I didnt say they were the only ones I spoke to.

I am not afraid of the idea of marriage. There is nothing I would like more in this world than to have a decent wife. However I know this is not likely to happen for me. So I am alone. But I thought the 12-36 times a year number was very interesting. I have a skewed perspective about sex because I was never married but had two long-term sɛҳuąƖ relationships with women between the ages of 21 and 25 (I converted at the age of 26) and we had more sex than greg's number. A lot more. Perhaps both of my girlfriends were nymphomaniacs or maybe all young people are like that. People often say that in marriages the amount of sex declines drastically with time and often after a while married couples have no sex at all. I heard one man tell an old parable about sex and marriage. Imagine you are married. For the first year of your marriage you put a jelly-bean in a jar after every time you have sex. And after the first year of your marriage you take a jelly bean out of the same jar after every time you have sex. Your jar of jelly beans, no matter how long you are married, will never be emptied

From what I have read, frequency of sex among cohabiting/fornicating couples is typically much higher than that of married couples, even of the same age.  Something about being married makes people have sex less.  Perhaps marriage means that people don't try as hard to please their spouse.  Or maybe it's something in the wedding cake.

In my experience of 39 years of marriage, I have not seen a drastic decline in frequency with time.  There was a noticeable drop in frequency after the first child, not due to lack of interest but because of lack of time and energy.  This was even more pronounced 18 months later after the birth of the second child.  We summed up the situation with a joke:

Q.  Why did they put a clock in the leaning Tower of Pisa?
A.  Because there is no use having the inclination if you don't have the time.

The pattern that I noticed over the years while having seven children was that frequency would increase again once the youngest child got into a better night-time routine, after a year or so.  Age of children was definitely the factor with the most influence for us.  There would have been times when the frequency was in the 12-36 times a year range.

I have always found my husband extremely attractive and am normally interested in physical intimacy with him.  I still feel that way at 60 years of age.  We would have run out of jelly beans a long time ago.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm more of a "slow and steady wins the race" type, rather than a flash-in-the-pan, prone-to-burnout type.
I guess I'm just very stable in general -- not prone to wild swings in any department.
In terms of strength, energy, money, piety, fitness, you name it -- in most ways, I'm the same or better than I was at 20. Maybe it's because I started off more or less below average back then, but still. I have no riches-to-rags or rags-to-riches stories to tell. Not much drama there.

That's probably a good way to be. Some(not all though) people who peak young try to chase their glory days their whole lives. Nostalgia can be nice and all, but not when you're in a permanent sense of it for almost your entire adult life. 

As a woman I think that your desire for intimacy is naturally and rightly related to your fertility, your menstrual cycle  and where you are in the cycle of trying - pregnancy - nursing and trying.  

I married at 26 and was very desperate for a baby. But as a nursing mother with young children clearly things are very different.  

...large, usually poor, young Trad families around them, who can only manage to donate $20/week to the collection, and little of their free time, because they are busy raising a bunch of little Catholics for the future... young families struggling to raise large Catholic families in 2019, which is almost a heroic feat.

Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?

Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?

It's not like his kids are going hungry. Not being able to donate large sums of money to the chapel is not the same as being financially unable to raise kids. 

Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?

Seriously, if struggling and lots of effort meant "you are too poor to have a family" and everyone followed that advice, it would literally be THE END at least in America and Europe.
Open your eyes and do some research about the value of the dollar (and other fiat currencies) over the past 100 years, home prices, the price of college, wages, etc. It will horrify you.
I'll give you a hint: those poor and unemployed people aren't all to be blamed. They aren't all a bunch of lazy bums.

Seriously, if struggling and lots of effort meant "you are too poor to have a family" and everyone followed that advice, it would literally be THE END at least in America and Europe.
Open your eyes and do some research about the value of the dollar (and other fiat currencies) over the past 100 years, home prices, the price of college, wages, etc. It will horrify you.
I'll give you a hint: those poor and unemployed people aren't all to be blamed. They aren't all a bunch of lazy bums.

I am fully aware of all the problems that you mentioned, having gone to college “because it was the logical next step” and acquiring debt.
Struggling and effort are not the same thing as being poor.