To say "Well Padmasambhava, Saraha, Machig and others were special beings, we are not like them" is unfortunate. Neither are we like Shantarakshita or Gampopa, but that does not stop us from practicing the path that they prescribe
The fact of the matter is for most committed married practitioners, sex is an almost insignificant part of one's life. Very little time is spent obsessing over it or engaging in it, particularly compared to the countless hours one spends serving one's partner and children, cooking for them, instructing them, listening to their problems and offering advice, meditating with them, etc. This is not lost time! This is the practice in daily life.
I understand everyone must integrate practice with their lives and needs something that works for them. No one questions that. I feel that part of my job as a monk and translator in the West is to help deliver teachings to working and family people so that they can apply dharma in daily life.
I grew up with a wonderful mother and father, and I realize marriage with children is not about a constant sex marathon! It is more about changing diapers!
What I am concerned about, as I mentioned above, is that if the view of practicing with a 9-5 and kids is no different than full time practice prevails, we will undermine the support of monastics and full time (monastic or not) practitioners/retreatants/scholars. Without at least a few such people, maintaining the lineages in all their richness becomes very difficult.
Dilgo Kyentse Rinpoche, for example, spent a good part of his life as a monk. And even after he settled with with consort, most of his time was spent in isolated retreat practice, in his later years he started teaching others as is conveyed in the film Brilliant Moon.
So in fact I don't think your example works of trying to draw parallels between a Western lay lifestyle and lay tantric adepts. The conditions are very different.