my family has been quite uncomfortable at times with his public conduct involving said girlfriends (there have been some inappropriate actions in full view!), we have not and would not attempt to deny him his sexuality.

That being said, having a CHILD is a completely different issue. Does R1 like children? Yes, at times. At other times he becomes overwhelmed and either lashes out or has severe, incapacitating anxiety attacks that have lead to hospitalization (and yes, he does take medication regularly).

If a person is so profoundly affected by either disability or injury that they cannot control their impulses or become incapacitated in reaction to typical infant/child behaviors or everyday frustrations, how is there even a QUESTION of whether that person should become a parent?

[lipstickgoalie]

So what exactly would you have Cale and Kathleen do? Should big brother come in and tell them they are no longer allowed to have a sexual relationship? Do you have any suggestions for him regarding a sexual partner once you make the person he loves off-limits? Are you going to find that sexual partner for him? Or just tell him he's not allowed to have sex ever again? How is any of that not horribly disrespectful and insulting?

I think Kathleen, for lack of a better term, engineered a sex drive in Cale. After the accident Cale wasn't interested in sex and didn't like the idea of it. adarlingkindoflife.com/2011/08/20-randoms.html

It was Kathleen who sought out advice, therapy, went to seminars and other things in order to have the baby she wanted. Heck as late as 3 years ago Cale was saying he couldn't be a father because "he was hurt". adarlingkindoflife.com/2011/08/friend-fun.html . I don't think that the sex was Cale expressing his desire for his wife or even fulfilling a physical need for himself, I really and truly think it is one more task that he performs like brushing his teeth or taking a shower.

[Mama Mia]

Lipstick goalie,Not to be argumentative, but I didn't read anything about sex in the blog post you gave. Did you mean to link a different one?

[Palimpsest]

I wonder if Cale after his injury has been exposed to something that upsets or annoys him for a longer time. The impression that I get from the blog is that Kathleen's whole world revolves around Cale, and rightfully so since she is his caregiver. When something upsets him, he has a history of throwing fits and getting physical and Kathleen has written that there have been situations when she hasn't been able to contain him on her own.

I guess that her coping strategy so far to avoid his explosions has been to remove whatever upsets Cale or remove Cale from the situation that upsets him.

With a baby in the house, Cale will no longer be number one and that will be a new situation for him. I don't know how much he will understand when he will be told to wait because the baby needs Kathleen or how he will react. He seems rather driven by impulse, with very little patience.

From what I have read, it's not even sure that Cale will understand that he has a baby, but will have to have it explained to him, possibly several times a day.

Screaming babies who can't be calmed and need constant care and attention is a strain on everybody. How will Cale cope with a baby that wakes him up several times every night for the next year or so, or a baby that screams for hours? He hated the dog that Kathleen bought so she had to give it away.

I he gets annoyed with the baby, what is Kathleen's coping plan? Will she remove the baby or Cale from the situation? Does she have a safe room where she can lock herself and the baby up if Cale throws a fit and she can't contain him?

I obviously don't know the whole situation since I am just a blog reader, but there are a number of things that I wonder about. I hope that Kathleen has thought about them and has a plan for everything.

To the bolded, exactly! As far as both Cale and the baby are concerned, safety planning, contingency planning and outside support for the whole family are the crux of the matter. I hope Kathleen has enough support from her family and community, as well as from Cale's existing medical and rehab team.

This thread has really run the gamut, hasn't it? One assumption running through it is that "Capacity to Consent" is something written in stone that can be judged from afar. It can't. Some people here seem to want it to be a black and white decision and don't understand that competency is a very fluid issue. To repeat, a person can make competent decisions in some areas and not in others. A person can be competent to make decisions at one point in time and not at others. It can vary from day to day or even by time of day. The goal is to maximize the decision-making -- not to take rights to self-determination away from an injured/disabled person.

Another assumption is that this situation is happening in a vacuum. It isn't. Cale has a whole medical team on his side, and resuming sexual activity after TBI is addressed with patients and spouses by that medical team as a matter of protocol. Again, TBI is not a static condition and pointing to a post from 2011 that he was not interested in sex, is relevant only to that point in time.

I'd hope and am reasonably confident that Cale's capacity to consent is assessed on a regular basis. Consensual sex can be therapeutic. To jump straight to "he is being raped" or "Kathleen is engineering his interest in sex" without first hand knowledge of his actual function is judgemental and ableist. And doesn't show much respect for his doctors or social workers either!

There are definitely ethical issues in this situation, and the decision to have a baby brings them to the forefront. I'm certainly not saying that I think that the decision to have a baby was necessarily wise, but people have babies all the time in less than ideal circumstances. Having a baby may (certainly will) be very stressful and I hope they can cope. Kathleen has taken on a huge task and I hope she knows what she is doing.

