Jump to content
IGNORED

Lori Alexander, 11: No Junk in Her Trunk Because She's Godly


Recommended Posts

Name inspiration courtesy of @smittykins

Continuing on from here, where we were last lectured on the blog by the godly Ken about how gaining 20lbs is not having godly discipline. Or something. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 449
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Quote

Anyone besides me think that Ken would trade Lori in for a younger nicer model in a heartbeat if he could get away with it?

In a New York minute. It's not hard to see why either; neither Ken nor Lori have any kind of respect for each other, and there's this undercurrent of venom every time they talk about each other. I keep thinking of Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? If they could find a younger couple to use like George and Martha manipulate Nick and Honey, they'd do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given Ken's apparent obsession with thong- bottomed young women, methinks he'd greatly appreciate Lori having some junk in her trunk. Hey, Submissive Lori, might wanna get on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, this title, it gives me joy.:laughing-rolling:

Would Ken trade Lori in for someone with a bit more junk in her trunk?  It's probably his biggest fantasy. :my_dodgy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in- Godly Women Must Do Squats and Hip Thrusts. Sorry water aerobics people, straight to Hell for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sobeknofret said:

In a New York minute. It's not hard to see why either; neither Ken nor Lori have any kind of respect for each other, and there's this undercurrent of venom every time they talk about each other. I keep thinking of Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? If they could find a younger couple to use like George and Martha manipulate Nick and Honey, they'd do it.

Quote

 

Couldn't quote the quote you quoted, but I think he would be okay with just a nicer model. She doesn't have to be younger or prettier. Just someone nice he can let his guard down with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

Couldn't quote the quote you quoted, but I think he would be okay with just a nicer model. She doesn't have to be younger or prettier. Just someone nice he can let his guard down with.

 

And who would let him eat junk food in peace.

In fact, it might be kind of entertaining for him to pick someone a little older, a little fatter (with a big ole booty), and a little homelier just to watch Lori's head explode. (I'm not really spiteful. I just like thinking in cartoon images). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it is apparently okay with the Lord, I mean LORI, to wear low-cut tops if you don't have a lot of cleavage, is it also okay to wear a thong if you have a pancake bum? 

I'm asking as a woman who has an hourglass shape with all the sand at the bottom. No bikinis for this godly woman *sob* 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, Lori and Ken are an ideal "misery loves company" couple. Those 2 will never leave each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polecat said:

And who would let him eat junk food in peace.

In fact, it might be kind of entertaining for him to pick someone a little older, a little fatter (with a big ole booty), and a little homelier just to watch Lori's head explode. (I'm not really spiteful. I just like thinking in cartoon images). 

But he wouldn't, no matter how much he might lust after someone a bit more substantial, because skinny women are more "Godly" and socially acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he'd actually leave her.  Cheat on her  - Yes.  Leave her -  No.  Can't hold yourself out as a godly man astride the white horse of truth if you divorce your shrew wife.

Not that I condone or advocate cheating, but i would understand if Ken was going elsewhere for some affection, attention (the right kind) and real intimacy.

Ken's preferred body shape is most likely curvy with a bit of booty, a Jennifer Lopez-type physique (btw I think she's gorgeous).   Now this has nothing to do with the  "a woman must be thin" mantra he preaches at home, to his daughters, and to the world.  What Ken wants for himself and what he demands from others are separate, distinct,  and contradictory.  It is part of the hypocrisy of the LoriKen world.

I've always thought that the girl on the beach in the thong bikini didn't bother Ken one teeny tiny bit.  It was Lori who was outraged and demanded that they pack up the grandchildren and run like the hounds of hell were after them.

Ken was enjoying the view looking at a bit of eye candy and Lori probably threw a fit.  I remain somewhat puzzled by Lori's irrational obsession with thongs.  Maybe Ken wants her to wear thong underwear and she refuses.  Because after all to Lori pleasing your husband is ten minutes and some lube.

And can I just say how very, very uncomfortable and creepy it is to know so much about Lori's sex life. Why it's almost immodest, calling attention to one's self and not discreet ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had any real internet access for a couple weeks, but coming back here and taking a glance at Lori's blog again I reminded that Lori truly is and will forever be a clueless crazy winch. And that's being nice. Always the same topics recycled over and over. Nothing new under the sun apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought after seeing the thread title..."but she's got plenty of junk between the ears"

Sorry all...sarcasm coming back full force now that the Lexapro haze is fading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From her latest post:

If Jesus says we are to love our enemies and treat all with kindness, why would any Christian mistreat their spouse? 

