If they had such power to remove sexual intimacy from the equation, did they also remove the rather traumatic and painful aspect of birth from the woman as well? Maybe they beamed the baby outside the body so she didn't have to endure labour or pushing. Since a baby has to be born through a sexual organ normally and since some seem to think that the Gurus would never be associated with anything sexually, then do you think the baby was kind of beamed outside the woman's body so she also wouldn't have to sully herself with using her sexual organs to push the baby out? Or did the Mother not matter?
For the record since the Gurus taught that marital relations were not only ok but a natural part of marriage, I do not see how they would then consider it to be a nasty thing when it came to themselves. There is no shame or impurity associated with sexual reproduction. Kaam is not sex. Someone can be affected by kaam for gambling for example. And marital sex in right conditions, done between a committed spouse can also exist without kaam. To suggest that the Gurus would not have any relations with their own wives, suggests that there is something inherently impure or nasty about it. But the Gurus never contradicted themselves did they? So then why would they not advocate asceticism? And we know they did not. Guru Nanak spoke against asceticism as a means to find God. And if they thought sexuality was so nasty for themselves, wouldn't they also relieve their wives of the correspondingly nastiness and impurity of the birth, not to mention the physical trauma and pain?
This sounds off to me. Not to mention against what is written in gurbani about marriage and birth which are both seen as sacred.