Lori and Ken Alexander's Big Ol' Bucket o' Crazy - Part 2

[Firiel]

Apparently if you close your curtains, you hate Jesus.

What a weird barometer for being a Christian. Lori, you're so bizarre.

Yeah, wow. This is up there on the list of bizarre posts by Lori. Absolutely nonsensical.

[usmcmom]

Apparently if you close your curtains, you hate Jesus.

What a weird barometer for being a Christian. Lori, you're so bizarre.

Once again, a very child-like attitude. Does she really think the "Light of Jesus" means LITERALLY letting sunshine into your home?!?

I almost always have my drapes closed because I am prone to migraines and glare from the sun can trigger them. I do try to open west curtains in the morning and keep my east curtains closed, and then reverse it mid-day, to avoid direct sunlight but still get some natural light. Sometimes I forget, though; and I'm just as able to function, show hospitality, read my Bible and behave like a decent human being....all with my drapes closed.

Also I'd like to know how being a smoker makes someone less Christian than...oh I don't know...someone who justifies viewing porn, or someone who suggests that men pin their wives to a wall when she's upset. Just wondering....

[2xx1xy1JD]

Yeah, today's post wasn't rage-inducing, just weird.

I like natural sunlight too. It's not just a Christian thing.

Does Jesus not enter homes here in the dead of winter, when days are short and skies are gray? Does He not enter rear apartments with no view or direct sunlight? What about cheap basement apartments that couples rent as newlyweds, esp. if they "haven't got all their ducks in order"?

Oh, and once Jesus enters via sunlight, does he also pay the electric bill for the increased use of air conditioning? Not all of us live in a dry climate with cool breezes like the California coast, and the weather flips from frigid to sweltering rather fast.

[Firiel]

Yeah, today's post wasn't rage-inducing, just weird.

I like natural sunlight too. It's not just a Christian thing.

Does Jesus not enter homes here in the dead of winter, when days are short and skies are gray? Does He not enter rear apartments with no view or direct sunlight? What about cheap basement apartments that couples rent as newlyweds, esp. if they "haven't got all their ducks in order"?

Oh, and once Jesus enters via sunlight, does he also pay the electric bill for the increased use of air conditioning? Not all of us live in a dry climate with cool breezes like the California coast, and the weather flips from frigid to sweltering rather fast.

Jesus has abandoned Seattle. And there is no God above the Arctic Circle in the dead of winter.

[church_of_dog]

I don't have curtains, not a single one on any window in my home. And I'm as atheist an atheist as there ever was an atheist...

(I do plan to build some thermal curtains for very cold nights, as well as some exterior shutters for hot summer afternoons. Also, I have no close neighbors, I change my clothes in the bathroom, and I don't walk around undressed except perhaps when it's dark with no lights on inside).

[usmcmom]

My fundie-light sister loves a bright home too. She keeps curtains open, paints all the walls in pale colors, etc. But she has never even hinted that her home is more Godly than mine. She says mine is warm and cozy because I have dark, rich colors. I think hers is light and airy and very inviting; yet we know that each of our styles would not work for the other.

It's really interesting how Lori makes her personal preference into God's law. Also, very arrogant.

[polecat]

Apparently if you close your curtains, you hate Jesus.

What a weird barometer for being a Christian. Lori, you're so bizarre.

She is criminally stupid.

My home is full of windows, including a huge picture window that takes up almost an entire wall in the dining room. This is one of the reasons I love my house. But I also have chronic migraine. Since Lori probably is unfamiliar with the condition, it's a neurological problem. I spend most days a month in prodrome, pain or postdrome. I have maybe a handful of feel-good days a month. So yes, sometimes my glorious windows stay shut with heavy black-out drapes over them because it's far less painful to walk around in a dim room (let's face it -- spending every day in bed isn't an option for people in chronic pain even though we may want to) than it is to walk around in a room lit by the brightest sunshine possible.

But hey, who knew that keeping my drapes closed is a sign of my innate evilness and anti-Jesusness.

Then again, I'm probably only in pain because I'm a sinner. Lori prayed her brain tumor away, right?

[louisa05]

Once again, a very child-like attitude. Does she really think the "Light of Jesus" means LITERALLY letting sunshine into your home?!?

I almost always have my drapes closed because I am prone to migraines and glare from the sun can trigger them. I do try to open west curtains in the morning and keep my east curtains closed, and then reverse it mid-day, to avoid direct sunlight but still get some natural light. Sometimes I forget, though; and I'm just as able to function, show hospitality, read my Bible and behave like a decent human being....all with my drapes closed.

Also I'd like to know how being a smoker makes someone less Christian than...oh I don't know...someone who justifies viewing porn, or someone who suggests that men pin their wives to a wall when she's upset. Just wondering....