Freudian blog-slip much?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's promoting loving your enemies and treating all with kindness, yet she's worrying about spousal issues? She's promoting opposing views. Love your enemies... unless they're non-Christian, immodest, gay, public schooling, anti-corporal punishment, pro- junk food in moderation, are ok with dissenting comments, are pro women having jobs... In short, love myself, possibly Ken, and possibly my children. If they are not me (or God), then you're terrible people destined to HELL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I don't have children, so maybe it's different, but I have worked in daycare and I hated the thought of leaving the babies to cry. I could not always attend to them right away because had other babies with instant needs, but I hated leaving them screaming. These babies were not my children and did not have any relation to me in any way, shape, or form. I am well aware babies can be exhausting, as said, worked in daycare with infants and they are quite demanding, but I just do not understand how any mother who claims to love her children and says they gifts from god can just let their infants cry themselves to sleep because mom wants her sleep. For someone who says everyone should have lots of babies, she just seems so cold and unattached to children of any age. even her own. I wonder why in the hell she ever thought being a teacher was a good idea. I do not believe her students ever considered her a good teacher. Good teachers don't do the job for the paycheck, which, let's face it, is shitty pay for the work they do. It is more than a job for a good teacher. She only did it because it was expected/required of her to get an education and work by her parents and Ken. She's clearly a spoiled, entitled, ignorant bitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dairyfreelife, I don't understand it either.  I grew up in a very conservative, Christian family and babies were left to occasionally left to CIO and spankings were considered essential to rearing proper children.  I never really did much with kids before I got married (I honestly had no desire to be around kids, and no interest in children) but I sort of thought I would raise my kids the same way I was raised.

I was completely unprepared for what happened to me after my daughter was born.  Her tears just wrecked me. I discovered that even letting her cry for a few minutes while I was in the bathroom broke my heart and made me cry.  I had this need to hold her constantly, and I had a few friends who were very into attachment parenting, and they gave me resources to learn an entirely new way of looking at and caring for babies and children.  It is exhausting, caring for children all the time, and it is sometimes very hard to know what do for certain behaviours, since I am learning an entirely new method of parenting, but the bond I have with my kids is so worth it's!

 I have discovered that non-violence parenting is very natural.  Violence in parenting is a learned behaviour - not a natural one.  A mothers natural instinct should (and usually is) to protect, care and nature their child, not to hurt and ignore them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dairyfreelife said:

I know I don't have children, so maybe it's different, but I have worked in daycare and I hated the thought of leaving the babies to cry. I could not always attend to them right away because had other babies with instant needs, but I hated leaving them screaming. These babies were not my children and did not have any relation to me in any way, shape, or form. I am well aware babies can be exhausting, as said, worked in daycare with infants and they are quite demanding, but I just do not understand how any mother who claims to love her children and says they gifts from god can just let their infants cry themselves to sleep because mom wants her sleep. For someone who says everyone should have lots of babies, she just seems so cold and unattached to children of any age. even her own. I wonder why in the hell she ever thought being a teacher was a good idea. I do not believe her students ever considered her a good teacher. Good teachers don't do the job for the paycheck, which, let's face it, is shitty pay for the work they do. It is more than a job for a good teacher. She only did it because it was expected/required of her to get an education and work by her parents and Ken. She's clearly a spoiled, entitled, ignorant bitch. 

 

Personal post ahead:

My mom had a severe untreated mental illness and was quite abusive during my childhood and teens (and was fundy to boot, which made everything far, far worse). And even at that, she was a fierce mama bear who would not allow any baby to cry uncomforted around her. She'd work the church nursery, and she was something of a baby whisperer because she could get ANY baby to stop crying by holding and rocking it. When my own were born, she was just magic with them. She really was. (And by then she was also properly medicated and somewhat less fundy although that's beside the point). My mom was also a huge proponent of cosleeping, which would give Lori the vapors, and breastfeeding into toddlerhood. Mind you, my mom could outfundy Lori any day of the week. Yet, during the baby years, my mom was as gentle a mother as any AP mom could be. She absolutely adored babies. 

It goes against every instinct, imo, for a mother to be so cold and cruel as to pinch and slap her newborns and to leave them crying uncomforted in a crib for hours a day so that she can rest. She seemed to have literally no bond with her babies. I think for my mom, as we grew older, parenting became harder because she just didn't have the emotional resources or mental health to manage us -- and she had the church shouting at her that we were full of sin and needed to be beaten into submission. So of course she hurt us.

