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

[littlemommy]

....Things are taking a turn....for the weird....

[Coconut Flan]

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.

I'm again not sure if what you typed is what you meant. You are saying that mutual submission created the deadlock?

That situation was not mutual submission as I see it. It was two people intent on getting what each wanted without a great deal of regard for the other spouse. That is the way I see the situation as you presented it. That is a marriage problem that needs resolving aside from their intimate issue. Having the husband in charge only compounds the problem as I see it. Mutual accord would mean that both are happy not that someone has to win, coerce, cajole, or otherwise manipulate the other spouse.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My typo is duly noted and has been corrected.

Your description of events in that quote didn't say, "the husbands only had sex once a month until finally, after 10-15 years, the wives finally compromised on 2x/week."

We've already explained why simply increasing the frequency earlier would have been more likely to hurt, rather than help, the situation. In hindsight, the better approach would have been for a husband in that situation to say, "I don't want to do anything that hurts you. Let's try doing other things that don't cause you pain, and let me speak to the doctor and look up any information I can in order to get you some help."

[salex]

Here is the post you wrote, Ken

viewtopic.php?p=704130#p704130

HEre is what you wrote

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.

The last sentence of the first paragraph quoted here says that while the men were "all about sex" and the women wanted sex only once a month, they compromised on sex 2x per week. The next paragraph says that it was YEARS later did they have sex more often... when the women began liking sex more.

How else can you read what you wrote here, Ken?

[salex]

Ken, if you have more men you counsel who want more sex and their wives find it unpleasant, you might have them and their wives go to this site.

the-clitoris.com/

[Koala]

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.

I'll give you this Ken, I've known some fine Christian people in my time, but I can't think of any of them that wouldn't consider you and Lori a disgrace to Christianity.

If you have a legit question or concern send it to me through private and I will take a look at it.

Oh Ken, a zebra won't hide his stripes for long will he? You know, I don't know what kind of marriage you have, but where I come from, it is unacceptable for older married men to go into forums and seek out private communication with the female members. It's not even a matter of trust, it's a matter of respect for your spouse, and to use words you might understand, "avoiding the appearance of evil".

Because you are so shamelessly soliciting private communications from our members, I am going to quote your comments to "Courtney" on the off chance there's someone here who hasn't seen them yet:

Ken Alexander:

Courtney that is unfair to say!

I just looked at you and your husband on your blog and your are an ideal model of femininity.

A woman can wear these things and be feminine, but many who wear them are doing so to look masculine, or at least not feminine.

Your face and smile makes it look like you could wear a potato sack and still look feminine, even with short hair. But I do think you would look better with longer hair maybe to the shoulders .... but my opinion doesn’t count if your man likes it short. He is the one you are pleasing :) .

Since Ken loves context: "Courtney" frequently comments on Lori's blog. Ken replies to her quite often and has gone as far as to suggest he and Lori taking her to lunch if she is ever in the area. While Ken is usually very friendly with her, Lori tends to snap (possibly indicating that Ken's advances aren't going completely over her head). Courtney was featured recently on Lori's blog. lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-inquisitive-reader-of-mine.html

Correct me if I am wrong Ken, but you have had private conversations with "Courtney" haven't you? I believe I remember emails being mentioned....

I would also like to highlight his comment to one of our members:

Ken Alexander:

I was skimming too fast and thought Curious had lost the M & M's If you lost them, I will ... Just post your address and I will send a dozen packs.

I can only speak for my own marriage, but if I ever had to accompany my husband on a Saturday post office run so he could send a dozen packs of M&Ms to a woman online, he'd have more problems than the price of postage.

[formergothardite]

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.

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

The way you wrote this means that the compromised on sex twice a week and that we had to fast forward years later before both wives began to enjoy sex more. This is how sentence structure and paragraphs structure work. In your first paragraph it means that the women wanted sex once a month, the men were all about sex but being fin Christian men they compromised on sex twice a week. The "fast forward years later" means that all that you mentioned in the paragraph before took place before the women began to enjoy sex more, that includes the "compromise on sex twice a week".

So anyone reading those paragraphs would come away with the assumption that they compromised on having sex twice a week even though the women did not find it pleasurable and that it was years later before the women began to enjoy sex more.

