Lori Alexander: Have Sex With Your Kids In the Room

[RosyDaisy]

Also doesn't it state in the Bible couples can agree to abstain.

Yes, 1 Corinthians 7:5 says:

Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Oh, and the first part of 1 Corinthians 7:3 says this:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights

Fundie men need to have that thrown in their faces!

[Morton Fan]

OH MY. From the comments on Lori's blog,

"I can appreciate what many of the wives are saying here but the fact is that if you husband wants sex you have to give him sex. I don't see anywhere in the bible that says you get out of your wifely duties when you're on vacation or staying in someone else's house. This is hard for the world to take but the Word of God is final on the issue. I've heard lots of couples say that the wife should voice her opinion and leave it to the husband. I don't see that in the bible anywhere either. Wives should not dissuade their men even a little. My wife used to try but now we just have sex if that's what I want. After all why does the new testament tell women to submit and be silent?"

[salex]

OH MY. From the comments on Lori's blog,

"I can appreciate what many of the wives are saying here but the fact is that if you husband wants sex you have to give him sex. I don't see anywhere in the bible that says you get out of your wifely duties when you're on vacation or staying in someone else's house. This is hard for the world to take but the Word of God is final on the issue. I've heard lots of couples say that the wife should voice her opinion and leave it to the husband. I don't see that in the bible anywhere either. Wives should not dissuade their men even a little. My wife used to try but now we just have sex if that's what I want. After all why does the new testament tell women to submit and be silent?"

She must have sinned greatly in a former life to be punished with this asshole husband in this life.

[Hisey]

Who are these men who want to have sex if their wife isn't interested? What kind of sex are these people having? Without mutual love and enjoyment, it seems an exercise in release and that's it.

[singsingsing]

Who are these men who want to have sex if their wife isn't interested? What kind of sex are these people having? Without mutual love and enjoyment, it seems an exercise in release and that's it.

I think part of the problem is that when most people just want 'release' they turn to masturbation, but that's a big no-no for fundies. So in a culture where men are expected to have no control over their sexual impulses, AND where masturbation is forbidden, AND where wives must submit to their husband's every whim, this is what you get.

[Morton Fan]

Who are these men who want to have sex if their wife isn't interested? What kind of sex are these people having? Without mutual love and enjoyment, it seems an exercise in release and that's it.

It's essentially masturbation with a vagina instead of a hand. It makes me sick.

[FreeJosie]

That is awful and creepy. Yeah, sure, have sex with your 6 month old sleeping in a crib on the other side of the room......but when your 7 year old wakes up you just tell them to go to sleep then carry on fucking and tell them in the morning that its none of their business??? Thats disgusting.

Isnt part of being a parent putting your childs needs first? Fundies say people who choose not to have kids are selfish, but they freely say that their children's needs are not important at all compared to their own. That is the definition of selfish.

Agreed. Neither my husband nor I have incredibly high sex drives, so this need to have sex ALL THE TIME regardless of where the kids are is strange to me. These people seriously can't wait until their kids are in another room?

[FreeJosie]

OH MY. From the comments on Lori's blog,

"I can appreciate what many of the wives are saying here but the fact is that if you husband wants sex you have to give him sex. I don't see anywhere in the bible that says you get out of your wifely duties when you're on vacation or staying in someone else's house. This is hard for the world to take but the Word of God is final on the issue. I've heard lots of couples say that the wife should voice her opinion and leave it to the husband. I don't see that in the bible anywhere either. Wives should not dissuade their men even a little. My wife used to try but now we just have sex if that's what I want. After all why does the new testament tell women to submit and be silent?"

What the FUCK?

[RosyDaisy]

What Bible is this POS reading from?

[docmom]

OH MY. From the comments on Lori's blog,

"I can appreciate what many of the wives are saying here but the fact is that if you husband wants sex you have to give him sex. I don't see anywhere in the bible that says you get out of your wifely duties when you're on vacation or staying in someone else's house. This is hard for the world to take but the Word of God is final on the issue. I've heard lots of couples say that the wife should voice her opinion and leave it to the husband. I don't see that in the bible anywhere either. Wives should not dissuade their men even a little. My wife used to try but now we just have sex if that's what I want. After all why does the new testament tell women to submit and be silent?"

This is great. If you have any friends or family members thinking of going fundie, hand this to them. They should run screaming off into the night.

[LadyBlue]

OH MY. From the comments on Lori's blog,

"I can appreciate what many of the wives are saying here but the fact is that if you husband wants sex you have to give him sex. I don't see anywhere in the bible that says you get out of your wifely duties when you're on vacation or staying in someone else's house. This is hard for the world to take but the Word of God is final on the issue. I've heard lots of couples say that the wife should voice her opinion and leave it to the husband. I don't see that in the bible anywhere either. Wives should not dissuade their men even a little. My wife used to try but now we just have sex if that's what I want. After all why does the new testament tell women to submit and be silent?"

What the everloving fuck? Run, anonymous woman, run!!! (straight to a police station to press charges against this sorry ass)

[Mecca]

This goes beyond a consenting couple having a little quickie when an infant is in a bassinet sound asleep. This is about a perverted, disgusting fundie male needing to prove and show his authority over his wife and, now, his children. This is seriously sick. This is abuse. Full stop.

[Curious]

OH MY. From the comments on Lori's blog,

"I can appreciate what many of the wives are saying here but the fact is that if you husband wants sex you have to give him sex. I don't see anywhere in the bible that says you get out of your wifely duties when you're on vacation or staying in someone else's house. This is hard for the world to take but the Word of God is final on the issue. I've heard lots of couples say that the wife should voice her opinion and leave it to the husband. I don't see that in the bible anywhere either. Wives should not dissuade their men even a little. My wife used to try but now we just have sex if that's what I want. After all why does the new testament tell women to submit and be silent?"

I'm trying to imagine the majority of the men I know saying something like this and being proud of it and it's not working for me. This sounds like the equivalent of a 12 year old that just got unmonitored access to the internet and found out that they can say fuck in a chat room without their parents finding out.

I'm not sure whether I feel pity or horror or what exactly at grown men that are so proud to announce that they have absolutely no self-control and have no respect for the women they are supposed to love.

For people who talk about Manly Men™ anyday, thanks!

[Morton Fan]

I'm trying to imagine the majority of the men I know saying something like this and being proud of it and it's not working for me. This sounds like the equivalent of a 12 year old that just got unmonitored access to the internet and found out that they can say fuck in a chat room without their parents finding out.

I'm not sure whether I feel pity or horror or what exactly at grown men that are so proud to announce that they have absolutely no self-control and have no respect for the women they are supposed to love.

For people who talk about Manly Men™ anyday, thanks!

Yep.

[Morton Fan]

For all of the commenters' talk about the marriage bed being so sacred and pure, the way they describe sex is vile.

[acheronbeach]

Lori's husband has no qualms about having children watch him having sex. That's not manly, that's a person who needs therapy for sexually deviant behaviour.

[louisa05]

This goes beyond a consenting couple having a little quickie when an infant is in a bassinet sound asleep. This is about a perverted, disgusting fundie male needing to prove and show his authority over his wife and, now, his children. This is seriously sick. This is abuse. Full stop.

And to me, that was the whole problem with Lori's whole post. The issue is not kids in the room and how old they are and what kind of houses Americans lived in in 1913 and all the derailment that has happened here. The issue is that Lori and her supporters and her husband and the men commenting are all saying that men must have sex from their wives whenever and wherever they want and anyone who objects, including the wives, just needs to get over it. They are saying there should never be an issue of consent from the woman in a marriage because she does not have any right over her own body. That is what is wrong with this and that is what the thread should be about.

[Arete]

I would double dog DARE any of these people to go to a theologian of a non fundamentalist Christian denomination (male or female) and try to argue that the New Testament gives a man the carte blanche right over his wife's body anytime he pleases. Really, I dare them.

Try selling that line of goods to people who are not fundamentalist women trapped in bad marriages with no safety nets.

[Hisey]

And to me, that was the whole problem with Lori's whole post. The issue is not kids in the room and how old they are and what kind of houses Americans lived in in 1913 and all the derailment that has happened here. The issue is that Lori and her supporters and her husband and the men commenting are all saying that men must have sex from their wives whenever and wherever they want and anyone who objects, including the wives, just needs to get over it. They are saying there should never be an issue of consent from the woman in a marriage because she does not have any right over her own body. That is what is wrong with this and that is what the thread should be about.

Actually, I think it goes beyond that. It is already clear that women have no ability to say no, and they have bible verses that kind of support that. It's even worse--that kids don't matter. That saving money (by getting a second room) is far more important than modesty. That upsetting the kids is far less important than the man getting his "release." That the Bible allows marital relations, so it's got to be Ok if the kids see them by accident.

I don't know, to me, sex is such an intensely personal thing that I would be forever upset if I thought one of my kids saw me in the act. And I know it would squick them out to an enormous extent. Kids don't even like to think about such things, let alone see them.

It's so hypocritical. If fundie kids went to a neighbors house, where the parents were fooling around in the bedroom with the door open, the fundie parents would scream and yell (with good reason). But if a fundie dad "needs" sex and his kids are in the room, suddenly it's OK.

[EmiGirl]

I would double dog DARE any of these people to go to a theologian of a non fundamentalist Christian denomination (male or female) and try to argue that the New Testament gives a man the carte blanche right over his wife's body anytime he pleases. Really, I dare them.

Try selling that line of goods to people who are not fundamentalist women trapped in bad marriages with no safety nets.

I go to a pretty conservative SBC church and even my pastor would have a cow over this.

[Arete]

It is already clear that women have no ability to say no, and they have bible verses that kind of support that.

Actually no, they do not. Once again these testicles are yanking Bible verses out of their original context. People think that Christianity started the cult of celibacy and virginity, and that is wrong. These movements predate Christianity in the pagan world and were extremely popular in the first century AD, especially the cult of celibacy in some of the philosophical schools of Asia Minor. Paul was trying to steer the new Jesus movement between Judaism and paganism. There were a lot of questions on whether the Jesus movement considered the body and sexual relations impure or imperfect. That part of Paul's letter to the Corinthians was to discourage the practice of perpetual celibacy within marriage that some philosophical schools were advocating (after you had produced the requisite heirs, of course). He was trying to keep some of the more far out and "new" pagan ideals on celibacy within a marriage out of the Jesus movement, to convey that sexual relations within marriage were not impure. It was not a writ for a husband to take control of his wife's body.

These people are grossly uneducated and have no understanding of the circumstances in which a lot of the New Testament was written. They should not be allowed to read a Bible without proper supervision, much less try and justify their abnormal kink with Biblical verses.

[treehugger]

Actually, I think it goes beyond that. It is already clear that women have no ability to say no, and they have bible verses that kind of support that. It's even worse--that kids don't matter. That saving money (by getting a second room) is far more important than modesty. That upsetting the kids is far less important than the man getting his "release." That the Bible allows marital relations, so it's got to be Ok if the kids see them by accident.

I don't know, to me, sex is such an intensely personal thing that I would be forever upset if I thought one of my kids saw me in the act. And I know it would squick them out to an enormous extent. Kids don't even like to think about such things, let alone see them.

It's so hypocritical. If fundie kids went to a neighbors house, where the parents were fooling around in the bedroom with the door open, the fundie parents would scream and yell (with good reason). But if a fundie dad "needs" sex and his kids are in the room, suddenly it's OK.

Thank you Hisey. I was trying to put my finger on why this whole thing bothered me so much. It isn't that I think you're a horrible parent if your kids walks in on you and your partner while you were trying to be discreet - I mean, things happen. And, it isn't that I think it's abuse to have sex if your infant/baby/toddler sleeps in your room with you (I mean, my daughter slept in our room for the first 6 months of her life - and the sexy times didn't stop ;) ). What bothers me is that the kids are even less important than the woman in these family dynamics - and that's saying something. The unquestioned authority of the male figure is what lends itself so easily to abuse.

[Guest]

Actually no, they do not. Once again these testicles are yanking Bible verses out of their original context. People think that Christianity started the cult of celibacy and virginity, and that is wrong. These movements predate Christianity in the pagan world and were extremely popular in the first century AD, especially the cult of celibacy in some of the philosophical schools of Asia Minor. Paul was trying to steer the new Jesus movement between Judaism and paganism. There were a lot of questions on whether the Jesus movement considered the body and sexual relations impure or imperfect. That part of Paul's letter to the Corinthians was to discourage the practice of perpetual celibacy within marriage that some philosophical schools were advocating (after you had produced the requisite heirs, of course). He was trying to keep some of the more far out and "new" pagan ideals on celibacy within a marriage out of the Jesus movement, to convey that sexual relations within marriage were not impure. It was not a writ for a husband to take control of his wife's body.

These people are grossly uneducated and have no understanding of the circumstances in which a lot of the New Testament was written. They should not be allowed to read a Bible without proper supervision, much less try and justify their abnormal kink with Biblical verses.

Whoa. Stop it right there. The Bible was not written in any outside "context" nor does it have any sort of influence from other heathen religions at the time. Also, I don't know who this Paul guy is, but God, with the help of King James, wrote every word of the Bible, in English, and every word is to be taken literally, regardless of context. The world 2000 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.

Jeez. Next thing I know, you'll be trying to tell me Jesus didn't wear pants.

[singsingsing]

Whoa. Stop it right there. The Bible was not written in any outside "context" nor does it have any sort of influence from other heathen religions at the time. Also, I don't know who this Paul guy is, but God, with the help of King James, wrote every word of the Bible, in English, and every word is to be taken literally, regardless of context. The world 2000 years ago was exactly the same as it is today.

Jeez. Next thing I know, you'll be trying to tell me Jesus didn't wear pants.

Yeah, or something totally insane and depraved like Jesus creating an abundance of alcohol to keep a party going!

[Hisey]

Actually no, they do not. Once again these testicles are yanking Bible verses out of their original context. People think that Christianity started the cult of celibacy and virginity, and that is wrong. These movements predate Christianity in the pagan world and were extremely popular in the first century AD, especially the cult of celibacy in some of the philosophical schools of Asia Minor. Paul was trying to steer the new Jesus movement between Judaism and paganism. There were a lot of questions on whether the Jesus movement considered the body and sexual relations impure or imperfect. That part of Paul's letter to the Corinthians was to discourage the practice of perpetual celibacy within marriage that some philosophical schools were advocating (after you had produced the requisite heirs, of course). He was trying to keep some of the more far out and "new" pagan ideals on celibacy within a marriage out of the Jesus movement, to convey that sexual relations within marriage were not impure. It was not a writ for a husband to take control of his wife's body.

These people are grossly uneducated and have no understanding of the circumstances in which a lot of the New Testament was written. They should not be allowed to read a Bible without proper supervision, much less try and justify their abnormal kink with Biblical verses.

Whoa, sorry. I know I said that wrong. I didn't mean the Bible supports marital rape, or unrestricted right to sex, or anything like that. I meant that fundies have certain bible verses that they use to support their desire for such things. Whether or not such verses really apply, I couldn't say. I just know they have a few verses that they whip out whenever they want to justify this.