Well, we finally found a teenage poster more obnoxious than Qin Shi Huangdi (who has actually been behaving himself lately).
I am interested in facts. I used facts and if my OP may not have all the reasoning but what you are failing to realize is that this is the PIT. It is only a place to rant, not have friendly reasoning. I would have gone in the IMHO section to do that. I will clear up some misconceptions tomorrow but right now I do not have the time.
Yes, yes. The problem here is that WE are failing to understand properly.
Here’s a fact. You know nothing about sex or relationships. Stop acting like you have a clue and listen to people who’ve actually been there.
A relationship that doesn’t include good sex is a complete waste of time. 75% should be on the low end.
It’s like having a car that gets great mileage, looks real nice, has your favorite stereo, and corners great, but if the seat isn’t comfortable, and it hurts your back, and you never want to ride it, well - who gives a fuck about the rest of those things?
Sex is the sine non qua of a relationship. There are lots of other things, but if attraction isn’t there, then the other stuff is irrelevant.
Nope, no. It’s just me. I’m the only one not understanding. The rest of you are fine. Guess I’m just fucking up the curve for y’all. 
Hmmmmm…
Do you think that things were better in the '50s, but then when the hippies were invented, everything went downhill?
Was everything was better back when women and minorities knew how to behave properly?
Do you think Gerry Sandusky was railroaded, and all he did was engage in shower hijinks?
Just wondering is all…
Man, is your first partner gonna be pissed.
Seriously, sex is an important part of a relationship. It is the most intimate joining two people can have. Most relationships also depend on monogamy. Being sexually incompatible is like having a wife who makes food you hate and would divorce you in a second if you ate food anyone else made.
The whole 75% value you cite is silly because relationships depend on broad compatibility. Failing to be compatible in any one of a number of things should be cause to reject the relationship.
Wait, you think 75% is on the low end in terms of importance of sex in relationships?
(This is just a quick question. I am posting here again tomorrow that will be a huge clean up post which may makesome of you less pissed off and I may be qable to clean up any misunderstandings/contradictions.
I like the Straight Dope; I really do. But I wish people would not always get aso pissed off at me and part of the problem is me; I do not think I am being clear enough either, so I appreciate your patience and tomorrow I will come back (in the afternoon after school) and reply with my clean up post.
(I am on a phone, so do not expect accuracy in my grammar)
I agree that the OP doesn’t have a clue, but I don’t believe this is true either. Obviously, there are aesexuals, many of whom are completely happy in intimate, romantic relationships that don’t include sexual activity. Plus, there are people who are just not very interested in sex. They have it every once in a while, but they have naturally low libidos and prefer the emotional and mental aspects of a relationship to the physical ones. As long as the two people are compatible in their sexuality, it doesn’t matter if they do it once a year or twice a day.
Myself, I pit premature ejaculation and impotence in sex.
Ah yes, the subset known as “parents”. 
Sounds like 100% to me. Not 100% of relationships have awesome sex that the whole neighborhood can hear, but 100% include compatibility with your partner.
Do you think 25% of healthy happy relationships can include a significant incompatibility regarding sex?
To answer for him, that really depends on the degree of incompatibility. Can a relationship survive if, say, the thought of a threesome turns one partner on, but is a no-no for the other? Probably - and some might consider that significant; significant being a term of about as much use as a dick-flavoured lollipop without that wonderful adverb “statistically” in front of it.
On the other hand, if one partner absolutely can’t get it up without bringing a vietnamese pot-bellied pig and a disembowelled ferret to bed, and the other is non-insane, there’s not a snowball’s chance in a CAT-scanner that relationship will work out.
If you include open relationships, sure, I think that’s possible. There are couples who are compatible in every way except their sex drive or sexual preferences, and one partner (with the blessing of the other) goes to another person in order to fulfill that need. (I have no doubt that the OP is clutching his pearls and collapsing on the fainting couch at the idea of a non-monogamous relationship, though.)
Regardless, compatibility is key. But I think statements like Darth Panda’s “sex is the sine non qua of a relationship” go overboard and don’t actually describe the role of sex in a small but significant number of relationships.
The statistics on premarital sex in India are probably the same as the stats on people masturbating - 80% admit to masturbating regularly, and 20% lie about masturbating.
Sort of like a sex partner. 
Cite?
Right, but those people are sexually compatible. If one person had a high libido, and the other person wasn’t really interested in sex, then that relationship just wouldn’t work, imo, regardless of how much both people had other things that clicked.
eta: so, to be clear, I’m not saying that every couple needs to fuck like rabbits to be happy, I’m saying that every couple needs to have a good sex life, and that’s going to be different for different people (but it’s going to be important for ‘good’ to be similar for both partners).
I suppose I objected more to the “sine qua non” aspect of your original comment, which to me implies that sex is the core of every romantic relationship. I thought it was important to recognize that this is not actually the case for all couples.
Topic? OP knows nothing. Discuss.
Which is the bigger problem: that the OP is jealous or that other people have sex lives?
Perhaps some of the problem here is puritanism, because the OP is not happy that other people are having fun.
People as a group, have tremendous difficulty saving sex for the boundaries of marital relationships, and goddess knows I am one of them. I don’t know if I will ever get married but that s no reason to not enjoy sex, especially in your 30s.
I don’t understand why I’m still astounded and annoyed by how easily you all fall for trolls. I mean, I should be used to it, after all these years, but it still flabbergasts me. Maybe I should see a shrink about it.