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

[polecat]

Ken wrote:

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. /quote]

"Intended For Pleasure" was written in the 70s. My fundamentalist parents had it.

[salex]

Ken wrote:

So these "godly christian men" as well as the basketball team who may or may not have been godly or christian were happy enough to spend time bitching with one another about their lousey sex lives, their dissatisfaction with their wives and their marriages, and share intimate details about their wives likes and dislikes and hangups with people who knew their wives, but they were unwilling/unable to watch Dr. Ruth or find actual help for their wives or themselves.

Wow. These were the guys my husband knew at the office who bitched about never getting laid. Let's just say that when referring to them, there was little pity and a lot of amusement.

[samurai_sarah]

I must repeat what has been said several times:

Ken, words have meaning.

QFT. And proper punctuation can save lives! There's a difference between "let's eat grandpa" and "let's eat, grandpa". :mrgreen:

[RosyDaisy]

I need a hot shower. Fundie porn is disgusting and nasty.

[Ken]

I get it now... it is poor communications in what I wrote because you all think that the compromise to two days a week happened rather quickly, and I know and thought I communicated that it was 15-20 years later that the compromise was achieved.

I did not specifically say WHEN the compromised was achieved and I thought you would read to teh end and see that if 15-20 years was LOST you could put 2 and 2 together to realize that the compromise happened many years alter.

Here is exactly what I 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. 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. In a 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.

The last "Here is my point" I thought made it clear that there was much struggle to move beyond once a month for many years... The compromise to twice a week did not happen until 15-20 years.

My bad for thinking you would read the last paragraph and understand that the compromise took many years to achieve. I do not know what "these two couples lost out on 15-20 years of love making" can mean if it does not mean a sexless marriage during that time.

Also I write: "For 15+ years it was simply "no interested" and these Christian husbands could do nothing but try to love them anyway." What do you think that means if it is not a sexless marriage? There still was no compromise.

It shows the limitation of trying to write something in a few words, no time to proof, nothing but bias from the readers, and no questions from the readers to clarify that there is a seeming contradiction if the compromise happens immediately... when I am still saying they are struggling 15-20 years later. I can see how your bias view can lead you to conclude what you did.

My fault... I will try to write much less... Sorry.

[Koala]

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?

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?

Quoting, because liking it isn't enough.

[polecat]

Obviously no writer can write to all audiences. But if a writer realizes that his or her words are continually misread or misunderstood, he or she will also realize that the fault is not with the readers but with the writer.

Write what you mean. Write exactly what you mean. This forum does not allow us to see facial expressions, hear tone or watch gestures. It allows us only to express ourselves using words. So make those words mean exactly what you want them to mean, and stop blaming readers who "misunderstand."

[Koala]

"Intended For Pleasure" was written in the 70s. My fundamentalist parents had it.

Before he claims that he's never heard of it:

Lori Alexander:

I do think it was Dr. Wheat's book that I read just after getting married.

[J'ean Skirt]

Obviously no writer can write to all audiences. But if a writer realizes that his or her words are continually misread or misunderstood, good writers will realize that the fault is not with the readers but with the writer.

Write what you mean. Write exactly what you mean. This forum does not allow us to see facial expressions, hear tone or watch gestures. It allows us only to express ourselves using words. So make those words mean exactly what you want them to mean, and stop blaming readers who "misunderstand."

Even outside of his poor explanation that we misunderstood, his example is not a very good one. His argument is that the men in these relationships couldn't actually take any action on an issue as long as their wives weren't submissive. That it's only submission that can fix these marital problems.

That is a falsehood. In a mutually submissive (Ken's words) or egalitarian (my words) marriage, both partners need to look out for each other and work together to make sure both are happy with the marriage. If the men were unhappy, they should have talked about it, asked for counseling, or whatever. There are solutions that don't involve "you are my wife, and I want sex."

Whatever solutions Ken thinks these men could have implemented if they were the headship could have been implemented with a marriage of equals. Nothing he stated as a solution can only be done by headships with submissive wives. "The wives didn't want sex" well, no, I suspect they didn't based on what Ken has said (10 minutes, pain, etc). Both parties had a responsibility to fix things to make the marriage better for both of them. This doesn't require wives to be submissive at all.

