Am i getting enough?????

bylromarha

justme111 wrote: »

Bylromarhs , I do not equate those. It was a comparation , a grotesque comparation . I know sex is not that vitaly necessary as air , it is one of the body characteristics though as breathing is. I did not say I know everybody's love.life either , I said out of those that I came actoss meaning by.it out of those that.I knoe.

What you said was:

justme111 wrote: »

So although theoretically people mot keen to engage in sexual activities however kuch they fancy each.other may exist I , as someone who seen various cases of low next.to nothing sex life being a sign of unhappy marriage and have not ever come across wonderous asexual but fancying each other that you mention will rest my case.

Because you *THINK* you know you "have not ever come across wonderous asexual but fancying each other" relationship you "rest your case". However, there is no way you can state this with confidence as you do not know the intimate details of every happy relationship around you.

justme111 wrote: »

Listen , I do accept people may.chose to stay in a sexless marriage for all toes of reasons , what I disagree is with them classing it as a variatiin of norm arguing that "we are all dufferent". Another comparation - if one lived without daylight for some reason one would have survived . I would not class it as optimal and desirable though.

Another poor comparison - because your sex drive is higher than anothers, what gives you the right to say theirs is not optimal or desirable? It is optimal, desirable and the norm for that couple. There is no norm for regularity of sex in a happy relationship - and nor will there ever be.

bylromarha

lostinrates wrote: »

Your marriage sounds delightfully happy!

I'd say they express love in a similar way! And delightfully happy.

As is ours, who have been married 14 years, live in the same house every day, and have sex less than them!!!! But have sex in the right amount for us.

cakeforbrains

justme111 wrote: »

Unconvinced . Self classifying is not a particularly reliable thing . If they do then explanation is "I have.sex once a year because of dome random thing hitting me , I am asexual and would rather go with none " rather than "people are all different , it is normal for me".

Almost all sociological and psychological study of sexuality relies on 'self classifying'. How could it not?

lostinrates

bylromarha wrote: »

I'd say they express love in a similar way! And delightfully happy.

As is ours, who have been married 14 years, live in the same house every day, and have sex less than them!!!! But have sex in the right amount for us.

Yes, it was particularly the way sex was scribed as expressing love as well as the libidinous itch that I liked. It resonated and made me smile, as every,thing good relationship sex should be.

Not just frequency and urge

justme111

When I said "come across" I meant "aware of". How else can I.explain.it - there are couples I got Jo.idea about their.sex life. Out of those i known how things are /were there were many where it was rare and couples were not great. There were none where it would be rare and a couple great..
Ok , you think there is no norm , i think if the things are way out of average it is a signal not everything is good - unless those involved are asexual as I been enlightened. I accept comparations can be poor , it is up to one to decide how well analogy destined it and mine probably were not the best.
We can agree to disagree.

bylromarha

justme111 wrote: »

Ok , you think there is no norm , i think if the things are way out of average it is a signal not everything is good - unless those involved are asexual as I been enlightened. I accept comparations can be poor , it is up to one to decide how well analogy destined it and mine probably were not the best.
We can agree to disagree.

But you don't seem to accept that there is no average! So there can't be a "way out of average".

I heard this question of "what's normal?" asked many moons ago in a marriage talk. The answer from the wise old lass was "There is no normal - but try to have more sex than you're currently having as it can only build you closer."

lostinrates

bylromarha wrote: »

But you don't seem to accept that there is no average! So there can't be a "way out of average".

I heard this question of "what's normal?" asked many moons ago in a marriage talk. The answer from the wise old lass was "There is no normal - but try to have more sex than you're currently having as it can only build you closer."

Or give you cystitis :rotfl:

bylromarha

lostinrates wrote: »

Or give you cystitis :rotfl:

We do marriage prep with engaged couples and always give them a pack of Boots cystitis relief for their honeymoon

Torry_Quine

bitemebankers wrote: »

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Suffice to say, it's vital for me to have a fulfilled life and I think lack of sex is reasonable grounds for divorce/annulment.

And, to re-iterate, I'm not talking about a temporary "drought", due to one partner being incapacitated etc. But if one partner simply loses interest, I don't think there can be any moral compulsion on the other party to stay in the relationship.

I personally think that it's very shallow to suggest that if you aren't getting sex then divorce is the logical step. :eek:

justme111

There is average. Thew are even two if them , mean and median.