From a protection of a Vulnerable Adult perspective, an assessment/investigation would focus on whether Cale is being actually harmed by his caregiver, and is he in imminent danger of serious injury? Sexual activity, if Cale enjoys it, isn't harmful. He may enjoy being a father, even though he has limited ability to parent. A stressed caregiver throwing a glass of water on someone may not be optimal behavior but it does not constitute serious abuse. You would need to investigate the whole situation thoroughly, talk to people involved in his care and most importantly interview Cale himself (yes, he can certainly be interviewed and his perspective counts most!) to make any kind of determination.

Finally, I have to get this off my chest - I forget who said this above but they know who they are: Most people no longer use the term Mentally Retarded because it is highly perjorative, at least in the US. Furthermore, neither Acquired nor Traumatic Brain Injury are the same as Developmental Disability so it is dismissive and oversimplistic to lump them all together - especially when assessing decision-making ability in previously autonomous now impaired adults.

[lipstickgoalie]

Lipstick goalie,Not to be argumentative, but I didn't read anything about sex in the blog post you gave. Did you mean to link a different one?

Sorry for brevity. Typing on phone here. It was kind of subtle but it was 13 on her list. I can address it further in a bit when I get to my iPad. It just struck me that he wasn't interested in sex in even a general way. Of course it could also be a nike situation.

13) When we’ve been going to Cale’s doctor’s appointments lately we start out with each of us reading a magazine. Cale flips through and looks at all the pictures and when he’s done, we play cards. Whenever he sees a woman with a low cut shirt or a swim suit on, he covers his eyes and flips the page. :)

[PurpleSheepleEater]

I think Kathleen, for lack of a better term, engineered a sex drive in Cale. After the accident Cale wasn't interested in sex and didn't like the idea of it. adarlingkindoflife.com/2011/08/20-randoms.html

It was Kathleen who sought out advice, therapy, went to seminars and other things in order to have the baby she wanted. Heck as late as 3 years ago Cale was saying he couldn't be a father because "he was hurt". adarlingkindoflife.com/2011/08/friend-fun.html . I don't think that the sex was Cale expressing his desire for his wife or even fulfilling a physical need for himself, I really and truly think it is one more task that he performs like brushing his teeth or taking a shower.

This is the crux of it for me. If they were ever going to have sex again it should have been when it naturally occurred to him that he has desires and he expressed interest or initiative. That would show that he was cognitive of his desires and that he was consenting. I'm sorry, but this really reads like coercion. And I find that gross. That the coercion went to the point of producing a baby is just wrong IMO.

[twinmama]

So what I am wondering right now is, if they are having sex, having a child together, clearly there are doctors that are mandated reporters (is that only for children or for any abuse they suspect?) that know they are having a sexual relationship. If he was truly unable to consent and it was rape, wouldn't all the doctors they deal with have reported it?

[Ave Maria]

No, because the crux of the medical-ethical issue lies with power differential. Kathleen has all the power. Why would it be any more ethical for her to make choices than a nurse? A wedding vow that happened before the injury? Is Cale the same person now? These are huge ethical issues that cannot be broken down easily and aren't black and white the way some posters have argued. This man has no agency, no choice. Is a wedding vow from another lifetime carte Blanche for Kathleen to make the choices that best benefit her over Cale? In a practical sense this baby is good for Kathleen. How is it good for Cale? It will divide the only caregiver he has known in his new reality and it will upset his entire universe.

Yet even the "power differential," which, I will admit, isn't something I've heard of/explored before in this context, is different because of the fact that they are married. A nurse kissing a patient would be a problem. A nurse whose husband is in the same hospital where she works coming in on her lunch break to spend time with him and give him a kiss isn't a problem.

I look at saying someone is or isn't "the same person" as an idiom rather than a moral/theological/spiritual/legal reality. She is still his wife -- they aren't de facto divorced because of the accident.

Just for full disclosure, we are a no sex before marriage, no contraception family. Unlike Protestant quiverfull families, though, we and our Church have nothing against abstinence, even in marriage. If Cale were my husband, I would not be having marital relations with him. Part of that, I'll admit, is that I'm not all that into sex myself, because of a medical condition that makes it painful. So it's hard for me to imagine what it would be like for Kathleen -- because I could so easily shrug it off forever.

For those who suggest that it would be okay for Cale to sleep with another disabled person but not with his wife, I want to remind them that this is something Cale wouldn't have believed in when he had full use of his faculties. That would be a very hurtful thing for his wife to have to witness.