As you can see I did not pull the sex twice a week out of thin are. It is exactly what you wrote. If you lack writing skills you cannot blame us for not being able to understand what you meant. We took your words at face value exactly in the way you wrote them.

[Koala]

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. My husband has been saying he was a creepy bastard from the get go.

[Ken]

My typo is duly noted and has been corrected.

Your description of events in that quote didn't say, "the husbands only had sex once a month until finally, after 10-15 years, the wives finally compromised on 2x/week."

We've already explained why simply increasing the frequency earlier would have been more likely to hurt, rather than help, the situation. In hindsight, the better approach would have been for a husband in that situation to say, "I don't want to do anything that hurts you. Let's try doing other things that don't cause you pain, and let me speak to the doctor and look up any information I can in order to get you some help."

I understand that you read a lot more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote, and interpreted things according to a preconceived negative bias towards me. I get that. But this has nothing to do with my being clear. My illustration was very clear, I simply did not give you every detail about it for sake of brevity, and other reasons. Of course you all can't trust that I actually know what I am talking about, so you have to pick, after you speculate, and then want to defend yourself by saying I was not clear to you.

No, I do not have to give you details to a story that are not germane to my point. You want to make other points later with speculation, that is on you when you find out you are wrong with your speculation. Stop speculating all day long and making up stories.

Of course increasing frequency would potentially hurt the situation IF we are talking about intercourse, but not if we are talking about other ways she can help satisfy her husband's needs. That is part of compromise, and it could have been reached much sooner if the wives would followed their own belief in a submissive role in their marriage, but they were functioning under a number of lies taught to them by worldly thinking, especially the lie that even when married they got to choose the frequency of sex... all on their own... because it was their body and their feelings.

Certainly it is their body and feelings, and the husbands respected this, but it was the wives lack of respect for their husbands that created the many years of an almost sexless marriage.

We as Christians did not watch Dr. Ruth back in those days or read books on sex. You all may have, but that was not something that was considered healthy for a Christian to do. The discussion of sex is much more open in todays church, but still huge issues remain in the discussion of it within couples.

Unfortunately, too many men will find an outlet for their perceived needs that does not include their wife, all the while the wife thinks she is providing a happy compromise. I am NOT condoning such behavior.... just a statement of reality. A wife can compromise with a husband at sex once a week, but then is shocked later to find out he is not on the same page as she thought they were. Some wives should ask their husbands and find out that their compromise may simply mean burying their head in the sand. And if one likes their head in the sand without knowledge, then they should not ask, and then again he may lie about to when asked. We do not have this sex crazed society for no reason at all. Some of it is to blame on seeming compromises in the marriage bed which is really another way of telling some husbands, go get your needs met elsewhere.

It takes 10 minutes to please most men... adding an extra 10 minutes once, twice three times a week to ones schedule seems like an easy thing to do, but for many it is a chore. Interestingly, it seems many wives may go into the idea of sex as just a duty and when the romantic tie is over they actually appreciated the time as there are so many healthy physical, psychological and emotional needs met by a healthy marriage romance.

OK, have it again... blow everything I said out of proportion and mischaracterize. I see the pattern here and it is clear.

I will be very selective going forward as two what or if I address any issues. Too much time wasted on you all.

[Koala]

Too much time wasted on you all.

Well by all means, go Ken. No one is holding you here, and several of us are downright uncomfortable with the filthy bullshit you are in here talking about.

You are disgusting.

[formergothardite]

I'm still frankly baffled how anyone could interpret " compromised about twice a week" followed by "fast forward years later" to the "compromised twice a week" coming after the "fast forward years later". It doesn't make logical sense. They compromised on sex twice a week and then we fast forward to them enjoying sex more. That is how it is written. This isn't a bias, this is proper structuring of paragraphs and sentences.

[happy atheist]

Of course increasing frequency would potentially hurt the situation IF we are talking about intercourse, but not if we are talking about other ways she can help satisfy her husband's needs. That is part of compromise, and it could have been reached much sooner if the wives would followed their own belief in a submissive role in their marriage, but they were functioning under a number of lies taught to them by worldly thinking, especially the lie that even when married they got to choose the frequency of sex... all on their own... because it was their body and their feelings.

