Robert: Don't satisfy wife sexually to show her who's boss

[usmcmom]

Someone needs to find Bob some scripture about being a massive whiny attention whore.

I really worry about his children. I can't imagine what it's like when Daddy gets into his little hysterical snits. I'm sure they've learned how to manage, in their own way, his mood swings. We know now that Amanda just sits at the computer and moderates comments for him all day when he's in a panic.

[feministxtian]

I read some of Boobert's drivel to my southern boy...I thought he was going to have a fit listening. His response was a big "OH HELL NO"! Now, admittedly, my southern boy hasn't been the best-behaved at times, but he wouldn't go into that demanding, domineering crap. I sent a clip to my daughter (good southern girl through and through) and her response is pretty much unprintable. She showed it to her boyfriend and told him if he ever tried any of that shit, she'd cut his nuts off in a heartbeat.

The 4-legged headships think THEY own the house and we must submit to them. The canine ones are a little more "in your face" about it. The felines...not so much.

And...feline headships TAKE control. They just march in and demand it...and we're dumb enough to submit

[salex]

I am always amazed at how difficult these people make their lives.

My husband, who is growing weary of hearing about these people (since, in real life, we'd never hang with anyone like them) says they make Christian Marriage sound miserable on every level....

[salsa]

I am always amazed at how difficult these people make their lives.

My husband, who is growing weary of hearing about these people (since, in real life, we'd never hang with anyone like them) says they make Christian Marriage sound miserable on every level....

except for when the men want sex

[Mecca]

Boobert is up-and-down today!

:lol:

Seriously. What an asshole. He might as well just leave that post down because the crudest comment was his opening one that started all this mess.

Hubs and I were chatting about Mr. Drawers this afternoon. Hubs response was to stay away from that blog because the guy sounds like a creeper, pervert getting his rocks off trolling on his own blog. I tend to agree. The creep actor with his guy is off the charts.

[formergothardite]

I really think that he is a pervert and thought he was going to get the ebil feminists to share stories about how they love to orgasm. Instead he got Christians telling him his advice wasn't biblical. He knows it isn't biblical so he had to resort to name calling and taking the whole thing down.

[church_of_dog]

My google-fu is only on half-power today, but I did find that the missing post is being discussed here: lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/815943-Mysognistic-Sex-Advice-(Maybe-long-read)

Even though they only link to him via donotlink, I found it by searching for his blog name, so I guess I don't really understand what donotlink does.

I wouldn't have necessarily thought that Robert has seen that, but one of the commenters makes reference to kid gloves -- is she responding to when Robert used that term, or did he use that term in response to that? :think:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Also, it appears that yesterday, Robert joined a forum called The Marriage Bed, which is a Christian discussion about sex in marriage. Since an account is needed to see any information (other than what google told me, which was only that he had joined the site), it's not public so I wouldn't share details. However, as it turns out, there are no details to share -- it appears Robert made a few posts but they are either not visible to new members (unlikely since he is also a new member) or possibly in those few posts he got into a tiff and got moderated/deleted? That is the more enjoyable scenario to ponder, at least. Perhaps someone on FJ is familiar with this site and knows if there is some other reason that a new poster's posts aren't visible?

[jerkit]

Good find CoD. Didn't robert say it was a Christian site though?

[formergothardite]

My google-fu is only on half-power today, but I did find that the missing post is being discussed here: lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/815943-Mysognistic-Sex-Advice-(Maybe-long-read)

Even though they only link to him via donotlink, I found it by searching for his blog name, so I guess I don't really understand what donotlink does.

I wouldn't have necessarily thought that Robert has seen that, but one of the commenters makes reference to kid gloves -- is she responding to when Robert used that term, or did he use that term in response to that? :think:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Also, it appears that yesterday, Robert joined a forum called The Marriage Bed, which is a Christian discussion about sex in marriage. Since an account is needed to see any information (other than what google told me, which was only that he had joined the site), it's not public so I wouldn't share details. However, as it turns out, there are no details to share -- it appears Robert made a few posts but they are either not visible to new members (unlikely since he is also a new member) or possibly in those few posts he got into a tiff and got moderated/deleted? That is the more enjoyable scenario to ponder, at least. Perhaps someone on FJ is familiar with this site and knows if there is some other reason that a new poster's posts aren't visible?