My eyes are extremely light sensitive. I frequently close the curtains and sometimes wear sunglasses inside. I guess I am a heathen. Who knew?

[formergothardite]

Apparently if you close your curtains, you hate Jesus.

What a weird barometer for being a Christian. Lori, you're so bizarre.

According to this I'm the biggest Christian out there! The light is shining in, no one smokes, and it is a pretty happy place.

[nokidsmom]

Apparently if you close your curtains, you hate Jesus.

What a weird barometer for being a Christian. Lori, you're so bizarre.

She is one strange lady. I really do wonder if her tumor did something to her which is why I don't really snark on her.

Her goofball husband is another matter tho.

[older than allosaurs]

Hmmm. Curtains open, skylights, non-smoking, pretty darn happy, one Pagan, one Buddhist and agnostic old me. Is this an oxymoron?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Polecat - yeah, I remember that every month, there would be days when my mom would be lying in her dark bedroom, in bed with a bad migraine. As an agnostic Jew, I guess she didn't care if Jesus couldn't get through the curtains.

[jerkit]

My new house has a skylight! I think this means JESUS sleeps under my bed.

[Maggie Mae]

I have to shut Jesus out during summer nights, otherwise I'd not get any sleep! Furthermore, I guess Jesus just doesn't like the cold. He's here way longer in the summer.

[Burris]

I know this is - or, at least it typically would be - gathering straws, but the first thing I notice about The Joy Filled Wife's condemnation of 50 Shades of Grey is how Lori headed the article by claiming, "Women still chew on the forbidden apple." It irritates me when Lori the Literalist, or anyone else who claims to be knowledgeable, describes the forbidden fruit as an apple. It smacks of basic Biblical illiteracy in precisely the sort of place where one should find knowledge.

JFW then begins the post proper with a histrionic condemnation of American culture:

"I spent a great deal of time last night in prayer and sorrow for our nation."

The reason for her despair...

"The fact that the pre-sell tickets for this movie have topped just about any other, shows the great depravity of our nation, as well as the sickly state of Christianity."

I've never read the book nor watched the movie. Judging by how critics at RottenTomatoes judged the film, however, it sounds as if I havn't missed much.

What captures my interest in JFW is how little faith she has in the people around her to actually expose themselves to something such as 50 Shades and come away from it untouched. It's almost is if the OP believes that to see something is to condone it - and so her reaction is to try infantilizing viewers, attempting to limit what adults watch in a misguided effort to save them from themselves.

(She should preserve her grief for those in the United States and beyond who are suffering far greater problems than exposure to a Twihard's BDSM fantasy.)

She continues with the following question - a naive query that at once denies women have agency:

"...and I sit here asking myself, 'Where are the men of God that should be stepping in and telling Eve that not only may she not allow Satan to deceive her by eating the fruit, but that the 'fruit' is but a disguise for the bondage that accompanies it's consumption?'"

And just who does JFW think bankrolled 50 Shades? A group of committed feminists?

The people responsible for this reaching the big screen - most of them male, I'd wager - have done this for the money. The odds are excellent their children have never seen this movie in part because they - the creators of this film - still buy into the same Madonna/Whore complex that animates JFW.

"But, alas, the women of our society are reaping what they've sown all these years through their rebellion against the protection and authority of men."

Before responding to this, I offer the following caveat: Of course not all men are predatory; most aren't. Even in the most corrosive situations, some men rise up.

BUT there is not, nor has there ever been, a time when stranger-men naturally treated stranger-women well - especially if the two happen to be from different backgrounds. The protection on which JFW depends is only a thin veneer of civility crusted over a gulf of barbarism. (Look up Soujerner Truth for more on how women of colour were treated.)

Women aren't paying more in rape and murder now than in the past; they're merely reporting it more now.

She continues on with what I have come to expect from her:

"At a time when we women need the strength and power of men the most, few of them are anywhere to be found. Since we have, for decades, sent the message to men loud and clear that we are capable of taking care of ourselves in every capacity and have no real need for them, we are left to fight our battles alone, aided only by our immense vulnerability to deception..."

I once worked for a woman, severely disabled, who was desperate to have a relationship of any kind. By the time I met her, she had already been convicted of extremely serious crimes - crimes more shocking because her physical condition was such that she would have to use coercion rather than force to accomplish the horrible things she did. She spent several years in prison, confined to the medical ward and kept out of general population.

(She found me, scraped me from the bottom of the barrel, and asked me to work as a PCA for her. I needed the money, so I did that for a year.)

The individual who incited her to commit acts I just can't see her doing on her own - he posed at first as her knight in shining armour. He could do everything for her she could possibly want. In terms of reading her desires, this man was hardly less than some kind of internet Svengali.

