Ken Explains it All - Lori & Ken Alexander - Part 3

[2xx1xy1JD]

Let's recap a bit:

Ken writes:

their wives came into the marriage with big issues about sex, and felt the act was hurting them. There is no tie breaker on this issue and no man can force his wife into sex, but a husband can show leadership in moving the issue to a healthy resolution, and a godly submissive wife is going to follow him to the resolution without simply saying "no, no, no."

At this point, Ken had told the story about these two men in support of his argument that a husband should unilaterally get to decide sexual frequency if he and his wife are at an impasse.

Ken then gets feedback from us that pressuring wives to have painful sex is not going to solve the problem. He then writes:

[OK... you say simple problem for these guy to figure out. Do you know how to solve a wife whose mother passed down to her that sex was not a good thing, and they claim it hurts them when they have sex. Is this something these guys can readily figure out? If so, I would like to know which handbook you are reading?

So, I have to assume that Ken and his 2 buddies DIDN'T know that there are solutions for this, which don't involve pressuring wives into painful sex.

Ken quickly got replies like this:

Are you saying that you believe the wives were lying when they said sex hurt them? Are you familiar with vaginismus? Are you aware that it can have psychological roots for some women? Are you aware that vaginismus is highly treatable in most cases? Are you aware that some infections can trigger painful sex? And that she might not even be aware that she has an infection? And that those too (bacterial and yeast infections) are highly treatable?

If sex was painful, then their role was simple: "I think we need to talk to the doctor about this, babe." The fact that these men KNEW that sex was painful and were still insisting on twice-weekly encounters really bugs me.

and this:

As a matter of fact, there ARE good resources for women who experience painful sex.

Here's a blog with a list of resources on the sidebar: http://unconsummated.blogspot.ca

One of those resources is a book, if professional help is out of reach: http://www.amazon.com/When-Sex-Hurts-Wo ... 0738213985

Aside from that, a bit of empathy and common sense would help. If a previous sexual experience was painful, the body starts to anticipate that the next experience will be painful, and the muscles tense up and spasm, which guarantees that it WILL be painful. Tense muscles and no arousal = more likely to get small tears, which are incredibly painful.

He then claims that all this new-fangled knowledge didn't exist in the olden days:

Got it... and if these were available and knew about them 25 years ago I might have been abler to help my friends, besides just give them my sympathies. These are tough, but real issues in peoples lives and sometimes they just need someone to listen to them and encourage them to continue to love and e great Christian husbands.

and forgets that some of us are old enough to remember life 25 years ago, including the fact that Dr. Ruth was a household name, and that researchers Masters and Johnson had published their research 2 decades earlier.

Still, he certainly still gives the impression that these two guys were genuinely clueless 25 years ago and had no idea that treatment existed for this problem....until we get to this post of his:

For the record ... Totally wring: NO MARRIAGE RAPE ... PERIOD! It is not appropriate for any man, especially not a Christian man to force himself upon his wife.

Go back to the original context and you will see only two friends who struggling along side their wife in not knowing howto handle an almost sexless marriage. If the wives had been taught to be submissive, the husbands would NOT have forced themselves upon them, but instead the wives would have been more open to seeking counseling and professional help. Neither wife perceived her sexless marriage as a major problem. They liked it that way.

Google Sexless marriages and then tell me if it is wrong for the spouse who wants more sex to ask their spouse if they will consider going to counseling to resolve some of the issues? That is part of leadership, but it can go both ways. A husband who does not want sex much and his wife wants more should take leadership to resolve the issue in favor of his wife; counseling or whatever it takes to please one's spouse.

This is the first mention that the wives should have been more open to counseling. Again, if Ken had no idea a few pages ago that professional help can actually fix this problem and if he wrongly assumed that this help didn't exist 25 years ago, I'm not sure how we suddenly get to wives who not only don't want more sex, but also refuse to go for the professional help that Ken didn't know about.

