[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25094142[/url]
[QUOTE]A once-a-decade poll of 15,000 Britons found those aged 16-44 were having sex fewer than five times a month.
The figure compared with more than six times a month on the last two occasions when the official National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles was carried out, in 1990-91 and 1999-2001.
The study's authors say modern life may be having an impact on libidos.
Dr Cath Mercer, from University College London, said: "People are worried about their jobs, worried about money. They are not in the mood for sex.
"But we also think modern technologies are behind the trend too. People have tablets and smartphones and they are taking them into the bedroom, using Twitter and Facebook, answering emails."
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71347000/gif/_71347988_sexual_attitudes_01_464gr.gif[/IMG]
Lack of interest in sex is one of the most commonly reported problems, and one not confined to women - around 15% of men had experienced loss of libido.
[/QUOTE]
Sex is for Plebs.
5 times per month? Fuck that, I usually manage that in one night.
[QUOTE=Gustafa;43055830]5 times per month? Fuck that, I usually manage that in one night.[/QUOTE]
I can smell the bullshit even across the atlantic
I'm FROM the UK (live in Aus now, though) and I'm only having sex once a week at the moment (distance is a bitch). Better than the zero times per week that I was getting it for the past 4 or 5 months, though.
Then again, we make it count when we do see each other and have sex for about 3 - 5 hours at a time. I guess that's a bonus!
[QUOTE=Gustafa;43055830]5 times per month? Fuck that, I usually manage that in one night.[/QUOTE]
Even if you're not chatting shit, I'd consider that part of one session.
the waifu age cometh
Your only solution is to have massive orgies with the Japanese.
I'm not surprised by this, sounds about right. When both yourself and your partner work especially at different times it can be hard to make time proper where both parties are fully up for it and not tired.
japan was truly ahead of the curve
doesn't the amount of sex coincide with the economy? I swear I saw a graph once.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;43055866]Your only solution is to have massive orgies with the Japanese.[/QUOTE]
Well they both like Tea so I guess this could work.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;43055874]doesn't the amount of sex coincide with the economy? I swear I saw a graph once.[/QUOTE]
Possibly, I'd imagine people have more Sex when there's less money about because there's less to do
[QUOTE=Glitchman;43055874]doesn't the amount of sex coincide with the economy? I swear I saw a graph once.[/QUOTE]
Says so right in the source.
[quote]People are worried about their jobs, worried about money. They are not in the mood for sex.[/quote]
I reckon this is pretty much true all over developed countries.
Sex was often used just as a form of entertainment. Its why births jump up 9 months after massive powercuts because people without a TV just go
"um so what do we do now?
"idk"
"sex i guess"
"sigh i guess so"
One of the major factors causing this in my opinion is the cost of living being really high in the UK but the wages not rising to keep up with it. Every day on the news is people saying 'my bills have gone up and my pay hasn't'
If not just for the fact it's depressing it also means often times both partners in the relationship have to work full time just to afford the household, as opposed to just the man working and the woman only working part time or having no job etc, so often times people will be too tired or having conflicting schedules and often just have less time together.
[QUOTE=Kirrimir;43055946]One of the major factors causing this in my opinion is the cost of living being really high in the UK but the wages not rising to keep up with it. Every day on the news is people saying 'my bills have gone up and my pay hasn't'
If not just for the fact it's depressing it also means often times both partners in the relationship have to work full time just to afford the household, as opposed to just the man working and the woman only working part time or having no job etc, so often times people will be too tired or having conflicting schedules and often just have less time together.[/QUOTE]
My bills have gone up, but my pay hasn't. It's definitely got harder over the past two years even if those in government seem to think things have improved.
Working in Britain right now is about as depressing as it can get in what's meant to be a first world country.
[QUOTE=Kirrimir;43055946]If not just for the fact it's depressing it also means often times both partners in the relationship have to work full time just to afford the household, as opposed to just the man working and the woman only working part time or having no job etc, so often times people will be too tired or having conflicting schedules and often just have less time together.[/QUOTE]
I can't even begin to explain how a) outdated and b) wrong that statement is.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
Cost of living has increased, and yes, pay hasn't - but you can still live pretty comfortably on a minimum wage 37 hour/week job. The cost of living is reasonably high, but it's not "really high", far from it.
[QUOTE=Autumn;43056020]I can't even begin to explain how a) outdated and b) wrong that statement is.[/QUOTE]
idk my friend always complains to me that she never gets to fuck her boyfriend as much as she wants - who she lives with because they have conflicting schedules and both need to work long hours and are often just overtired.
Conflicting schedules and being tired isn't what was wrong with the statement.
[quote]as opposed to just the man working and the woman only working part time or having no job etc[/quote]
is what's wrong.
idk I think these days you can't afford to have one partner out of work.
[QUOTE=Autumn;43056054]Conflicting schedules and being tired isn't what was wrong with the statement.
is what's wrong.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion it's best that at least one parent is home when the kids are for the majority of the time (whether or not that's the male or female is up to the individual household to decide).
The few friends I had as a child who had no real parental figure around at home 90% of the time because they were both away working were unfortunately the few children I know who I guess you'd call delinquents. They didn't respect any sort of authority figure. They were left to their own devices and it showed (it still does from what I've heard of them recently).
exactly? i don't think you get what I'm saying...