We got kinda distracted by Ken getting all upset that we misunderstood him, but even with his clarifications the example doesn't stand as anything that convinces me a biblical marriage is desirable or better than my own.

[GothardsLap]

I assume many of us had no friggin clue who the hell you were and would have happily continued to not know who the hell you were until you and your wife not only set up a Venus Fly Trap blog to attract vulnerable women but then came here for some still unknown reason and actually attempted to practice your "biblical" con on emotionally healthy adults. It hardly requires a "preconceived bias" to quickly conclude on the basis of nothing but your words and what you recommend that you are neither Godly nor even a moderately nice person. I have been following your feeble attempts at communication which basically consist of unedited, misspelled, grammatically incorrect self aggrandizement where you posit that your even more simpleminded wife is, in fact, a woman so infused with Godly wisdom that she must spend hours on the internet imploring strangers to submit to men and hit children as though gleefully repeating such hate could actually be considered "advice", never mind "advice" from "Jesus".

As they say, "When people show you who they are, believe them". I do. And I hope that any poor unhappy woman surfing the net ends up somewhere other than the other end of internet "advice" offered by you or your wife. Whatever that woman needs it is almost certainly not to be told to "hit and submit".

Who are you Ken? You are actually someone who gets told this by one adult human being about another adult human being:

My wife was terribly unsubmissive ....There have been times where I have disciplined her by not allowing her to go out with the gals, not spending money on items except necessary food and clothing for the family, not attending women's bible study....there was even a few times she had to sleep on the couch, a couple times I made her sleep in the cabin on our property when she was downright in complete anarchy against our marriage, family and God's Word. She's had to clean the house as a punishment.....For years I was accused of being an abuser and got sideways looks even from family and those in church.

and responds with:

Lori and I have had some fun and some frustrations with some of her more recent posts on a very hot topic of the propriety of a Christian husband, not just attempting to deal with his rebellious wife, but actually doing so with great results. So Lori and I have nominated Cabinetman as hero of the week for being faithful to what he believed was God's call to redeem his bride and participate with the help of the Lord to turn her into the godly, loving and happy women who lives out the Spirit inside of her. And for putting up with the obvious malpractice committed by far too many commenters who based their concerns on guesswork and feelings, not the facts.

For those of you who still think he was too hard, or too arrogant or too borderline abusive, I can only say that I hope you, or your husband, never are put in the same predicament. Cast your stones if you may, then realize that biblically you have no footing to stand upon. The Bible does not in any way say that a husband cannot discipline his wife, so long as his motives are in love and he believes it is best for his wife to be corrected, reproved or rebuked. This is between him, his wife and his Lord. Not the loud voices, some who do not know God’s Word, and others who do not believe or follow it.

Ken paid no heed to the numerous posters who instinctively KNEW what this was. So, OK, it's one thing not to know-Ken & Lori aren't so swift. But quite another to ignore once told and shown. And still another to first encourage and high five the guy punishing an adult for not "submitting" to him and then to taunt and berate those who tried to speak up for what is right. That's who Ken is, or should I say "what" Ken is. Case closed. Except there's lots more if we need to continue this.

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]

And this comment from Lori is now more appropriate than ever:

So now that you know not giving your husband frequent sex is sin and you don't want to walk in sin, start making your husband happy. IT ONLY NEEDS TO TAKE TEN MINUTES!!! That is not much of a sacrifice to have a happy husband.

And of course this one:

There is something called lubrication and serving others whether you feel like it or not.

[GeoBQn]

And this comment from Lori is now more appropriate than ever:

And of course this one:

:brain-bleach:

[ShesCrafty]

And this comment from Lori is now more appropriate than ever:

And of course this one:

You know, that almost makes me feel sorry for Lori. Almost (she still spews reprehensible advice). But while they are both horrible people, I now see who the greatest monster is. And it isn't Lori.

[Coconut Flan]

I think Ken needs to keep talking. The more of his kind of wifely submission that is exposed on the internet the better.

[VooDooChild]

Ken wrote:

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.

:lol: He'll take it upon himself to police FJ. How noble!

