Lori - V-Day Causes Divorce - Now With Moar Ken! Part 2

[2xx1xy1JD]

I found Lori's post with the diaphragm incident, so it can be read in context:

http://lorialexander.blogspot.ca/2011/1 ... ay-no.html

and then I saw this comment from Ken:

Submission is vital to have the marriage and intimacy that relationship God desires, but those ladies who want more babies need to consider "trading" with your husband for something he wants. Be creative, not manipulative and ask questions to find out what would really get him in the mood fir more babies or a vasectomy reversal. Maybe if he knew you were willing to go with him on that cruise, or maybe it is the promise of the best sex partner he could ever imagine for the next ten years... maybe it is as simple as assuring him that he will always be held in the highest esteem by his women, even as she raised another munchkin.

Men don't want more babies for lots of reasons, not just the cost. A simple way to motivate someone to go against their initial desires is to find something they want more and try to give it to them. Then leave it in God's hands without manipulation and let Him decide.

[Emphasis added]

Ken, feel free to clarify, because what I'm reading is that you are suggesting to women that they persuade reluctant fathers by trading for favors, EVEN WHEN THE HUSBANDS DON'T WANT MORE BABIES. Do you really think that's a good idea? After all, this is the man who will be the father of your child for life. Wouldn't it be best for everyone, including the child conceived, if he actually wanted to be a father? If he showed some sort of desire or enthusiasm for more kids? I'm blessed to have a husband who wanted our children more than anything, and it shows in his parenting. The kids know that they are very loved and wanted - and not the result of a trade with mommy for something that he wanted even more than he wanted them.

[Loveday]

I just did a quick search for Lori Alexander "spank harder" and the second link that came up was this link: tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2013/11/weekend-links-winners-cool-stuff/ Lori posted a few times in the comments on this blog post. It took me less than 5 minutes to find those comments on another person's blog. That is how the internet works. I said in another post today that I found comments I made 12+ years ago in a newsgroup. When you post on the internet (in public space), you have to expect that people are going to read it and comment on it. It's the way the internet works. It's kind of the whole point of the internet.

Well, THAT was interesting reading. :think:

[formergothardite]

I found Lori's post with the diaphragm incident, so it can be read in context:

http://lorialexander.blogspot.ca/2011/1 ... ay-no.html

and then I saw this comment from Ken:

[Emphasis added]

Ken, feel free to clarify, because what I'm reading is that you are suggesting to women that they persuade reluctant fathers by trading for favors, EVEN WHEN THE HUSBANDS DON'T WANT MORE BABIES. Do you really think that's a good idea? After all, this is the man who will be the father of your child for life. Wouldn't it be best for everyone, including the child conceived, if he actually wanted to be a father? If he showed some sort of desire or enthusiasm for more kids? I'm blessed to have a husband who wanted our children more than anything, and it shows in his parenting. The kids know that they are very loved and wanted - and not the result of a trade with mommy for something that he wanted even more than he wanted them.

Am I misunderstanding or did he just suggest bargaining for a baby?

[Loveday]

Am I misunderstanding or did he just suggest bargaining for a baby?

No, I think that's exactly what he's suggesting.

[Loveday]

I would like to point out something that appears to have escaped everybody. WHEN did it become normal to discuss your 'diaphragm' in public? Never mind poking a hole in it? Some things you know, should never be discussed in polite society :lol: I find it hilarious your whole existence, marriage is allegedly based on biblical teaching yet you or should I say Lori discussed this so nonchalantly on her public blog. Whilst I certainly have no interest in your biblical interpretations I REALLY REALLY do not want to know about Lori's vagina hat story. Some things can never be forgotten :cry:

For this hilariously descriptive term, I forgive you bringing back your chicken in a can userpic. :lol:

[Koala]

Am I misunderstanding or did he just suggest bargaining for a baby?

Those perfect Alexanders, amiright???

[salex]

Am I misunderstanding or did he just suggest bargaining for a baby?

Hmmm, so give her a baby and him a motorcycle? Give her a baby and him a mistress? Give her a baby and him a blow job every day?

Weird Shit. I have always believed that it was better to err on the side of no baby when one partner wanted one and the other didn't and find new partners if it was a deal breaker.

These people are weird as heck. Not to mention, isn't buying him a mercedes so she can have a baby sort of a compromise? Or just a payoff?