My client had, almost word for word, the same attitude as JFW: She had no confidence in her ability to tell right from wrong, accorded herself the position of one easily deceived by virtue of her gender...and she paid and paid and paid because He-Man turned out to be a monster.

JFW then posts a prayer for global destruction - which strikes me as beging far worse than fake BDSM in what sound as if it is a boring movie:

"Oh Jesus, come quickly! Separate the wheat from the chaff and refine your bride..."

It's funny how ones such as her believe they will be preserved

[2xx1xy1JD]

Burris - ITA.

Cold-hearted cynical bitch that I am, I do not find appeals based on overblown grief and distress persuasive. If you just heard of a massacre, spending the night in prayer and sorrow is appropriate. Hearing that a movie based on a trashy book has been released? Not so much.

I'm trying to decide if she is just a complete drama queen, or if she's repressed a lot of serious shit in her life, dealt with it by blaming porn and feminism (instead of asshole husband, emotionally incestuous dad and pathologically violent relative), and then gets weird triggers to past trauma whenever porn is mentioned.

The irony about her complaints with 50 Shades is that I actually get an extremely fundie vibe from the book. Ana is a completely inexperienced virgin who has never even touched herself. Christian wants her under his complete control, down to some pretty gross minute details. He acts as her protector, in a pretty over-the-top way, even though she was doing fine before and primarily needs protection from him. He wants to be her authority, and have the right to punish any misbehavior.

The whole "fruit is but a disguise for the bondage that accompanies its consumption" line? That's pretty much the plot summary! Ana is sexually attracted to Christian, but believes that she has to give up her independence and control and literally be in bondage to him in order to have a relationship.

The trilogy goes on to have them married in record time, making a baby despite birth control, Christian being "won without a word" simply because Ana has sex with him, and Ana learning to like living as a submissive wife in the bedroom.

[jerkit]

Burris - ITA.

Cold-hearted cynical bitch that I am, I do not find appeals based on overblown grief and distress persuasive. If you just heard of a massacre, spending the night in prayer and sorrow is appropriate. Hearing that a movie based on a trashy book has been released? Not so much.

I'm trying to decide if she is just a complete drama queen, or if she's repressed a lot of serious shit in her life, dealt with it by blaming porn and feminism (instead of asshole husband, emotionally incestuous dad and pathologically violent relative), and then gets weird triggers to past trauma whenever porn is mentioned.

The irony about her complaints with 50 Shades is that I actually get an extremely fundie vibe from the book. Ana is a completely inexperienced virgin who has never even touched herself. Christian wants her under his complete control, down to some pretty gross minute details. He acts as her protector, in a pretty over-the-top way, even though she was doing fine before and primarily needs protection from him. He wants to be her authority, and have the right to punish any misbehavior.

The whole "fruit is but a disguise for the bondage that accompanies its consumption" line? That's pretty much the plot summary! Ana is sexually attracted to Christian, but believes that she has to give up her independence and control and literally be in bondage to him in order to have a relationship.

The trilogy goes on to have them married in record time, making a baby despite birth control, Christian being "won without a word" simply because Ana has sex with him, and Ana learning to like living as a submissive wife in the bedroom.

Yes but kink that isn't like my own sexual preferences is icky and therefore shouldn't be allowed.

[calimojo]

Burris - ITA.

Cold-hearted cynical bitch that I am, I do not find appeals based on overblown grief and distress persuasive. If you just heard of a massacre, spending the night in prayer and sorrow is appropriate. Hearing that a movie based on a trashy book has been released? Not so much.

I'm trying to decide if she is just a complete drama queen, or if she's repressed a lot of serious shit in her life, dealt with it by blaming porn and feminism (instead of asshole husband, emotionally incestuous dad and pathologically violent relative), and then gets weird triggers to past trauma whenever porn is mentioned.

The irony about her complaints with 50 Shades is that I actually get an extremely fundie vibe from the book. Ana is a completely inexperienced virgin who has never even touched herself. Christian wants her under his complete control, down to some pretty gross minute details. He acts as her protector, in a pretty over-the-top way, even though she was doing fine before and primarily needs protection from him. He wants to be her authority, and have the right to punish any misbehavior.

The whole "fruit is but a disguise for the bondage that accompanies its consumption" line? That's pretty much the plot summary! Ana is sexually attracted to Christian, but believes that she has to give up her independence and control and literally be in bondage to him in order to have a relationship.

The trilogy goes on to have them married in record time, making a baby despite birth control, Christian being "won without a word" simply because Ana has sex with him, and Ana learning to like living as a submissive wife in the bedroom.

I never thought of it in the context of Patriarchal Fundamentalism, but I think you are on to something.