[Hane]

And this comment from Lori is now more appropriate than ever:

And of course this one:

There are few things worse in marriage than lying there being used like a fuck-thing. Ask me how I know. Wait--don't.

[feministxtian]

If you're only taking 10 minutes to have sex, then you ain't doing it right!!! I was married to "the 7 minute wonder" (including foreplay). I was horny for the entire 7 years we were married. Now...I get enjoyable, long time, feels so good it almost hurts sex...yeah buddy!!!

But Ken, if all you need is 10 minutes start to finish, I highly advise getting some tips from porno flicks...

[latraviata]

I think Ken needs to keep talking. The more of his kind of wifely submission that is exposed on the internet the better.

This is really the most reprehensible he wrote thus far.

I sort of got used to his toning down, distortions, whining yes even his ignorance.

He really blames it all on the wifes.

He talks about frequency, duration, he never mentions intimacy and love, let alone consent.

It doesn't take much time, 10 min thank you very much, as I wrote before "wham bam thank you Mam" and deposits his godly blancmange.

No wonder these fundie women are not too keen of having sex with their christian leader headships.

So much for the 'loving' christian' marriage. :disgust:

[Hane]

This is really the most reprehensible he wrote thus far.

I sort of got used to his toning down, distortions, whining yes even his ignorance.

He really blames it all on the wifes.

He talks about frequency, duration, he never mentions intimacy and love, let alone consent.

It doesn't take much time, 10 min thank you very much, as I wrote before "wham bam thank you Mam" and deposits his godly blancmange.

No wonder these fundie women are not too keen of having sex with their christian leader headships.

So much for the 'loving' christian' marriage. :disgust:

I *almost* think "Godly Blancmange" should be worked into a post-count title somehow.

[ILoveJellybeans]

10 minutes??? I guessed fundie sex was crap, and yes, it is. No wonder these women aren't enjoying sex with the headship, he probably doesn't last long enough to let her finish. She might want to have sex with him more often if he wasn't bad at it.

[latraviata]

I *almost* think "Godly Blancmange" should be worked into a post-count title somehow.

Why not!

But Jesus, he calls himself a man, honestly :roll:

He does not rise above the level of a pimply adolescent boy. You know, a quick jerk in the can of the football field.

[latraviata]

10 minutes??? I guessed fundie sex was crap, and yes, it is. No wonder these women aren't enjoying sex with the headship, he probably doesn't last long enough to let her finish. She might want to have sex with him more often if he wasn't bad at it.

For Lori the 10 min. twice a week reward is new carpet and new upholstery for the couches in the living room.

[polecat]

If you're only taking 10 minutes to have sex, then you ain't doing it right!!! I was married to "the 7 minute wonder" (including foreplay). I was horny for the entire 7 years we were married. Now...I get enjoyable, long time, feels so good it almost hurts sex...yeah buddy!!!

But Ken, if all you need is 10 minutes start to finish, I highly advise getting some tips from porno flicks...

These men don't understand female sexuality. They fear it, deny it and try to shut it down every chance they get.

Hell, I'm not even sure they understand their own sexuality.

I bet they'd be shocked to discover exactly how good sex can be when SHE is enjoying it as much as they are.

[OkToBeTakei]

I feel sick to my stomach. Seriously.

I am going to add to the sick though, although no matter how reprehensible he may think 'FJ' is and 'FJers' are. We have never been a gratuitous porn site until he turned up.

Sorry been working as an evil feminist does, so only skim read. Did he just say it only takes 10 minutes to satisfy a man's needs? I suppose he never considered quality control? Strange in a business man :lol:

I think I'm getting it now.

Ken works in a niche business and is very successful. Orthodontic practices who need some motivational business guruism to make their practices even more money. Very American. (I can say this with both irony and a healthy envy of the whitey teeth.) Here he would tank as most NECESSARY orthodontic work is heavily subsidised for under 16's. EVIL social care kills inflated money makers. HA! I'm actually not snarking, just stating the facts of differing cultures, anybody who carves a niche career sees a market and is successful, fair play.