[formergothardite]

I did used to go to church with a couple who tried Ken's suggestion. He got a huge addition to the house that he wanted and she got a baby. They then got a divorce because he resented and never like the child.

[Curious]

I found Lori's post with the diaphragm incident, so it can be read in context:

http://lorialexander.blogspot.ca/2011/1 ... ay-no.html

and then I saw this comment from Ken:

[Emphasis added]

Ken has portrayed his attitude about this incident as him laughing it off when he found out, but his comment doesn't sound that way. The more I think about it, the more I feel sorry for Ryan having this put on the internet for all to see as well :(

Ken, a little tip that you might want to discuss with Lori (I'm not being snarky). Having your text all aligned to the center is one of the top 10 worst things you can do for a website/blog. She should really left justify to make reading easier on her followers (and the world at large).

In case you don't believe me: http://uxmovement.com/content/why-you-s ... raph-text/

[salex]

Ken has portrayed his attitude about this incident as him laughing it off when he found out, but his comment doesn't sound that way. The more I think about it, the more I feel sorry for Ryan having this put on the internet for all to see as well :(

Exactly THIS!

[Coconut Flan]

To quote from the blog post that 2XX brought out:

Because many Christians have missed Paul’s main point, they believe that Paul used marriage to illustrate the close relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. Actually, it is the other way round: The unity between Jesus Christ and his Church is a profound model for marriage. As followers of Jesus, both husbands and wives should be building unity, nurture, love and respect in their marriages.

Now if that message was the one Lori and Ken decided to teach, who could argue with that?

Instead I see a lot of manipulation and power play.

This kind of thing has always been my issue, too, with Jim Bob Duggar and his literalist interpretations without any true understanding.

[dairyfreelife]

Well, THAT was interesting reading. :think:

Lori and Ken both appear to have posted in that comments. Glad Sheila is totally against the Pearls and spanking, go Sheila :D

[salex]

Lori and Ken both appear to have posted in that comments. Glad Sheila is totally against the Pearls and spanking, go Sheila :D

They both excuse a lot of CRAP by saying people take it out of context. Ken did it here and they both did it there.

Breaking the will is breaking the will... what causes a child to be a bit disobedient may be his/her natural curiosity--not his evil nature. I cannot imagine wanting to break a child's will, or how you can do it without breaking the child's spirit.... who wants to break their child?

Plus didn't Ken say on her blog that he had not read all of Debbie Pearls book on being his helpmeet? on this, he says Read the whole thing in context. and this

On Lori's blog, on november 30th of last year (2013) Ken wrote this

We both wanted what my parents had, but neither of us knew how to get there. Fortunately at that same time we found the Pearls' at a conference on Hebrews and our lives were forever changed for the better. We both found the truths of our “new lives in Christ†that Michael teaches so clearly, and Lori found the best book I have never read, Debbie Pearl's Created to Be His Help Meet.

Then on the blog you found he is saying this... around Nove17-18 of the same year... sounds like he has read the book here.

u

The fact these two do marriage counseling to young couples is really sad. Perhaps we should pray that god gives them a gardening ministry or something that is more productive and less dangerous to others.

[formergothardite]

I think he meant "ever read" not "never read". He makes a lot of typos that change what he is saying so that explains a lot of the confusion with some of his posts. I have also noticed that he doesn't actually read people's posts. He skims, picks out a word or two and focuses on that. That is how he ended up thinking the one poster had a bi-polar husband when what she actually said was that her husband had lied to the church elders and said she was bi-polar so that they wouldn't believe anything she said about him. The advice he gave didn't apply to anything she said.

[Curious]

Lori and Ken both appear to have posted in that comments. Glad Sheila is totally against the Pearls and spanking, go Sheila :D

Oh :) I didn't actually read the whole post or all the comments. I just did the search and used that link because it was the second link that came up to show how easy it was to find comments made on the internet. I kind of skimmed Lori's first couple comments, but didn't go any further than that. Now I will have to go back and actually read everything, I guess.

[salex]

I think he meant "ever read" not "never read". He makes a lot of typos that change what he is saying so that explains a lot of the confusion with some of his posts. I have also noticed that he doesn't actually read people's posts. He skims, picks out a word or two and focuses on that. That is how he ended up thinking the one poster had a bi-polar husband when what she actually said was that her husband had lied to the church elders and said she was bi-polar so that they wouldn't believe anything she said about him. The advice he gave didn't apply to anything she said.

No, he refers to the book often as the best book he never read and Lori refers to it as the best book her husband never read... probably to be coy about it being a woman's book. Searching for the term brought up the following and a few more pages of stuff.

Always Learning: Created To Be His Help Meet

Apr 14, 2011

This is the BEST book my husband has never read! It radically changed my life and marriage and it does the same for most of the women I have given it to in the past eight years, more than any other book on marriage.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/

Always Learning: Perfected through Suffering

Jul 14, 2012

We had a rough, yet probably average marriage until she read Created to Be His Help Meet. That is by far the best book I have never read. When Lori started to want to please me and seek my leadership in her life, our ...

lorialexander.blogspot.com/

Always Learning: LeAnn Rimes Felt Pathetic

Feb 05, 2013

Round and round we went... good times... bad times... lots of laughs... upsets, anger, tears. Isn't that the way it should be in Christian marriage? Best book I never read is Debbie Pearl's, "Created to Be His Help Meet." Debbie ...

http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/

Always Learning: Ken's Side Of The Story

Nov 20, 2013

We both found the truths of our “new lives in Christ†that Michael teaches so clearly, and Lori found the best book I have never read, Debbie Pearl's Created to Be His Help Meet. Lori came to me one day about ten years ago ...

[Ken]

I'm sorry I implied you have a bad marriage. It seems that way from my perspective of reading you and Lori's blog. If you and Lori are happy with how it is set up then good for you.

If you have actually read my posts you will find that I have said that I have no problem with women who choose submission. You will find that I have said that I am sure there are many women who have benefitted from Lori's advice. You will find that I have said that I am pretty sure that Lori was very difficult during those years. You will find that I explained why the diaphragm story sounded so bad to the rest of us because for many marriages that level of deceit would destroy all trust and it is a surprise to the rest of us that it is treated so lightly. You will find that I asked if you were a liar or a coward in regards to marital rape because you have not addressed it in the comment section of one of Lori's most recent posts when someone implied that a husband can't rape his wife. The only reasons I can think that both you and Lori have refused to stand up for morality and respond to that comment with a straight "Yes a man can rape his wife and yes it is immoral." is if you are lying here or afraid to say that because of the backlash will be so strong over there. Rape is a pretty damn big deal. You should be ashamed of treating it so casually. But if you have another reason that both you and Lori have ignored it and haven't said it is wrong, then feel free to correct me.

I will take all you say about your marriage at face value. BUT you must be willing to extend the same courtesy to me. You have implied that I am lying and exaggerating when it comes to the abuse that I have seen in submissive marriages. You have refused to accept at face value that I am speaking the truth, that there are many, many marriages where submissive has destroyed the wives. You give the vague "I'll need to research this" which is just another way of saying "I don't believe you and I'm going to ignore any stories you share." So if you are willing to do this for me, then I would be more than willing to do it for you.

Here again in two places to assign to me things that you cannot blame me for, yet you do:

1) The only reasons I can think that both you and Lori have refused to stand up for morality and respond to that comment with a straight "Yes a man can rape his wife and yes it is immoral." is if you are lying here or afraid to say that because of the backlash will be so strong over there. Rape is a pretty damn big deal. You should be ashamed of treating it so casually. But if you have another reason that both you and Lori have ignored it and haven't said it is wrong, then feel free to correct me.

I saw you wrote something about this, but I have never sen it on Lori's blog or comments. I travel and the last 7 days I have been traveling, so if you have not noticed, I made ZERO comments on Lori's blog during that time. So to blame me for a hypothetical "shouda, woulda, coulda' on some comment because we did not respond teh way you wanted us to... is that fair????????? Is it even close to reasonable? It will become strange to police Lori's blog with your thinking in mind.

2) You give the vague "I'll need to research this" which is just another way of saying "I don't believe you and I'm going to ignore any stories you share." So if you are willing to do this for me, then I would be more than willing to do it for you.

So you cannot accept at face value what I am saying? I have acknowledged that abuse must be more prevalent than what I know about, because I have done no research on the subject. What I am fully away of is that many are prone to huge exaggeration in statistics, and to be honest, the stance here against spanking borders on being so unreasonable that maybe I do discount your abuse linked to submission claims. REmember, I am not doubting that abuse happens, but to put the where of all abused women each year into a category where the concept of submission is related to their abuse, is hard for me to find you believable. You cannot assign all abuse to what Lori is writing and teaching, and besides, we may not be teaching what you like, but we certainly are not teaching an abusive form of submission, so it is possible that some of the women you have conjured into the small group of passive "shell of a person" submissive relationship could be helped by understanding what true submission is and what it is not.