Around this time, Ken also started to call these marriages "almost sexless", despite the fact that he previous described the husbands as getting their wives to have sex 2x/week despite the fact that they sex that it was painful. He then accused FG of lying about the frequency, until his direct quotes were found.

Then, Ken really drives home the point that it wasn't just about pain for the wives:

Got it... but you missed the point. The husbands may have had the answers, they could not get their wives to see it was a problem so the wives refused to seek help. Now what? Divorce them? They just kept loving them to this day. That too is part of being a godly Biblical husband. It is not all about a husband getting his way, but instead living in peace and harmony with his difficult wife.

Again, how could Ken possibly know that the wives actually refused to seek the help that Ken did not know existed? Never mind, he's clearly decided that these wives were difficult! Not women experiencing genuine pain, not women who didn't know that actual treatment for their condition existed, but deliberately difficult wives. Keep in mind that he's also judging them based on hearing on their husbands' side of the story.

And so, the story mysteriously keeps changing as each point gets challenged, because we can't possibly admit that maybe, just maybe, husbands demanding submission would not have made things better here and maybe, just maybe, the wives weren't the bad ones.

[salex]

And so, the story mysteriously keeps changing as each point gets challenged, because we can't possibly admit that maybe, just maybe, husbands demanding submission would not have made things better here and maybe, just maybe, the wives weren't the bad ones.

Wait a minute... are you implying that there may be other ways to view things other than submission brings joy to all involved and it is always the woman's fault (if husband won't lead--woman's fault for not making him, if woman does lead and there are ever problems, woman's fault for not being submissive enough) . And that satisfying sex between partners is far more complex than her always assuming the position when he asks or mere frequency. And it can't just be solved by submission or men doing more or less housework, or even always by how loved a woman. No matter how much a person, male or female might want sex at any given time, that does not mean either or both will automatically be able to have sex, to enjoy it without pain, etc... life experience, life stage, other issues all crop up in the bedroom. LIfe is more comples than Ken and Lori make it out to be... but I don't think, marriage wise, they have high expectations--they anticipate difficult women and a-hole men and marriages that are not all that fulfilling for either partner....

which sucks for them, and also makes their blogging sound like misery loves company.

[J'ean Skirt]

I trimmed your recap, but thanks so much for it.

And so, the story mysteriously keeps changing as each point gets challenged, because we can't possibly admit that maybe, just maybe, husbands demanding submission would not have made things better here and maybe, just maybe, the wives weren't the bad ones.

The other thing is that if the husbands were truly leaders, then they should have LED. Part of being a leader is being persuasive and convincing people to follow you. If you require yes-wives in order to lead, then you're not really a leader at all. There is nothing that stopped the men from actually insisting on figuring out what was wrong. Whether or not wives are submissive is not actually important in this case.

In this case, the men were much happier complaining to Ken and probably every other man they came in contact with than actually doing the hard work necessary to create a functional marriage. Complaining and demanding are easy. Actually problem solving and fixing are hard. They chose the easy way, rather than the hard way.

I don't believe it would have been all better had the women been "trained to be submissive." Ken doesn't know that. But I do know that real leaders, real men wouldn't have acted the way these example husbands did.

[Hisey]

I think the problem is, he views 2x/week as not nearly enough. He assumed we'd agree. When we did not, he backtracked to 1x/month, forgetting what he'd written earlier.

I think the 2x/week is so woefully inadequate because the "fine Christian men" did not have masturbation as an option. Just my guess.

[Hisey]

Bisky wrote:

If you require yes-wives in order to lead, then you're not really a leader at all.

Brilliant. My thoughts exactly.

[salex]

I think the problem is, he views 2x/week as not nearly enough. He assumed we'd agree. When we did not, he backtracked to 1x/month, forgetting what he'd written earlier.

I think the 2x/week is so woefully inadequate because the "fine Christian men" did not have masturbation as an option. Just my guess.

For a lot of people, 2x a week isn't much. Those people don't have pain when having sex... for painful intercourse, 2x per week starts sounding like way more than anyone should have to put up with... which is why there is no one size fits all.

