Am i getting enough?????

lostinrates

justme111 wrote: »

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

Um, and mode...so three.

I agree there is ' an average' but not that we necessary need to be it. Nor that trying to be a fraction or decimal place average to conform is healthy!

bitemebankers

lostinrates wrote: »

No, I am thinking long term too. For example, were my husband to develop an illness or sustain an accident made sex an impossibility then I would not want to leave him.

Mmm. I'm not disputing what you say, but I think for most people, when they're actually faced with that situation, opinions may change. In any case, it would be a very sad situation, as explored in the film Breaking the Waves.

If one person simply 'loses interest' I would want to know why.

Sure - there are all sorts of reasons though and one's partner won't necessarily be forthcoming. Some people just can't resist novelty.

lostinrates

bitemebankers wrote: »

Mmm. I'm not disputing what you say, but I think for most people, when they're actually faced with that situation, opinions may change. In any case, it would be a very sad situation, as explored in the film Breaking the Waves.



Sure - there are all sorts of reasons though and one's partner won't necessarily be forthcoming. Some people just can't resist novelty.

I'm not familiar with the film. I'll google it . I'm pretty confident though. We went into marriage under a bit of a cloud of health and risk, and consider what we have now tremendous bonus, probably sustained through our love and mutual support. (I have what was presumed to be a life limiting illness, and no one seems sure why I just keep on going......I reckon its the good sex and laughter and that I'm very, very stubborn:D) I think its part of the idea of in sickness and in health really.


The issue about forth coming in a difficult situation is really the crux of he matter, because its the centre of the argument. That to me would be the core of the relationship, as much of a sexual being as I feel, I could have sex with anyone, but the forthcoming and communication of a relationship is the core, and while I think sometimes this takes time and space, I do expect it to happen eventually!

neverdespairgirl

justme111 wrote: »

Very much agree. If it happens every day or second day variety will be difficult to keep up and quality would probably suffer too , in our society we plainly do not have time /mood every day for doing it properly.

justme111 wrote: »

I believe it is all politcorrect rubbish about "whatever suits you is fine ". I never seen and can not imagine a happy couple who would have.it twice a year. Something is wrong if it is less than once a week. Because if it is it means either one of them.or both don't fancy each other any more. We have.only one life and.living it with person who dies not fancy you/ you don't fancy is a waste.

Justme, you seem remarkably doctrinaire about sexual frequency! It has to be more than once a fortnight or month, and less than every other day, in order to be "normal" and "good".

I can't imagine, myself, being happy in a relationship having sex once or twice a month, but if both of the couple in that relationship are happy, seems fine to me.

I certainly don't think that people should have some idea that their sex life isn't good enough because they don't have sex X times per week, month or year, or that they should aim for some number of mutual orgasms per month that they don't want.

cakeforbrains wrote: »

While we're on Interesting Facts about Sex and Marriage, did you know that until as recently as 1991 "she's my wife" was a legitimate and legal defence against a charge of rape in the UK, effectively making it legal for a husband to rape his wife. This applied even if the couple were separated. Just a little fun fact there.

Yes, and no. It was in 1991 that the House of Lords over-ruled the old common law idea that "marriage means a woman consents at all times, rape is therefore not possible" idea completely, but it had been chipped away at over the past century, and many cases in which the exception was held not to apply pre-dated the 1991 case by a long time. The 1991 case is R v R [1992] 1 AC 599.

In R v R, the couple had been married for some years, and had separated. The wife had told the husband that she intended to divorce him, and he'd said the same to her. Before that divorce took place, he broke into the house where she was living, and attacked her. He pleaded guilty to attempted rape and sexual assault after the trial judge ruled against his defence of marital consent, and then appealed to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

The marital rape exception was first written about by Matthew Hale in the early 18th century, where he said:

"But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."

The statement was first considered as long ago as 1888, and even then, most of hte judges who heard the case did not accept the idea of a marital exemption from rape in all circumstances.

In the 1940s and 1950s, cases established that it was rape where there was a marriage existing, but judicial separation, and that if a husband did rape his wife, he had a defence to the charge of rape, but not to charges of assault.

There were various cases in the 1970s and 1980s where men tried to rely on the defence that marriage meant rape couldn't take place, and did not succeed (cases in which there were various degrees of separation and intended divorce) and one in the late 1980s, where, bizarrely, a judge found that by obtaining a non-molestation order in the family court a wife had not withdrawn her consent to marital sex, and the husband could use it as a defence. So in the 1970s and 1980s, some men successfully relied on it as a defence, and some failed to.

The House of Lords concluded in R v R by saying:

The remaining and no less difficult question is whether, despite that view, this is an area where the court should step aside to leave the matter to the Parliamentary process. This is not the creation of a new offence, it is the removal of a common law fiction which has become anachronistic and offensive and we consider that it is our duty having reached that conclusion to act upon it.

ilikepinacolada

Ok thanks again for all the advice. To the one that suggested a trip to Anny Summers lovely shop may I ask what I should purchase!?

neverdespairgirl

ilikepinacolada wrote: »

Ok thanks again for all the advice. To the one that suggested a trip to Anny Summers lovely shop may I ask what I should purchase!?

Depends on what you and partner like, I reckon.

Hard to go wrong with sexy underwear of some sort, though.

Pechow

http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/ is also very good, my favourite site for adult things (so obviously beware clicking). Free delivery, easy returns, plain packaging, and usually the lowest prices.

lostinrates

I really think 'what' to buy is a question only you and your partner can answer.

I can say that cheap nylon lace and synthetic statins is an anathema to me, as is cutesy stuff. But to others its absolutely desirable. Its really intensely personal!

GwylimT

Not much at the minute as we have a young baby and if I even look at my wife the wrong way she will probably cut my bits off. Normally though a few times a week apart from when we have had new borns I don't think we have gone more than few days without sex since we started having sex with each other.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

I really think 'what' to buy is a question only you and your partner can answer.

I can say that cheap nylon lace and synthetic statins is an anathema to me, as is cutesy stuff. But to others its absolutely desirable. Its really intensely personal!

Can't stand either cheap nylon lace or synthetic satins myself, but other sexy underwear doesn't seem to do any harm, rather the opposite.

I think lace / satin / skimpy undergarments would look quite odd on OH, though, and might inspire me to laughter rather than desire. OTOH, he looks particularly drop-dead-gorgeous in a linen suit he's got.