[Palimpsest]

Sorry for brevity. Typing on phone here. It was kind of subtle but it was 13 on her list. I can address it further in a bit when I get to my iPad. It just struck me that he wasn't interested in sex in even a general way. Of course it could also be a nike situation.

13) When we’ve been going to Cale’s doctor’s appointments lately we start out with each of us reading a magazine. Cale flips through and looks at all the pictures and when he’s done, we play cards. Whenever he sees a woman with a low cut shirt or a swim suit on, he covers his eyes and flips the page. :)

OK, I'm still saying that there is no way I can, or will, make judgements or assumptions about this situation from cherry-picking Kathleen's blog posts.

All the bolded tells me is that in October 2011 he doesn't want to look at magazine pictures of scantily clad women in the doctor's reception area. And they are Fundie-lite, of course. It doesn't tell me anything at all about his enjoyment of sex or his libido.

On the other hand, in this post: adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/03/farewell-and-new-beginnings.html

Kathleen discusses his improvement in various areas, the limitatopns that are still there, safety planning around his anger issues including calling the police (I was relieved to see that!) and adds right at the end:

Just a funny to leave you with...

On the checklist for Cale, one of the tasks that he needs to complete each day is 30 minutes of exercise. On 7E he had the bike to ride but while we've been in VA we haven't worried about making it a priority. Yesterday when I realized we haven't taken time for him to do any kind of exercise he asked, "Does sex count as 30 minutes of exercise?"

What do you make of that? That he hates sex as much as he hates exercise? Or perhaps that he'd much rather have sex than exercise by riding a bike? :)

[polecat]

Yet even the "power differential," which, I will admit, isn't something I've heard of/explored before in this context, is different because of the fact that they are married. A nurse kissing a patient would be a problem. A nurse whose husband is in the same hospital where she works coming in on her lunch break to spend time with him and give him a kiss isn't a problem.

I look at saying someone is or isn't "the same person" as an idiom rather than a moral/theological/spiritual/legal reality. She is still his wife -- they aren't de facto divorced because of the accident.

Just for full disclosure, we are a no sex before marriage, no contraception family. Unlike Protestant quiverfull families, though, we and our Church have nothing against abstinence, even in marriage. If Cale were my husband, I would not be having marital relations with him. Part of that, I'll admit, is that I'm not all that into sex myself, because of a medical condition that makes it painful. So it's hard for me to imagine what it would be like for Kathleen -- because I could so easily shrug it off forever.

For those who suggest that it would be okay for Cale to sleep with another disabled person but not with his wife, I want to remind them that this is something Cale wouldn't have believed in when he had full use of his faculties. That would be a very hurtful thing for his wife to have to witness.

Who exactly has said or even implied that they -- either of them -- should resort to infidelity?

I agree with the poster who said this looks like coercion. Whether it is or not, I don't know, and as someone else said, I'd assume that the doctors, therapist and other mandated reporters who must be involved with this must have a reasonably good handle on what's going on.

[Palimpsest]

So what I am wondering right now is, if they are having sex, having a child together, clearly there are doctors that are mandated reporters (is that only for children or for any abuse they suspect?) that know they are having a sexual relationship. If he was truly unable to consent and it was rape, wouldn't all the doctors they deal with have reported it?

It is not just for children. By Federal law Abuse of Vulnerable Adults is a Reportable Condition and all states must have a Protective Services Program in place. State Laws vary as to how it is operationalized -- some states separate out Elders and younger Vulnerable Adults into different programs -- and there are some differences in which professions are mandated to report. AFAIK, doctors are mandated reporters in all states. Worth knowing -- in some states everyone and his dog are mandated to report if they suspect abuse of children or vulnerable adults regardless of profession.

*If* Cale's doctors or other medical caregivers thought he was/is being raped they should report it.

[Mama Mia]

Sorry for brevity. Typing on phone here. It was kind of subtle but it was 13 on her list. I can address it further in a bit when I get to my iPad. It just struck me that he wasn't interested in sex in even a general way. Of course it could also be a nike situation.

13) When we’ve been going to Cale’s doctor’s appointments lately we start out with each of us reading a magazine. Cale flips through and looks at all the pictures and when he’s done, we play cards. Whenever he sees a woman with a low cut shirt or a swim suit on, he covers his eyes and flips the page. :)

I don't see how his not wanting to look at pictures of other women in sexually stimulating situations is at all the same thing as not desiring his wife sexually. If anything, that sentence gives an indication that he is still a sexual person. He may have not wanted to look at those pictures because of his personal beliefs ( like the Duggar's) , or because he did not want to have a noticeable reaction in a public setting. I would imagine that might be one of many things he needed to learn how to control again. Much like an adolescent boy.