I object vehemently to the book, for a number of reasons, including that it is poorly written and the sex scenes appear to have been written by someone who has never actually had sex.

If anyone ever say the movie with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson called the Internship, there is a character in there who always talks about kinky sex, cosplay, etc, but she is so off about it, that it is very obvious she has never actually had sex, which she eventually admits to.

This is what I think of the author of this damn book. I think she either has never had sex, or has and it was either long ago, or just so bad, that she tried to invent what she thought was a great sex fantasy, but it just truly sucks.

I honestly cannot believe that so many women seemingly enjoyed this book. It offends my feminist sensibility, it offends my literary sensibility, it offends my erotic sensibility. I don't really read or watch just porn, but I have no objection to well written erotic scenes that contextually belong in the story. This book was a string of poorly written, to the point of laughably bad, erotic scenes with a very immature fantasy story of how the love of a good woman will change the heart of a cold man, trying to tie it together.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I sure as hell didn't read it as a romance novel, esp. because I hated the characters and couldn't figure out why Christian was supposed to be attractive. In my 40-something crowd, the "laughably bad" part was part of the draw, I think. It sort of felt like giggling over rude stuff in trashy novels or Penthouse letters, the way we did as teens.

[2xx1xy1JD]

BTW, has hell frozen over? Because I actually agreed with a lot of Lori's post today.

[FundieWatcher]

You aren't alone, so do I.

But when ever a SAHM says "I feel like a single mother!", I take it in the spirit it was meant. She means she is parenting the kids alone. I'm sure she realizes that her husband's job pays the bills. But yeah, it isn't accurate to say they are a single moms.

[polecat]

BTW, has hell frozen over? Because I actually agreed with a lot of Lori's post today.

No, I agreed with a lot of the first part of it, too. There's a world of difference between parenting alone and having a husband/partner who just isn't around all that often.

[Firiel]

I was skimming through the post today (written by Ken), and I thought it sounded familiar.

Sure enough, Lori's doing "re-runs" (sort of).

From today's post (http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2015/ ... noble.html):

As I loaded my precious little grandchildren into the car last night, and went from window to window teasing them with a smile, just to see them laugh and grin from ear to ear with their Papa, their mother said to me, “Aren’t they just so precious?†I agreed and ask, “Would you rather be working full time right now?†A great big smile came across her face as she acknowledged that no work could ever fulfill the joy and happiness that being full-time with her babies brings her. Smart, talented, hard worker, straight “A†student who could have been at the top of any career she would have chosen, and she was perhaps headed that way, until God gave her a honeymoon baby who has been the greatest joy in all our lives the last four years. Sure it’s tough, especially when the second baby comes along and soon a third, but who do you want raising the next generation of godly children if it is not the smartest, brightest and best? Don’t think for an instant that a stay-at-home mom is in any way inferior to a man, or that her role is in any way less noble. In our minds, it is more noble and more God pleasing than almost any career for a man or woman. It is the essence of why marriage exists, to raise godly offspring.

From the comments on another post (lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/09/she-was-into-real-estate-investing.html):

As I loaded my precious little ones into the car last night, and went from window to window teasing them with a smile, just to see them laugh and grin from ear to ear with their Papa, their mother said to me, “Aren’t they just so precious?†I agreed and ask, “Would you rather be working full time right now?†I great big smile came across her face as she acknowledged that no work could ever fulfill the joy and happiness that being full time with her babies brings her. Smart, talented, hard worker, straight “A†student who could have been at the top of any career she would have chosen, and she was perhaps headed that way, until God gave her a honeymoon baby who has been the greatest joy in all our lives the last three years. Sure it’s tough, especially when the second baby comes along, but who do you want raising the next generation of godly children if it is not the smartest, brightest and best? Don’t think for an instant that a stay-at-home-mom is in any way inferior to a man, or that her role is in any way less noble. In our minds, it is more noble and more God pleasing than almost any career for a man or woman. It is the essence of why marriage exists, to raise godly offspring.

I mean, Lori has turned comments into posts before, but it's usually a day or so later and she acknowledges it. I wonder if there are other massive Ken comments that turn into posts six months later.

Also, which is sadder-- that Lori is using old comments for new blog material or that I am so familiar with her clusterfuck of everything that I recognized the wording in the post and could find the comment it originated from? 8-)

[Firiel]

I mean, at least he took church_of_dog's critique to heart and made it clearer that he was talking about his grandkids by changing "little ones" to "little grandchildren." :lol:

Eh? Is he speaking of his grandchildren and just a poor-ass writer who doesn't make things clear? Was he plagiarizing someone else's words and didn't notice that part? Or did he explain it in his preceding paragraphs (which I read some of but just can't stomach the whole thing)

[Koala]

I recognized it too. Not sure what that says about me :?

:lol: