Getting laid and enlightened simultaneously is an Anuttarayogatantra speciality, not really my cup of tea. As for Chan, it only says that normal laypeople can do it, that's what Bodhidharma and others said. No wonder they liked to quote the Vimalakirti Sutra so often.
Well, at least according to the scriptures we have that claim Bodhidharma said such things. Keep in mind that it is well possible that Bodhidharma never said any of that and it was later authors who ascribed such statements to him. It was quite common in China to ascribe texts and statements to various famous figures. For example, right now I'm reading the Foxinglun
佛性論 which is ascribed to Vasubandhu and translated by Paramartha. I don't think any scholar actually thinks Vasubandhu wrote the original -- it is neither extant in Sanskrit or any other language nor does it conform to Vasubandhu's thought. If you read the first scroll it is almost entirely a regurgitation of Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā
with some modifications. So, it is highly unlikely that Vasubandhu wrote it even though it is ascribed to him. In fact it was probably Paramartha who penned it.
Basically -- even if we have a scroll stating Bodhidharma said such and such, we need to keep in mind whether or not the Chan lineages even took that document seriously throughout their histories. A lot of the Chan works we have were found in Dunhuang and they were hidden away there from the late Tang until a few decades ago, so they had little to no influence over the course of around 1000 years.
I had a debate with myself on the subject whether Chan can really be a path to enlightenment, within this life, or it is rather Pure Land that is more appropriate. I came to the conclusion that Chan does work, it is a fine path even for a lay man like me. But I'm open for any criticism and advice, especially open for a good debate (just like this here, or more intense). Right now I have no doubts about Chan.
I could see myself seriously devoting myself to Chan provided it was orthodox and none of that revisionist nonsense. I feel, however, I would need a genuine teacher if I was to follow that route. We've discussed this before and I think Chan requires
a teacher. Being in Japan there are plenty of opportunities to pursue Zen, but I don't personally feel terribly attracted to modern forms of Soto or Rinzai. I used to be though.
I'm at the point where I actually want a genuine Dharma teacher to study under. I have a lot of theoretical knowledge (I have a long ways to go still), but I feel I need the friendship and guidance of a master. I know here in Tokyo a number of bhiksu and bhiksuni (some fairly senior), but I don't really sense a teacher-disciple relationship is possible with any of them unfortunately.
I know many people who study the Chan records as literature and they're pretty good at what they do, but literary studies of Chan records (禪學) is quite different from actually engaging in it.
friend told me right now I'm learning the theory and in time the practise will come. She also prognosticates that I will be "a Chinese monk" in the future.
We'll see if that happens...