We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The studies like this, of course, are more correlation than causation, but, in my experience, red-blooded men require more than three. The healthier fellows will be more vigorous and horny, so they will have more of these things. Strong young men in energetic relationships seem to need 2-3 per day.
But what about women? How many orgasms per week correlate with health and well-being?
In talking with my married male friends and acquaintances over the decades, there seems to exist a lack of awareness between the sexes.
Simply put, husbands are helplessly driven by hormones to have sex most every day.
After having children, however, their wives seem to be driven by hormones to minimize sex with them.
Their wives don't seem to understand the plight of their mates, who become frustrated and resentful—and occasionally seek extramarital remedy.
2 to 3 per day. I vaguely remember those days, lasted from puberty to about 21. Not that I had the opportunity of course, except for the rare occasion, just the desire, growing up in a different age an all.
Though really, I'd say self selected bias, or desire, on the part of the observer in this case.
As well, "these things", connotes a deep seated disconnect between observation and reality.
As for the topic, women's needs, that's as variable as the weather. Just more confusing and unpredictable.
The subject is much more complicated than it appears here, comments an all.
Seems to me there might be multiple promises. Some of those promises might only be implied, of course, but I doubt anyone would argue their existence nonetheless.
Speaking in generalities, men have always wanted to have sex much more frequently than women, for obvious biology-based reasons. Societies have generally frowned upon people having sex outside of marriage (or some equivalent relationship). And, in much of the world (fairly or unfairly) a man brings more income, more strength, and more technological skills to a marriage than does a woman.
So what's a man to do when faced with a marriage partner who has decided to dispense with sex? It still takes two, and if one says "not interested anymore", is the other simply stuck? Did she capture his income and his abilities under false pretenses?
Using notions of "honor in promise-keeping" as a way to hold men to a life without sex only works if one views sexuality as a necessary evil on the way to having kids. I'd be willing to bet that those who truly hold this view don't let it be known before the marriage.
Heck, if it weren't for the sexual part of a marriage relationship, I'd rather have married a guy. At least he'd bring home more money, could fix a toaster, and would enjoy hunting and fishing with me.
Health certainly has something to do with it as do medications for this and that, etc.
All things in moderation is my motto - you can over do sex as well as over do drinking or smoking or whatever.
As long as both partners are happy with whatever it works out to be, that is what is important. Trying to define happy and vigor by frequency is silly - it is the quality component that is the most important - quality can and does replace quantity.
I can speak with some authority as we've been married for 40 happy wonderful years.
My comments were made with the expectation that both members of the marriage were being honest. If she is not, that's makes it hard to stay committed - which I think is the most important thing in a marriage. If she is after your money, I don't see how you can stay together (unless you don't mind), but if it merely that you don't get laid enough, I think that's pretty shallow.
I think too many people don't take marriage seriously enough. When things get tough, they're out of there.
I'm beginning to think that being "shallow" is wanting something someone else either doesn't have or doesn't want so they conclude it must be shallow to want it. Would it be shallow of a woman to want to marry a man who could support her. Vows/promises can be broken in many ways and the funny thing about human nature is that no one, man nor woman, likes to be the only one left holding up a bargin/promise/vow. The best way to end a relationship is to stop holding up your end of the bargin. Probably you will only discover it has ended when your partner does something you think is shallow.
Withholding sex is something I couldn't reconcile with my conscience. My needs might be somewhat less frequent than his, but that doesn't mean I can't make an effort. Even if I'm not particularly in the mood, what does it cost me, besides time and attention? -- even assuming I won't get into it once I get my head right.
Shoot, at my age I'm just grateful he still finds me an attractive partner.