Are you fucking kidding me? How is this not advocating marital rape?

Ken Alexander thinks that married women shouldn't get to decide not to have sex. After all, it's only their bodies and feelings at stake. No biggie. Amiright?

It takes 10 minutes to please most men... adding an extra 10 minutes once, twice three times a week to ones schedule seems like an easy thing to do, but for many it is a chore. Interestingly, it seems many wives may go into the idea of sex as just a duty and when the romantic tie is over they actually appreciated the time as there are so many healthy physical, psychological and emotional needs met by a healthy marriage romance.

So here we're equating sex with, what, cleaning the toilet? It only takes 10 minutes, and even though it's unpleasant you'll be happy when it's done? Or something?

[Hisey]

I think Ken is saying that:

Biblical=I care if my spouse is happy

Lots of people care if their spouse is happy. People of all religions. It is not just a Biblical thing.

Plus, I don't think "submitting" has anything to do with caring if your partner is happy. You can submit without giving a hoot whether your partner is happy.

Finally, if Lori says that wives should not be complaining about their husbands, then perhaps husbands should give their wives the same courtesy. Did you tell your friends that it was not loving, or Biblical, to complain about such an intimate matter with you?

(Though I don't understand how the "no complaining rule" coexists with the "seek godly counsel when your husband is mean" rule.)

[J'ean Skirt]

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.

The husband is only at a loss because he thinks his only response is to order his wife to submit. He doesn't think he needs to negotiate or actually take her needs into account. He can't do anything unless she simply acquiesces.

I don't see the problem as mutual submission or egalitarian marriage, but more of a problem that there are two people who cannot work together towards a common goal as a team.

If this was your example for "submission is better" it's not an example that actually tells me that. You've presented the men in these marriages as total assholes who really only care about getting sex and not about their wives or their relationships.

[J'ean Skirt]

Are you fucking kidding me? How is this not advocating marital rape?[

Ken Alexander thinks that married women shouldn't get to decide not to have sex. After all, it's only their bodies and feelings at stake. No biggie. Amiright?

Yeah, he is absolutely advocating marital rape.

So here we're equating sex with, what, cleaning the toilet? It only takes 10 minutes, and even though it's unpleasant you'll be happy when it's done? Or something?

10 minutes? 10 minutes is healthy? Is Ken really serious that a healthy sex life is 10 minutes at a time? No wonder those poor women were in pain and not enjoying it.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

I ... am boggled and speechless over this most recent claim. 10 minutes 'to please a man' nothing about the man pleasing her. Yeah, if it's just about him getting his rocks off and nothing about her, she is going to see it as a chore. WTF?! :pull-hair: :pull-hair:

[Coconut Flan]

I understand that you read a lot more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote, and interpreted things according to a preconceived negative bias towards me. I get that. But this has nothing to do with my being clear. My illustration was very clear, I simply did not give you every detail about it for sake of brevity, and other reasons.

Oh, no, no, no.

We read exactly what you wrote. If you aren't clear and a group of women who have a firm grasp of the English language and composition get the exact same meaning from what you wrote, then the burden of the problem is on you, Ken. You want to weasel out of what you said. Now you want to say you left out details. That is not our problem. We can only discuss an issue with you as YOU present it. You want to obfuscate and shilly shally because it didn't turn out as you expected. That is your problem, not ours. No one is persecuting you, but we will hold you accountable for what you type. You either mean it or you don't. It appears you don't. BTW, real men and women stand by their word and can be straightforward without the game playing.

[ViolaSebastian]

This has taken such a downright gross turn...

[Hane]

Good God Almighty, is he STILL here?

Folks, let's just shampoo the rug and stop feeding the troll.

[salex]

So, his failure at writing clearly is really all about us being anti Ken. Poor baby.

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?

[polecat]

It takes 10 minutes to please most men... adding an extra 10 minutes once, twice three times a week to ones schedule seems like an easy thing to do, but for many it is a chore. Interestingly, it seems many wives may go into the idea of sex as just a duty and when the romantic tie is over they actually appreciated the time as there are so many healthy physical, psychological and emotional needs met by a healthy marriage romance.