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Years ago I joined the Marriage Bed out of curiosity when I was still religious. It seemed to be a mix of creepy people(lots of posts about guys with massive cocks who wanted to discuss in detail how bad it would hurt their virgin brides on their wedding night. :roll: ) and people who were religious and wanted to discuss what was okay to do in bed. It was the only place I heard the word "refuser" used to describe a woman who didn't want sex. At least back then it didn't seem like the serious posters would take kindly to Robert and his way of dealing with sex. The advice given was to not force it and try to make sure you weren't doing things to turn her off.

[church_of_dog]

Good find CoD. Didn't robert say it was a Christian site though?

Yes, and it's a forum, not a blog, so I don't think this site

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

either of them

is the one he was referring to. Just thought it was interesting.

[church_of_dog]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Years ago I joined the Marriage Bed out of curiosity when I was still religious. It seemed to be a mix of creepy people(lots of posts about guys with massive cocks who wanted to discuss in detail how bad it would hurt their virgin brides on their wedding night. :roll: ) and people who were religious and wanted to discuss what was okay to do in bed. It was the only place I heard the word "refuser" used to describe a woman who didn't want sex. At least back then it didn't seem like the serious posters would take kindly to Robert and his way of dealing with sex. The advice given was to not force it and try to make sure you weren't doing things to turn her off.

Interesting. "Massive" is relative, lol :roll:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

The few threads I looked at seemed pretty straightforward -- people discussing valid and sensitive issues in the context of their religious views. I'm still baffled why he would have posts that are hidden, though. :irony:

[Emme]

He's having a big ol' mantrum now:

I feel like I want "slurp & praise for a quickie" to be a new post count title. There has to be a way to work his mantrum in. It cracks me up and it would infuriate him (and also terrifies me because his poor wife and kids must be so sad/brainwashed) Where does he even get these phrases he attempts to hand slap us with?

[usmcmom]

I guess my brain has been a little muddled this week; I'm thinking rather slowly. It just hit me that Robert could delete comments without taking down an entire post.

Couldn't he? :?

As much time as they've spent at the computer this week, he could have quickly glanced through all the comments and hit "delete" over and over, right? I'm sure Lori would tell them how to streamline the process. After all, most of his posts don't have many comments at all.

Just posting this so Robert knows that even the slowest among us can see he's full of crap. :embarrassed:

[church_of_dog]

I guess my brain has been a little muddled this week; I'm thinking rather slowly. It just hit me that Robert could delete comments without taking down an entire post.

Couldn't he? :?

He sure could -- he's done that before. I think he took down entire posts because he knows that what he posted doesn't fly, and he's trying to figure out how to defend it or to smoothly retract it -- and for that I give him some credit (if indeed that's what's happening).

Up until the last few posts, I thought he was someone who held beliefs I didn't share but who was generally a well-intentioned guy who just explains things really poorly (I think the Amanda-in-the-shed story is an example of that). I still think that HE thinks he's well-intentioned, but these last few sex-oriented posts have really revealed him to be just off his rocker. And the other christian blogs and sites are starting to react to that as well -- which we can only hope will cause him to reconsider his views -- he does seem to be pretty good at that post-blunder reconsideration, until the next blunder. Maybe he'll set himself a resolution for 2015 to think carefully about how he expresses himself, to make sure he only says exactly what he means to say, instead of the careless wording he's been dumping on his readership up until now. I'm not sure his carefully-worded screed will be any better than his poorly-worded ones, but at least readers will know for sure what he believes and can choose their loyalties from there.

[usmcmom]

He sure could -- he's done that before. I think he took down entire posts because he knows that what he posted doesn't fly, and he's trying to figure out how to defend it or to smoothly retract it -- and for that I give him some credit (if indeed that's what's happening).