Plus, ken and his buds seem to have spent most of the first decades of their marriages hanging out with other men bitching about their wives... Real Nice.

[formergothardite]

In my experience on the internet when people start telling stories and then start adding things that change the story after people start questioning and pointing out problems with the story, the original is the closest to the truth. So I think that if that story is true, then the original one, where Ken doesn't remember a lot of the details but in his opinion the women did not get any pleasure from sex, but they compromised with their husbands and had sex twice a week, is probably closest to what really happened.

The fine Christian husband suffering for years with sexless marriages because their difficult wives refused to get therapy to deal with the issues their mother gave them, doesn't sound anything like what he originally said.

Not to mention that he gives the women no credit for being loving enough to have sex with their husbands twice a week even though it was not enjoyable for them.

[latraviata]

Bisky wrote:

Brilliant. My thoughts exactly.

Mine too!

[Koala]

I am going to take this opportunity to :? @ the idea that sex once a month is "sexless". I am going to take it a step further and say that for some couples twice a week would sound downright exhausting. Now I feel old.

[J'ean Skirt]

I am going to take this opportunity to :? @ the idea that sex once a month is "sexless". I am going to take it a step further and say that for some couples twice a week would sound downright exhausting. Now I feel old.

Yeah, I'm feeling old these days in regards to sex. Things have been really overly busy and stressful for the last few months and while we're connecting physically, sex is just exhausting and neither of us really have the energy.

The good bit is once we do find the time and energy it's pretty spectacular. But that's only working out to a few times a month right now.

[Ken]

As usual I am game...

1. There are so many circumstances that this can apply to and definitely, a full and complete discussion, many time son the subject is necessary, and maybe even with a counselor in some circumstances. I have two friends who married two sisters. Both sisters for some reason preferred sex once a month and I do not recall the details as it was years ago, but my sense what that it was not that pleasurable for them. Both of the friends were the opposite extreme... all about sex... so the mixture was lethal to the marriage, but being fine Christian men, both compromised on sex about twice a week.

Fast forward years later and both wives began to enjoy sex more, or found other ways to sexually please their men. The issue as it turned out was passed down from their mother and her view on sex.

Here would be my point: I think that these two couples lost out on 15-20 years of love making and the husbands were deprived not because there was not a real problem which needed to be worked through, but because they did not have a Biblical marriage. Ina Biblical marriage the husband will always look out for the best interest of his wife, but as the leader in the relationship he may look beyond the immediate to the longer term, and make requests that the wife would willingly try to honor. In these marriages the wives took control over the sex life and guarded it, not sharing equally or willing to explore how to move beyond the impasse. For 15+ years it was simply "no interested" and these Christian husbands could do nothing but try to love them anyway. If these two had had Lori mentoring them I believe they would have found the place they are now with sex much faster.

Here is the original comment I made PROVING that I said the frequency of sex was ONCE A MONTH, not twice a week as many of you have morphed it into. Why lie? or play so loosely with the truth and then slam me for something I never wrote? Is shame even a word around here? How about just decency? Or graciousness? Honesty?

If you cannot be generous enough to keep the facts straight, at least stop piling onto me with your abusiveness based on your own made up facts. I have nothing to appeal to reason if I cannot assume a modest amount of human decency on this Forum. You do this all the time and I do not have the time or energy to continually go back and prove you wrong. How many of you have said "twice a week" and repeated it, even getting others all upset at me because "how could they expect more?"

Obviously fairness and accuracy is a non-issue here. I am beginning to think that some here are just angry people who must win at all costs, or paid for your time to harass fine Christian people. Nothing else makes much sense based on my observation of how some of you twist words, mischaracterize, speculate and now I am proving your lies.

"Once a month."

"Both sisters for some reason preferred sex once a month and I do not recall the details as it was years ago, but my sense what that it was not that pleasurable for them."

My story has not changed one bit, except to fill in a few more details to disapprove another set of speculations.

Yes, I will now pick and choose who to respond to. If you have a legit question or concern send it to me through private and I will take a look at it. If not, I will try to spend some time on other issues on the Forum to see if you have mistreated them and the facts as badly has you have with us, or if you have any legitimate concerns. It is hard for me not to be very biased now against thinking this Forum is really legit. It seems like such a interesting idea gone bad.

[Ken]

In my experience on the internet when people start telling stories and then start adding things that change the story after people start questioning and pointing out problems with the story, the original is the closest to the truth. So I think that if that story is true, then the original one, where Ken doesn't remember a lot of the details but in his opinion the women did not get any pleasure from sex, but they compromised with their husbands and had sex twice a week, is probably closest to what really happened.

The fine Christian husband suffering for years with sexless marriages because their difficult wives refused to get therapy to deal with the issues their mother gave them, doesn't sound anything like what he originally said.

Not to mention that he gives the women no credit for being loving enough to have sex with their husbands twice a week even though it was not enjoyable for them.

In case you miss it above:

My original quote: "Both sisters for some reason preferred sex once a month and I do not recall the details as it was years ago, but my sense what that it was not that pleasurable for them. Both of the friends were the opposite extreme... all about sex... so the mixture was lethal to the marriage, but being fine Christian men, both compromised on sex about twice a week."

Any apology forthcoming? ONCE A MONTH!

[formergothardite]

No, you said both sisters wanted sex once a month, but both compromised on sex about TWICE A WEEK. Would you like to explain that part? Words have meanings, Ken. When you say both compromised on sex twice a week, that means both compromised on sex twice a week. I really can't fathom what "compromised on sex twice a week" means besides that? But feel free to explain. I was going to apologize if you had not said htat they had compromised on sex twice a week, but you did.

I don't know why, but I actually did expect more out of Ken then sticking to "No I said once a month" when he very clearly said that they preferred sex once a month but compromised on sex twice a week. I thought that if we showed him exactly what he wrote he would at least try to explain what he meant by that sentence if not that they compromised on sex twice a week.

[formergothardite]

Really, Ken, in the sake of a rational conversation, can you really not see where "compromised on sex twice a week" says that they were having sex twice a week? Can you see that I did not pull it out of thin air like you accused me of doing, it is right there, written by you.

[Loveday]

Through private messages? You want to start carrying on conversations here PRIVATELY?

Well, that doesn't ring any more pervy bells than your conversation with Courtney about her hair did, or asking for FG's address so you could send her some M&Ms. Nope, not at all.

[Coconut Flan]

Not on his life do I wish a private conversation with Ken. He has set off alarm bells for me and I'd be happier if we had no more discussions of sex lives on the board until he's gone. I'm sure not everyone sees it that way, but I get the feeling Ken is getting a lot of jollies reading here.

[Loveday]

Not on his life do I wish a private conversation with Ken. He has set off alarm bells for me and I'd be happier if we had no more discussions of sex lives on the board until he's gone. I'm sure not everyone sees it that way, but I get the feeling Ken is getting a lot of jollies reading here.

This. I don't even want to think about how he'd try to steer a private conversation after reading some of his posts out here on the board.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ken wrote:

My original quote: "Both sisters for some reason preferred sex once a month and I do not recall the details as it was years ago, but my sense what that it was not that pleasurable for them. Both of the friends were the opposite extreme... all about sex... so the mixture was lethal to the marriage, but being fine Christian men, both compromised on sex about twice a week."

Ken, see the bolded parts of your own quote above. You didn't say that they only had sex 1x/month, you said that the sister PREFERRED it once a month.

You didn't say that it was physically painful for them, you said that you sense was it was not that pleasurable for them.

Finally, you said "both compromised on sex about twice a week". We did not pull this idea out of thin air. You wrote it.

If you were unclear in your writing, I suggest that you:

1. Explain more carefully what the situation was.

2. Apologize to us for suggesting that we misrepresented the facts.

3. Consider upgrading your writing skills, especially since you are a professional consultant who presumably writes reports and proposals for your clients.

Add me to the list of posters not interested in a private conversation. Anything said will be on the record and visible to all.

[polecat]

I respect and love my husband too much to be having private conversations with a married man online.

:angelic-cyan:

[salex]

Really, Ken, in the sake of a rational conversation, can you really not see where "compromised on sex twice a week" says that they were having sex twice a week? Can you see that I did not pull it out of thin air like you accused me of doing, it is right there, written by you.

He not only can't understand our writing, he can't understand his own writing.

[Coconut Flan]

I must repeat what has been said several times:

Ken, words have meaning.

[ShesCrafty]

Not on his life do I wish a private conversation with Ken. He has set off alarm bells for me and I'd be happier if we had no more discussions of sex lives on the board until he's gone. I'm sure not everyone sees it that way, but I get the feeling Ken is getting a lot of jollies reading here.

Yep, I'm am now about 95% sure that Ken Alexander gets his jollies discussing sex and attempting (and failing) to dominate the women on this forum. Which, hey, if you're in to dirty talk and S&M, no judgement from me. The trick

is to find consenting partners that would like to engage in that with you. Ken Alexander's time spent on this forum has been, in my opinion, nothing more than frotteurism via internet.

[formergothardite]

I know that it is an exercise in futility but I really would like to understand how he can explain away that sentence. He cannot have survived this long in business without having basic communication skills, yet here he cannot seem to even understand that words put into sentences have meanings.

Until he explains how "compromised on sex twice a week" means has sex once a month my theory is that this is just his pride talking and he does actually realize he was in the wrong. He didn't remember writing that sentence, didn't go back to read what he wrote and his pride simply won't let him admit that we got the idea of sex twice a week because that is precisely what he wrote. Lori has said men have to be right, I think she got that idea from living with Ken.

[Ken]

No, you said both sisters wanted sex once a month, but both compromised on sex about TWICE A WEEK. Would you like to explain that part? Words have meanings, Ken. When you say both compromised on sex twice a week, that means both compromised on sex twice a week. I really can't fathom what "compromised on sex twice a week" means besides that? But feel free to explain. I was going to apologize if you had not said htat they had compromised on sex twice a week, but you did.

I don't know why, but I actually did expect more out of Ken then sticking to "No I said once a month" when he very clearly said that they preferred sex once a month but compromised on sex twice a week. I thought that if we showed him exactly what he wrote he would at least try to explain what he meant by that sentence if not that they compromised on sex twice a week.

Show me the quote... and besides that... who was complaining if they compromised at twice a week? Not me! That is a healthy compromise. I was not saying anything against that sort of compromise. Why accuse me of that? I am sure the guys were thrilled with twice a week.

[Ken]

Ken wrote:

Ken, see the bolded parts of your own quote above. You didn't say that they only had sex 1x/month, you said that the sister PREFERRED it once a month.

You didn't say that it was physically painful for them, you said that you sense was it was not that pleasurable for them.

Finally, you said "both compromised on sex about twice a week". We did not pull this idea out of thin air. You wrote it.

If you were unclear in your writing, I suggest that you:

1. Explain more carefully what the situation was.

2. Apologize for us for suggesting that we misrepresented the facts.

3. Consider upgrading your writing skills, especially since you are a professional consultation who presumably writes reports and proposals for your clients.

Add me to the list of posters not interested in a private conversation. Anything said will be on the record and visible to all.

Yes, then go on to see the point of my story... why should it take 10-15 years to achieve this compromise? Had the two wives followed the Bible the com[promise would have been achieved much sooner with far less frustration to their husbands.

Where you owe me an apology is for representing that I thought twice a week was not an appropriate compromise, when I think it is. My lament was that it took many years to achieve the compromise because the two were unwilling to honor their husbands. It was a very unhealthy situation that mutual submission takes and creates a deadlock where the husband is at a loss to try to move things forward... and the wife feels she is within her rights to block his requests instead of owning her own beliefs in what the Bible teaches.

And I am not a professional consultation... but I am a professional Consultant.

I guess we all can make mistakes in our writing, especially when it must be non-stop it seems to try and keep up with the lies and mischaracterizations.