So what was Lori's excuse? Hatefulness? Self-centeredness? Evilness? Spite? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lori is heartless, pure and simple.  Speaking of her daughter and daughters-in- law:

Quote

They both went through long and difficult labors. Emily hardly slept the first week after giving birth. They both are diligent about caring for their babies and even suffering sleepless nights and pain while nursing to bring them into this world and care for them.

Yes, Lori.  Because THAT'S WHAT PARENTS DO!

She quotes Tim Challies:

Quote

“A simple, honest reading of the Bible will show how God so commonly associates children with blessing and childlessness with curses or punishment (e.g. Psalm 127:3-5). 

She goes on:

Quote

My children are 33, 31, 29, and 27 years old now and I can say, without a doubt, they are my greatest blessings in my life. In fact, they are the gift that keeps on giving. I am friends with all of them and their spouses. We all love each other and get along great! Most of them have given me grandchildren and all of them want children. Yes, they have brought some pain into my life but very little and mostly joy.

What on earth is wrong with her??  Her daughter wants children and hasn't been able to have them, and Lori is sitting there quoting some jackass who thinks she's been cursed or is being punished?  Is Lori trying to plant that idea in her mind?

And then she prattles on about how "MOST" of her children have given her grandchildren?  I mean, what the everlasting hell??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just take a moment to say I hate that phrasing. "Given me grandchildren"?! No, Lori, your adult children's reproductive choices are not about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's title is "Is It a Sin to Not Have Children If You Can?" The article Lori links to in today's post concludes that Christian couples don't have the option of not being open to children. 

Either . . . 

 . . . she is making the point to one of her daughters that she is in sin for not having children . . . 

 . . . she is being thoughtless about the fact that her daughter perhaps has been trying to have children and hasn't yet succeeded.

Either way, this is heartless, mean, and possibly spiritually abusive to her own grown daughter.

Now, I do understand that Lori may actually believe what she is saying. And I understand that within her world view that the God of the Universe has commanded her to say things even though those things will sometimes be upsetting to people. However, a good writer would be able to say those things in a way that doesn't also hurt people she is supposed to love. One very simple way to do this would have been to remove the paragraph about her own children. She could be making all the same points, and for most of her readers, it wouldn't lessen the impact of her post. It would also come across as less pointed to her own family.

If I were related to her, I would tell her absolutely nothing about what is going on in my life, and I wouldn't give her vague explanations of anything for fear that she would twist them and use me as an object lesson in some upcoming post. Having a relationship with her would be a risky proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koala said:

Lori is heartless, pure and simple.  Speaking of her daughter and daughters-in- law:

Yes, Lori.  Because THAT'S WHAT PARENTS DO!

She quotes Tim Challies:

She goes on:

What on earth is wrong with her??  Her daughter wants children and hasn't been able to have them, and Lori is sitting there quoting some jackass who thinks she's been cursed or is being punished?  Is Lori trying to plant that idea in her mind?

And then she prattles on about how "MOST" of her children have given her grandchildren?  I mean, what the everlasting hell??

 

Didn't she have a difficult relationship with her one daughter? The daughter who is now struggling with infertility? I can't help but wonder if Lori is hurling that in her face with a "See? I told you God would get you for that." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, polecat said:

Didn't she have a difficult relationship with her one daughter? The daughter who is now struggling with infertility? I can't help but wonder if Lori is hurling that in her face with a "See? I told you God would get you for that." 

Wouldn't put it past her. We know she's judgemental enough and cold enough to do it. I feel terrible for her daughter, because infertility sucks. Add someone like Lori into the mix, and I absolutely think she's suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2016 at 8:15 AM, Hane said:

But he wouldn't, no matter how much he might lust after someone a bit more substantial, because skinny women are more "Godly" and socially acceptable.

Which is pretty priceless considering how often the "pleasing" body norm has changed over the years, even since the beginning of Christianity. Hell, cultures now have a million different versions of what an "ideal body type" is. And this is all just ignoring how much we've learned about weight vs. health in the past couple of years. But I guess it's better to be skinny and pretty than healthy, just ask Lori and her daughters. 

I just can't wait until I get to the pearly gates and Jesus does that weird "not that one" shake of the head to the body guards before they escort me out, kicking my chubby ass down the eternal escalator to hell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • FundieFarmer locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.