Up until the last few posts, I thought he was someone who held beliefs I didn't share but who was generally a well-intentioned guy who just explains things really poorly (I think the Amanda-in-the-shed story is an example of that). I still think that HE thinks he's well-intentioned, but these last few sex-oriented posts have really revealed him to be just off his rocker. And the other christian blogs and sites are starting to react to that as well -- which we can only hope will cause him to reconsider his views -- he does seem to be pretty good at that post-blunder reconsideration, until the next blunder. Maybe he'll set himself a resolution for 2015 to think carefully about how he expresses himself, to make sure he only says exactly what he means to say, instead of the careless wording he's been dumping on his readership up until now. I'm not sure his carefully-worded screed will be any better than his poorly-worded ones, but at least readers will know for sure what he believes and can choose their loyalties from there.

You and I are of the same mine on this, I think. I have my own ideas on how the shed thing might have played out, but I'm not going to share them here for fear of giving Robert an out on clearing things up.

With this most recent garbage, he absolutely cannot justify his advice. He claims that he's still GIVING his wife more sexual pleasure than the average woman receives, but what he really is doing is DENYING her pleasure 20 percent of the time. He is saying he has such control over her that he even controls her body's natural response. Any man that thinks submission means ALLOWING his wife to respond with pleasure in the marriage bed is just wrong WRONG WRONG. There is NO scripture that justifies that. There is no scripture that says a husband's sexual needs are more important than a wife's.

He has answered my question that I posed several weeks ago. I asked if a husband could turn down a wife's sexual advances in a submissive marriage. What trumps? The scripture to fulfill marital duties or the scripture for the wife to submit?? Now we know how he feels about it.

[church_of_dog]

You and I are of the same mine on this, I think. I have my own ideas on how the shed thing might have played out, but I'm not going to share them here for fear of giving Robert an out on clearing things up.

With this most recent garbage, he absolutely cannot justify his advice. He claims that he's still GIVING his wife more sexual pleasure than the average woman receives, but what he really is doing is DENYING her pleasure 20 percent of the time. He is saying he has such control over her that he even controls her body's natural response. Any man that thinks submission means ALLOWING his wife to respond with pleasure in the marriage bed is just wrong WRONG WRONG. There is NO scripture that justifies that. There is no scripture that says a husband's sexual needs are more important than a wife's.

He has answered my question that I posed several weeks ago. I asked if a husband could turn down a wife's sexual advances in a submissive marriage. What trumps? The scripture to fulfill marital duties or the scripture for the wife to submit?? Now we know how he feels about it.

Yes, agreed. And what is the purpose of comparing to "the average woman" -- why isn't the only relevant point about sharing pleasure between partners? Why is he assuming any comparison to others is relevant? He clearly believes it's his role to be "dominate" :lol: but does he truly think that denying her pleasure keeps her wanting more? If she's into that, great, but then don't assume it's a mainstream situation appropriate for using to advise others... And if she's not into that how does he think it accomplishes anything useful? I do believe he really loves Amanda, and wants her to be happy, but playing with this half punishment, half domineering approach is just gibberish. If what he actually means makes any sense at all, then his ability to express himself is even worse than I initially thought. His feelings seem to be ok, it's just how he expressed them, and then the religious stuff that is so off-the-wall... You know, I just had an odd thought -- if they would just step away from the extremist religious rules, I think they might actually be ok -- just be themselves raising their kids and work out between themselves whatever rules work for them both -- but without trying so damn hard to make it fit into this extreme religious patriarchy submission bullshit. You want to model your lives after how Jesus lived? Ain't no one gonna complain about that. It just seems they are fighting SO HARD for something that isn't even an issue, except that they work equally hard to make it an issue first, so they can then be seen to be fighting against it. I dunno, I'm just rambling now -- they just make no sense to me. I need to make a new year's resolution not to waste MY mental energy on stuff that doesn't make sense to me, lol :think:

[lawfulevil]

Robert is forever reminding me of my (abusive alcoholic) ex whose favorite phrase was "I know you better than you know yourself". All Robert ever seems to blog about his superior, God-given knowledge of what Amanda and all other women need and should do. And all men, of course, but to a lesser extent.