Why not press me to see what we can do to insure that a post on what a husband's leadership should look like, instead of pounding us because we do not meet up to your expectations as if you have editorial rights on a personal blog. And we are supposed to comment ow the way you like. Give me the post comment date or title on marriage rape and I will be happy to address it for you.

So two more times mischaracterized by your imagination, not reality. Until I can fully research the subject on abuse I can accept part of your word on it, and please confirm you are limiting your discussion of abuse to that related to the type of submission Lori teaches correct? You are not assigning a whole new blog propose to her are you? Because I am sure other blogs exist to serve that purpose, but few exist to teach a Biblical perspective on how a godly wife and mother is to live.

[Ken]

Ken has portrayed his attitude about this incident as him laughing it off when he found out, but his comment doesn't sound that way. The more I think about it, the more I feel sorry for Ryan having this put on the internet for all to see as well :(

Exactly THIS!

So sorry that you participate in perpetuating it. We have no way of knowing if any of our children were conceived by pinpoint, but we do believe completely in the providence and will of God. If my child was to be born, it makes no difference how he was conceived... because nothing was going to stop God's will on the subject. It is kind of amazing actually to think that one out of a million sperm and then a pin prick, so noting was stopping this little fellow. Survival of the fittest taken to a whole new level.

So yes, to the unbeliever this might look like Russian Roulette, but to the Believer, it is just another sign that our God is so terrific and has everything all under control for those of us who love Him and are called according to His purpose. He is the giver of the best gifts we receive in this life and the next.

[Ken]

To quote from the blog post that 2XX brought out:

Now if that message was the one Lori and Ken decided to teach, who could argue with that?

Instead I see a lot of manipulation and power play.

This kind of thing has always been my issue, too, with Jim Bob Duggar and his literalist interpretations without any true understanding.

You must not read the blog as this is taught regularly. Where is manipulation and power play taught???? Please show me.

You can only point to a very few number of posts that explored how one might deal with a difficult or rebellious wife. You get into any relationship that is negative and difficult and tell me how you can come out of it not looking like some form of power play if you are to set boundaries and be firm.

Funny that if this was about a husband who was difficult you all would be all over the fact that the wife should do whatever it takes to put him back in his place... and manipulation and power plays would be just fine so long as the ends justify the means.

Lori's main point to women with difficult men is be kind, gentle and loving in return and do not manipulate and use power plays. That is what this group objects to.

Very few posts, all written by me, in with Lori, cover anything you might even think as manipulative or power. Show me ONE comment written by Lori that implies manipulation or power by a spouse. Just one. Then try to find 2-3... impossible to find in 5400 pages of posts and comments, yet you write this as if you have any facts whatsoever?

No, where you are getting your idea from is what FJers assign in their imagination to men who are married submissive wives. Lori doesn't write to husbands, EVER. So how can she be teaching manipulation and power?

[formergothardite]

Here again in two places to assign to me things that you cannot blame me for, yet you do:

1) The only reasons I can think that both you and Lori have refused to stand up for morality and respond to that comment with a straight "Yes a man can rape his wife and yes it is immoral." is if you are lying here or afraid to say that because of the backlash will be so strong over there. Rape is a pretty damn big deal. You should be ashamed of treating it so casually. But if you have another reason that both you and Lori have ignored it and haven't said it is wrong, then feel free to correct me.

I saw you wrote something about this, but I have never sen it on Lori's blog or comments. I travel and the last 7 days I have been traveling, so if you have not noticed, I made ZERO comments on Lori's blog during that time. So to blame me for a hypothetical "shouda, woulda, coulda' on some comment because we did not respond teh way you wanted us to... is that fair????????? Is it even close to reasonable? It will become strange to police Lori's blog with your thinking in mind.

So the Ken that has been commenting hasn't been you? I am so sorry I just assumed that the guy named Ken that has commented has been you. This is on the March 11 post. The comment was by Lady of Virtue. A Ken has been commenting on that and I thought that Ken was you. That still doesn't explain why Lori hasn't. Doesn't she believe marital rape is immoral? What sort of wise mentor is she if she doesn't catch such serious issues in the comments on her blog?

2) You give the vague "I'll need to research this" which is just another way of saying "I don't believe you and I'm going to ignore any stories you share." So if you are willing to do this for me, then I would be more than willing to do it for you.

So you cannot accept at face value what I am saying? I have acknowledged that abuse must be more prevalent than what I know about, because I have done no research on the subject. What I am fully away of is that many are prone to huge exaggeration in statistics, and to be honest, the stance here against spanking borders on being so unreasonable that maybe I do discount your abuse linked to submission claims. REmember, I am not doubting that abuse happens, but to put the where of all abused women each year into a category where the concept of submission is related to their abuse, is hard for me to find you believable. You cannot assign all abuse to what Lori is writing and teaching, and besides, we may not be teaching what you like, but we certainly are not teaching an abusive form of submission, so it is possible that some of the women you have conjured into the small group of passive "shell of a person" submissive relationship could be helped by understanding what true submission is and what it is not.

You think I'm exaggerating the abuse. You ignored the story I posted earlier. Completely ignored it. This woman explained perfectly what these situations looked like but you ignore it. This is a pattern with you. As much as you say we exaggerate abuse, you down play it.

Why not press me to see what we can do to insure that a post on what a husband's leadership should look like, instead of pounding us because we do not meet up to your expectations as if you have editorial rights on a personal blog. And we are supposed to comment ow the way you like. Give me the post comment date or title on marriage rape and I will be happy to address it for you.

So two more times mischaracterized by your imagination, not reality. Until I can fully research the subject on abuse I can accept part of your word on it, and please confirm you are limiting your discussion of abuse to that related to the type of submission Lori teaches correct? You are not assigning a whole new blog propose to her are you? Because I am sure other blogs exist to serve that purpose, but few exist to teach a Biblical perspective on how a godly wife and mother is to live.

Oh, I am speaking of women who were submissive to men for years and it was very damaging. The story I posted earlier that was found on an board made up of former ATI members is a perfect example of it. I'm not assigning her anything. I'm saying that she should not give blanket advice to submit more while not knowing the whole story, while assuming that the woman is always to blame and assuming that the husband is not an abusive jerk who will just abuse this submission. Could you kindly explain what parts of that you and Lori don't agree with? Are you saying that a biblical mentor gives blanket advice without knowing the whole story and assuming the women is to blame?

But she can do whatever the hell she wants. If she has a public blog I can stay over here and comment about it.

[formergothardite]

You must not read the blog as this is taught regularly. Where is manipulation and power play taught???? Please show me.

You can only point to a very few number of posts that explored how one might deal with a difficult or rebellious wife. You get into any relationship that is negative and difficult and tell me how you can come out of it not looking like some form of power play if you are to set boundaries and be firm.

Funny that if this was about a husband who was difficult you all would be all over the fact that the wife should do whatever it takes to put him back in his place... and manipulation and power plays would be just fine so long as the ends justify the means.

You haven't been around here long if you think that. There are not only male posters, but things are often pro-men. It drives me nuts that movies and shows allow women to slap men but would never allow the same. Hitting is hitting. It isn't funny.

Lori's main point to women with difficult men is be kind, gentle and loving in return and do not manipulate and use power plays. That is what this group objects to.

What is Lori's advice when this doesn't work?

Very few posts, all written by me, in with Lori, cover anything you might even think as manipulative or power. Show me ONE comment written by Lori that implies manipulation or power by a spouse. Just one. Then try to find 2-3... impossible to find in 5400 pages of posts and comments, yet you write this as if you have any facts whatsoever?

No, where you are getting your idea from is what FJers assign in their imagination to men who are married submissive wives. Lori doesn't write to husbands, EVER. So how can she be teaching manipulation and power?

[Curious]

We have no way of knowing if any of our children were conceived by pinpoint...

Ken, do you (and Lori) understand that words have meanings and when you arrange them in certain order that they mean specific things?

Lori said this:

I put a hole in my diaphragm and we conceived Ryan!

When she says that it means that she is saying that BECAUSE she put a hole in her diaphragm, Ryan was conceived. It means that she continued to use the damaged diaphragm, KNOWING that it was not intact, because she knew that it would likely fail and she would get pregnant. That is what her sentence means, in plain English.