TBH, if a man is only spending 10 minutes on sex, his wife very well may think it's a chore. What's the point? She's basically being treated as a masturbatory aid. Men who consider their wives' physical, psychological and emotional needs during sex are more than likely going to spend much more than 10 minutes during sex to ensure their wives enjoy it every bit as much as they do. Hence ... not a chore but a very pleasurable, mutually beneficial time.

Too much time wasted on you all.

Feels like a chore, does it?

[moodygirl86]

Asking for FG's address so you could send her some M&Ms. Nope, not at all.

He said WHAT?! Where was this? Sounds like a pervy metaphor to me...

[Jezebel]

Good God Almighty, is he STILL here?

Folks, let's just shampoo the rug and stop feeding the troll.

If it was any run-of-the-mill troll, I'd agree. But in this case, I'm perfectly okay with watching Ken Alexander whine and pout and cajole and hurl accusations and otherwise attempt to weasel his way to victory. He can just keep at it, as far as I'm concerned, for as long as he likes.

Sure, it's already abundantly clear that he's not the kind, honorable, decent Christian gentleman he claims to be. Sure, he's already created an indelible record of just what monsters he and Lori are, for any and all to see. And he just keeps digging, and digging, and digging, utterly heedless of what he is doing or how bad he is making himself look--he just can't stop. It's crazy. He makes himself look even worse than many of us already thought, but he can't see that because he's so blind to his own failings.

It's as if he thinks he must win here, at any cost, but he has no understanding of what the actual cost will be. And he will ultimately lose in his "battle" against us--no unflattering content will be removed, FJers will keep on snarking about Lori's blog, and Ken will never get the last word. But on top of that, he's will have left behind an incredibly negative picture of himself, one that has far more power to do him harm than our discussions of his wife's blog ever could have. And he doesn't even see that.

So I'm all for letting him continue digging. The deeper and wider that hole, the better.

[Firiel]

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.

Ken, we don't owe you an apology for "misrepresenting" you when what you wrote clearly indicated that 2x a week was the compromise and that sex wasn't satisfactory to the men during that time. It's not bad or wrong or immoral of you to have been unclear in your writing. It happens to everybody. I taught freshman composition at a college-- I've seen worse. But you accused people of LYING and MAKING STUFF UP for repeating what you said instead of going back and looking at what you wrote to realize it came off differently than you intended. There was a miscommunication that was NOT caused by our desire to twist your words but rather by a bit of unclear writing. I don't think anyone is necessarily trying to say that you MEANT that 2x a week is not acceptable-- they are just trying to defend themselves against your accusations by saying that what you wrote said that.

Also, I think there are very few here who would say, "Sexless marriage? Par for the course! Get used to it!" when one partner is unhappy with a sexless marriage. Most would advocate patience, compromise, but also therapy and counseling so that the couple can approach the manner in a healthy way and increase the chances that the issue will be resolved with TWO satisfied partners ENJOYING their intimacy.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ken wrote:

Of course increasing frequency would potentially hurt the situation IF we are talking about intercourse, but not if we are talking about other ways she can help satisfy her husband's needs. That is part of compromise, and it could have been reached much sooner if the wives would followed their own belief in a submissive role in their marriage, but they were functioning under a number of lies taught to them by worldly thinking, especially the lie that even when married they got to choose the frequency of sex... all on their own... because it was their body and their feelings.

Certainly it is their body and feelings, and the husbands respected this, but it was the wives lack of respect for their husbands that created the many years of an almost sexless marriage.

We as Christians did not watch Dr. Ruth back in those days or read books on sex. You all may have, but that was not something that was considered healthy for a Christian to do. The discussion of sex is much more open in todays church, but still huge issues remain in the discussion of it within couples.

Might I humbly suggest that the attitude that it was not "healthy" for a Christian to listen to or read anything on sex - even in the form of an older women who is a qualified expert as opposed to porn - may have fueled the problem? If they had been into more "worldly" thinking, they may have had a clue of what to do.

[Coconut Flan]

It was also only a selected subgroup of speshul Christians that did not listen to Dr Ruth or read anything about couple relationships. Please remember, Ken, that you do not speak for all Christians. Far, far from it in fact.