Am i getting enough?????

lostinrates

bitemebankers wrote: »

It's true, a relationship is about more than sex. However, without sex, it isn't a relationship at all, it's merely a friendship. Sex is pretty damn important.

Sex is important to me, but my husband has saved with me when I was too darn ill to comply, and if something happened to him that curtailed our love life completely I would not end our relationship.

People manage perfectly normal lives without any sex (even if they'd like to have it) and whilst I am a strong advocate of good sex often, its not the most important part of my marriage.

justme111

bylromarha wrote: »

How do you equate having sex 1 time in 7 days to a happy relationship? And sex 1 time in 8 days that 2 people don't fancy each other any more and something must be wrong?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Happy couples who have been together for over 10 years know there is far more to a relationship than sex.

You twist my words. Of course there is more grey area , not all black and white. I think you would agree with me if they have sex twice a year and adamant they fancy each other and there are no practical reasons for it to be this way (
medical , logistic or ptherwise) that something does not add up.

Pauline , thats what I meant , you look at it and you decide it is not an o:rotfl:ption and so you left with none . All too darn familiar to me.

bylromarha

justme111 wrote: »

You twist my words. Of course there is more grey area , not all black and white. I think you would agree with me if they have sex twice a year and adamant they fancy each other and there are no practical reasons for it to be this way (
medical , logistic or ptherwise) that something does not add up.

Was just quoting you. You made it black and white by deeming a couple who have sex less than once a week didn't fancy each other any more.

The grey area is what you deem normal is different to the next couples normal.

I don't agree with you at all; sex twice a year for a couple fully in love who fancy each other a lot means that the couple have a low sex drive. That's all. Nothing wrong with the relationship.

Both are happy and fulfilled in this. Adds up perfectly to me. And them. Just not you it seems.

I guess you'll never find this out for yourself as you will have dumped them after 3 weeks without sex... :rotfl:

bitemebankers

lostinrates wrote: »

People manage perfectly normal lives without any sex (even if they'd like to have it) and whilst I am a strong advocate of good sex often, its not the most important part of my marriage.

Actually, it's legally and (according to some religions) morally an essential part of marriage. A marriage can be annulled, even in the Catholic church, if the couple never have sex. So whilst some people may decide to take their own view on it, you cannot deny that it's a hugely important part of marriage.

Also, it's my personal view that a life without sex is anything but normal. I think it's a denial of what we are, as human beings.

Of course, in any relationship, there are going to be times when one or other is incapable due to illness or whatever - I think most of us have been there - but I see a healthy sex life as the norm and anything else as an exception to that.

cakeforbrains

I notice nobody has mentioned monthly inconsistencies yet. Maybe we're unusual as a couple, but we tend to have much more sex when I am around ovulation (because I am more up for it) than we do a week before my period (because I have PMT). That's the rough trend anyway.

So at one point in the month my husband could legitimately complain to whoever was willing to listen that he hadn't had sex in two weeks, whereas a week later he'd be able to complain that I'd worn him out for four nights in a row.

We're in our mid thirties, three children (ages 2 to 11) and have been together for four years if it's of any interest.

cakeforbrains

bitemebankers wrote: »

Actually, it's legally and (according to some religions) morally an essential part of marriage. A marriage can be annulled, even in the Catholic church, if the couple never have sex. So whilst some people may decide to take their own view on it, you cannot deny that it's a hugely important part of marriage.

Also, it's my personal view that a life without sex is anything but normal. I think it's a denial of what we are, as human beings.

Of course, in any relationship, there are going to be times when one or other is incapable due to illness or whatever - I think most of us have been there - but I see a healthy sex life as the norm and anything else as an exception to that.

Bit in bold - only in heterosexual marriage, I believe.

lostinrates

bitemebankers wrote: »

Actually, it's legally and (according to some religions) morally an essential part of marriage. A marriage can be annulled, even in the Catholic church, if the couple never have sex. So whilst some people may decide to take their own view on it, you cannot deny that it's a hugely important part of marriage.

Also, it's my personal view that a life without sex is anything but normal. I think it's a denial of what we are, as human beings.

Of course, in any relationship, there are going to be times when one or other is incapable due to illness or whatever - I think most of us have been there - but I see a healthy sex life as the norm and anything else as an exception to that.

I don't deny its an important part of marriage, far from it. I do deny its the most important part of mine. As someone who admits that a sex drought that was 'my fault' was stressful I think its clear that sex is important to me, but I still hold its not the most important patrol my marriage, not vital for an otherwise fulfilled life, nor excuse for poor behaviour, for example.

bitemebankers

cakeforbrains wrote: »

Bit in bold - only in heterosexual marriage, I believe.

I stand corrected. I think that says more about the implementation of same-sex marriage legislation that anything else though. The government seemed to be at pains to do whatever they could to make it unequal in some way.

cakeforbrains

bitemebankers wrote: »

I stand corrected. I think that says more about the implementation of same-sex marriage legislation that anything else though. The government seemed to be at pains to do whatever they could to make it unequal in some way.

Well, it stems from the fact that in order to define whether or not a couple have had sex, you first need to define 'sex'. There seems to be a general consensus about this regarding male/female relationships (although it is scholarly debated) whereas homosexual sex has never really been defined. It would be too ambiguous. This is also the reason why homosexual couples cannot divorce on the basis of adultery (or, at least, this was true regarding civil partnership - not sure what the more recent rules for marriage are).

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.

bitemebankers

lostinrates wrote: »

I still hold its not the most important patrol my marriage, not vital for an otherwise fulfilled life, nor excuse for poor behaviour, for example.

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.