[Grimalkin]

I can't believe I missed all this excellent drama! That's what I get for socializing. I decided to check in on Cabinet Man after watching Alaskan Bush people- who freak me the fuck out and made me think of the x- files episode where the mom was kept under the bed and used to breed more deformed kids. Then I thought of Robert for some odd reason.

I can't imagine what it would be like for Amanda to have all these awful things written about her and keep her head up in public. Do you think she has any friends? I would be so worried for her if she were my neighbor, and for sure would never allow my kids at their house. All play dates would be at my house. I think I would just make her tea and try and talk with her, I don't know what about though.

[Hisey]

I can't believe I missed all this excellent drama! That's what I get for socializing. I decided to check in on Cabinet Man after watching Alaskan Bush people- who freak me the fuck out and made me think of the x- files episode where the mom was kept under the bed and used to breed more deformed kids. Then I thought of Robert for some odd reason.

I can't imagine what it would be like for Amanda to have all these awful things written about her and keep her head up in public. Do you think she has any friends? I would be so worried for her if she were my neighbor, and for sure would never allow my kids at their house. All play dates would be at my house. I think I would just make her tea and try and talk with her, I don't know what about though.

I know. How weird to be their neighbor. "That's Amanda's house. Her husband says she's a six. He told her that sex with him 3-4 a week is a nonnegotiable part of their marriage. He insists on 104 orgasms per year. He thinks withholding orgasms is a good way to punish her if she misbehaves."

[littlemommy]

I also wouldn't want Robert in my house, no matter how badly I wanted new cabinets.

[Emme]

I also wouldn't want Robert in my house, no matter how badly I wanted new cabinets.

I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to share the gospel while doing cabinet stuff. (err rather his own abusive, weird, 80% orgasms for her, 100% orgasms for him 3-4 nights a week, gaslighting, 'refusers r evil and ungodly' version of it)

[Grimalkin]

I know. How weird to be their neighbor. "That's Amanda's house. Her husband says she's a six. He told her that sex with him 3-4 a week is a nonnegotiable part of their marriage. He insists on 104 orgasms per year. He thinks withholding orgasms is a good way to punish her if she misbehaves."

Yeah, no kidding. Not to mention the conversations about them at the neighborhood cook outs! If somebody was telling me this I wouldn't believe it, I would think they were malicious gossipers. Then, I would read the blog and just think they were gossipers. And think about what I would say to her f I ever spoke to her, and wonder if it would be appropriate to bring it up, or leave it, or just be really nice to her in case she needs to knock on my door at 2 in the morning.

[jerkit]

Why must Robert be such an exhibitionist?

I’m going to buy an old truck. My one thing I covet…an old truck to cruise the back roads and our small town with Amanda by my side. I like them a little rusty and with character, something cheap. Something from the 50’s or 60’s. I’m not to picky other than, as Amanda says when she sees me watching one go by, “You think that one has a big enough bed for us?†as she gives me a little wink. That truck is going to be a lot of fun. I hope it breaks down in the middle of nowhere.

[formergothardite]

Robert should go back to read the Bible. One of the 10 commandments is that thou shall not covet anything that is thy neighbors. There is no "except if you really want to have sex in the back of an old truck".

[usmcmom]

Robert has reposted his Sex Advice in its original spot; although he says it's been edited.

amanhiswifethebible.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/sex-advice/

I did not read through it closely enough to see exactly what he edited about the post. I did notice that we were correct in assuming T's comments were deemed too crude to allow through the second time. I guess genuine Biblical knowledge and polite requests for answers are crude in Robert and Amanda's world*. Robert has often used the phrase "iron sharpening iron," in the sense that that's what his blog would contain. Guess he's not so keen on that anymore.

*Which is probably one of the main reasons he hates us here at FJ. Many of us have more Biblical knowledge than he dreamed we would have, and that's just not gonna fly in his world.