Then you come along and say "we have no way of knowing." Well, yeah you do. If you are using defective birth control, it's not too hard to figure out what the outcome is going to be. A 6th grader could tell you what is going to happen in this case, ffs.

WORDS HAVE MEANING! As long as you continue to say stuff like the above (both of you), you are going to continue to get the kind of comments you have been getting.

[lipstickgoalie]

Ken,like many others I just can't figure out what exactly you are doing here. Did you expect to show up, disabuse us heathens of our sinful ideas about marriage and that we would then fan you with palm fronds while admitting the error of our ways and sang your praises in four part harmony? Did you stumble in here accidentally and then go all full bore "somebody is wrong on the internet"? I just can't figure it out.

Before you showed up I was mostly indifferent to your wife but the more you try to defend her "little hobby" or is it "teachings for CHRISTIAN women only" the more dangerous I found her, and you for that matter, to be. It is easy to look at ZsuZsu Anderson or even Sparkling Adventures Lauren and judge their blogs to be the writings of extremist whack jobs. What I find most dangerous are people like you and your wife. People who seem quasi normal but underneath it all are every bit as extreme. And all the more offensive for your beliefs.

You state that Lori's advise is for "CHRISTIAN women" but what you don't seem to understand is that most Christian denominations do not believe in biblical literalism nor do they expect or even advise women to operate within a marriage from a position of submission. That is the domain of fundamentalist Christianity, an anti-intellectual, 20th century reactionary subset of Christianity. I highly recommend Malise Ruthven's "Fundamentalism: a Very Short Introduction" from the Oxford series for the history of fundamentalism. You do not have the market cornered on what it means to be a Christian.

You have come here in an attempt to either change our minds or defend your wife's beliefs and you have contradicted yourself all over the place. Her blog is a hobby, wait no, it is teaching, wait no it is ministry. She is a teacher in the blog post itself but in the comments she is just stating her opinion and that shouldn't be held to account. As it stands you can't have it both ways Ken. There are ways in which you can. For instance, I am in University currently, and as an older student there are times in which I am much more a contemporary of the professor than my fellow students. There have been times that I have needed advice about various things and have spoken to the professor, articulating very clearly "I am asking you to take your official Professor hat off" when responding to a query. Because context is everything. The advice given to me in that moment is specific to me and is given in a very specific context only after knowing me for a very extended period of time. Lori's advice is one size fits all. You can claim otherwise all day long but it is. I have about 3 classes left to finish my degree. I could have taken 7 classes in one term and finished this May but in talking to my advisor he recommended against doing so even though he would have told most other students to power through and get out. Why? He knew I have a hard time with more than 4 or 5 classes a term, that I have a husband with various service related issues including but not limited to PTSD, that I work a physical job teaching hockey, and that as a middle aged student I only have so much energy. Context is everything.

Lori gives blanket advice for everyone completely devoid of any context. You can say that she gives advice only from a biblical standpoint and that all biblical advice is inerrant but that just isn't the case. She contradicts herself all the damn time. Be a stay at home mom with many kids and be submissive to your husband in all things. Except don't look at the fact that I worked outside the home, then I had a full time nanny as a stay at home mom, and that I sabotaged my birth control to have another baby right now when my husband wanted to wait. I am sure you love your sabotage child. My sisters are 10 and 13 years younger than I am, we refer to them as "Surprise" and "Shock". We love them very much but the fact remains that they pushed my parent's marriage quite nearly to the breaking point because they were unexpected. In my parents case it was a legitimate accident, twice, I can't imagine deliberately getting pregnant when a partner said they weren't ready for another child. And that certainly is NOT submissive behavior.

If I followed Lori's perfectly submissive model for marriage either myself, my husband or quite possibly both of us would be dead right now. It took me saying that I would leave for him to get help for his PTSD. It wasn't until well after he was in treatment that I found out that he had plans to kill himself. It took my husband driving us through a residential neighborhood at 60 mph because someone shot off fireworks in the daytime on the 4th of July for me to realize that the problem was bigger than the both of us could handle on our own. Lori's writings don't give any room for this in your mutual definition of a "proper marriage". Where in the bible does it mention PTSD? Where does it mention cars and the proper reaction to driving far too fast? It doesn't. You and Lori choose to use the bible to interpret the proper reaction to situations, not my cup of tea but fine, but you purposefully apply passages to situations through interpretation not through literal answers provided in the book itself.

In writing this it occurred to me that I might have the reason you are here. Your wife has a brain tumor, not her first, and for that I am truly sorry. You may not believe it but I am. You seem to be upset that we use Lori's own words, either from her blog or in comments to illustrate contradictions in her theories about marriage or outright inconsistencies in what she portrays as the one true path to a happy marriage. Is it possible that until you came here you didn't realize how much the tumors and treatments changed your wife? That she might be slipping mentally, that she might have for some time and you didn't realize the extent until you saw her words in black and white? I know in my own case that is what happened. I thought things were a little off after Mr Goalie got back from Afghanistan. It took several months, like 9 months, before I realized this was something other than tiredness or failure to communicate. The water heated up so slowly I didn't realize it was boiling until we were driving 60 through our neighborhood. I made excuses for so many of the behaviors that make up PTSD that I didn't see the actual problem staring me in the face. I was very defensive. I made illogical arguments when his behavior didn't match the person he was before he left, the person I fell in love with, and the person I knew was still there deep inside.

Is it possible that you are trying to make us see the woman she used to be? That you only see her through the lens of who she was? Because what you say here and what she says on her blog and in comments are two totally different things. You seem not to see, or to not want to see the contradictions that Lori herself has written. They are there Ken. They are there in spades.

It has to be really hard to witness in person but the point remains that the advice she gives is in many cases short sighted and in some cases outright dangerous. (I am thinking specifically about endorsing SSM as a "good Christian writer" and the infamous "just hit harder" advice to the parent of a disabled child.) When I say I think your wife is a fucking monster I am thinking about the woman who advocates to "just hit harder". I am starting to think that when you see "just hit harder" you can't or don't want to see that the woman you love actually wrote it. We all see it Ken. That is what makes us angry.

[Ken]

They both excuse a lot of CRAP by saying people take it out of context. Ken did it here and they both did it there.

Breaking the will is breaking the will... what causes a child to be a bit disobedient may be his/her natural curiosity--not his evil nature. I cannot imagine wanting to break a child's will, or how you can do it without breaking the child's spirit.... who wants to break their child?

Plus didn't Ken say on her blog that he had not read all of Debbie Pearls book on being his helpmeet? on this, he says Read the whole thing in context. and this

On Lori's blog, on november 30th of last year (2013) Ken wrote this

Then on the blog you found he is saying this... around Nove17-18 of the same year... sounds like he has read the book here.

The fact these two do marriage counseling to young couples is really sad. Perhaps we should pray that god gives them a gardening ministry or something that is more productive and less dangerous to others.

When will the ridiculous speculation stop? I can't I simply say something and you accept it as the truth? I have read maybe a total of portions of ten pages in "Created" and Lori has read me a few paragraphs. My recommendation of Created comes from watching what it has done in my wife's life and hearing a few dozen women all glowing over how it has done the same for their marriage. Do I need to read a book directed to a Christian woman to recommend it?

Lori has read to me twice the spot where Debbie Pearl tells women who are abused that they may need to turn in their husbands and go visit them in jail.

As for the spank harder, that is a thing of the past. Go back to my previous comments on this Forum and find that I have admitted that Lorio and I have had the discussion since I joined FJ and this approach does not reflect our true thinking about discipline as it potentially communicates the wrong message, or at least not the message we intend to convey.

We believe that a swat or swats should hard enough to actually work in training a child's obedience. The swat should also sting for only 5-20, and should not leave a bruise, although a small bruise is the risk worth taking to gain training in discipline. To spank harder does not communicate what we mean which is make sure that there is some modest sting so that the spanking is an effective tool.

So if you ever see us write, "spank harder again," I would be quite surprised. I know it is banned from my writing and I hope it is now from Lori's too. To hold that against us now is unfair, but who is looking for fairness, right? You just want to win. Keep it up and I may consider throwing in the towel and no longer try to find any pieces of wisdom floating in the load of manure I find in this Forum.

[Coconut Flan]

Where is manipulation and power play taught????

It's too funny for words.

Hole in diaphragm, if that isn't manipulation I don't know what is. Wife told to butter up husband before asking him for something. That's blatant.

As for power plays, the whole husband as decider is one big power play. The manipulation of scripture to achieve the end of man as final decision maker and "leader" is a church (Ken's brand) power play.

It's looking very two faced to me now claiming egalitarian marriage characteristics and yet also claiming submission. It can't be both.