It's very outdated to think that many situations still exist where the man is the only one who works, and the woman stays at home doing sweet fuck all, but Kirrimir sounded like he was saying it was only because of the necessity of needing 2 earners to pay the bills, instead of women working because they actually want to.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sltungle;43056078]In my opinion it's best that at least one parent is home when the kids are for the majority of the time (whether or not that's the male or female is up to the individual household to decide).
The few friends I had as a child who had no real parental figure around at home 90% of the time because they were both away working were unfortunately the few children I know who I guess you'd call delinquents. They didn't respect any sort of authority figure. They were left to their own devices and it showed (it still does from what I've heard of them recently).[/QUOTE]
The majority of 9-5 jobs allow you to be at home 95%+ of the time that your children are - you're at work, they're at school/after school. If both parents careers mean that they work irregular hours then maybe yes, having a parent around is certainly more beneficial than not having one, but for most people children fit (reasonably well) into a working schedule.
90s were the best
Today kids, they don't know, they don't know
[QUOTE=Autumn;43056085]exactly? i don't think you get what I'm saying...
It's very outdated to think that many situations still exist where the man is the only one who works, and the woman stays at home doing sweet fuck all, but Kirrimir sounded like he was saying it was only because of the necessity of needing 2 earners to pay the bills, instead of women working because they actually want to.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
The majority of 9-5 jobs allow you to be at home 95%+ of the time that your children are - you're at work, they're at school/after school. If both parents careers mean that they work irregular hours then maybe yes, having a parent around is certainly more beneficial than not having one, but for most people children fit (reasonably well) into a working schedule.[/QUOTE]
i think you just read man and women and jumped the gun thinking it was a gender debate.
I think his use of the outdated model of the old traditional household working unit to be precisely that, representative of old and outdated. Not everyone structures their arguments to be gender neutral like me :)
[QUOTE=Autumn;43056085]exactly? i don't think you get what I'm saying...
It's very outdated to think that many situations still exist where the man is the only one who works, and the woman stays at home doing sweet fuck all, but Kirrimir sounded like he was saying it was only because of the necessity of needing 2 earners to pay the bills, instead of women working because they actually want to.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
The majority of 9-5 jobs allow you to be at home 95%+ of the time that your children are - you're at work, they're at school/after school. If both parents careers mean that they work irregular hours then maybe yes, having a parent around is certainly more beneficial than not having one, but for most people children fit (reasonably well) into a working schedule.[/QUOTE]
Most of the kids I knew who fit into that category had parents who came home at about 6 - 7 PM and those few hours a day after school and between their parents coming home were all the time they needed to be little fucking brats and do horrible stuff.
Do remember that to a kid a few hours is a long fucking time. Ever remember waiting for a doctor as a child? That shit lasted an eternity.
Well we're still more active than the Japanese; they're probably more like giant pandas, compared to our "No sex please, we're British" attitude.
Still, at least it means lower population growth, right? In fact, if sex rises in the coming decades, it should involve lots of people converting to homosexuality; that way there will be more bangin' but less babies, and couples could adopt the kids that others were unable to care for. The larger percentage of gay people per capita, the less mouths to feed our species gets lumped with every year. Touching balls might just help us survive this century until we refine life extension and are able to transcend the flesh.
[QUOTE=ironman17;43056121]Well we're still more active than the Japanese; they're probably more like giant pandas, compared to our "No sex please, we're British" attitude.
Still, at least it means lower population growth, right? In fact, if sex rises in the coming decades, it should involve lots of people converting to homosexuality; that way there will be more bangin' but less babies, and couples could adopt the kids that others were unable to care for. The larger percentage of gay people per capita, the less mouths to feed our species gets lumped with every year. Touching balls might just help us survive this century until we refine life extension and are able to transcend the flesh.[/QUOTE]
"converting to homosexuality"
There has always been the same amount of 'gay people per capita' jesus christ
I'm not even going to touch how dumb the rest of your post is. Low birthrate is a bad thing boyo
[QUOTE=ironman17;43056121]Well we're still more active than the Japanese; they're probably more like giant pandas, compared to our "No sex please, we're British" attitude.
Still, at least it means lower population growth, right? In fact, if sex rises in the coming decades, it should involve lots of people converting to homosexuality; that way there will be more bangin' but less babies, and couples could adopt the kids that others were unable to care for. The larger percentage of gay people per capita, the less mouths to feed our species gets lumped with every year. Touching balls might just help us survive this century until we refine life extension and are able to transcend the flesh.[/QUOTE]
Are you really suggesting that homosexuality is a club that one joins or converts to?
I'll have to ask my brother if he has a card then, clubs usually have cards.
5 times a month though? That's hard to believe.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43056220]Maybe people arent having sex but are still doing related things?
You dont have to put dick in the vagina to have a good time. And with the risknof kids you cant afford, its the safer solution too. (condoms are too but they cost money and then you gotta drive to the store, big hassle when you could just stick with 3rd base)[/QUOTE]
you don't have to put your dick in anything to have sex either
don't lesbians have sex?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