I just think he mistakes the 'women' he meets in the workplace as equals or pretends to refer to as, for propriety sake. NO. You are being paid by whomever's business you have been hired by. If you tell said employee, OOH I think if you dye your hair purple this practice is going to attract people who like purple which research has shown is XXX% likely to increase profit. NO matter what they think they will smile and nod. Just as, whilst he is blathering on about blah christian, blah submission, blah KEN KEN. They will smile and nod. ANYBODY who works is aware of this. Very few see this as validation of how great they are.

Ken and Lori also live by this maxim. Daughters have been indoctrinated in this ideal, sons too. So it all appears as normal. Day in day out same. Not likely you are going to meet many challenging differences in a workplace which is basically a cosmetic consumable that in that society has been turned into a norm. It is not in any but a few cases a health need. So who do you meet everyday? Not exactly a huge cross-section of society.

You pick a church that affirms your own beliefs with like-minded people. I think we have done the fit the book thing to death.

So Ken the man of the WORLD comes here and just dismisses the posters under a series of titles, boxes, that he can understand. You can be from Holland, England, Germany, all over the US, Scotland, Australia. (that was a quick recall of probably a very few contributors to this thread.) People who have never met and often quite vociferously debated and disagreed on differing subjects....BUT we are all the same.

I don't though know the ins and outs (HA) of poster's sex lives despite WHAT we do discuss. I know more about Ken's and his pals though. PUKEY PUKE McPUKE!

Really can't add much that I think he will comprehend. Except he gives men a bad name. A really bad name. Also like a previous poster I'm beginning to feel some pity for Lori, considering her beliefs, that's a bit worrying.

So back to the 10 minutes. FAB! Who does not love a quickie. Best are the WOW even after 18 years...you look ...you look around...it's all a go. GO FOR IT!!!

That's a quickie. IF you schedule which we don't, although sometimes it's a given when say, you know, a weekend theatre trip, hotel, childless, anticipation...that would be the only time I or my chap 'PLAN.'

Maybe my chap is an anomaly. I asked him if he would prefer our erratic unplanned passion for a twice weekly appointment. Or any 'agreed' schedule. He asked me if I was drinking :lol:

What would we know though. I do know though he does not posture about like a poseur on the internet to affirm his manliness. Nor does he spout some century old book to satisfy his own needs or inadequacies. He's just a decent guy, with a me that worships the ground he walks on, a daughter that sees that mutual worship (I mean that WITHOUT any fecking religious meaning) because to me that is healthy, this is probably the first and only time I will toot my own life on this forum regarding my life. I don't need to. I don't want the posters here to like me, respect me, or to win anything. Koala and I disagree quite vehemently at times. I do not expect you to even understand that. Koala is no more trying to 'win' than I am. She just happens to be very tenacious in her debates. I can totally respect that just as much as I can disagree at times. You are, just as every post unravels becoming more and more pathetic in your 'needs.' Both those you tell us about and those that are obviously seen.

I totally expect this post to be skimmed and dismissed. As you do.

I have reasoned WHY you are here (that worked well, you bit like a rabid pirhana ( silly boy 8-) ) TRIED to be fair. Pointed out some aspects of what you say are/were understandable. As time goes on though it appears wether you are digging it yourself or as you possibly believe and say ad nausea, the manure that is this forum is doing it, either way the hole is getting ever bigger and whilst I did at times feel your frustration at having to answer a multitude of diverse responses/opinions. I tend to think that now your own words render you hoist with your own petard. So any empathy has gone south. This part of the forum is public. I suggest you google your own name. It is coming up quite a few times now. Congratulations. All your own work.

I may now go back to non-serious humour posts. They are much more fun.

I own my typos, randomness and grammar. Just not proudly, forgive me good folks. Tenses as well. Totally blew those also :cry:

[Loveday]

These men don't understand female sexuality. They fear it, deny it and try to shut it down every chance they get.

Hell, I'm not even sure they understand their own sexuality.

I bet they'd be shocked to discover exactly how good sex can be when SHE is enjoying it as much as they are.

I asked him way back around the time of the first Ken thread something along the lines of why he (and others of his ilk) fears women. Of course he didn't bother to answer me. :roll: I think you're on to something here. :think:

And OKTBT... :clap: