Lori Alexander - Still Not Learning A Thing, Part 3

[usmcmom]

Quote

Since a man's natural function of having sex with a woman SO she can bear children is taken away, he uses sex simply for pleasure. He is no longer needed to leave his mother and father, cleave to a wife and create a family.

I looked for her little "written by Ken" label but couldn't find it. Aside from the relative brevity of the post, it reads like Kennonized words to me.

Anyway, regarding the above quote (bolding and caps mine). Lori....Ken...whoever wrote it....makes it sound like conception is THE ONLY REASON  to have sex.  She clearly typed "so she can bear children..."  If they thought otherwise, why not write "so she will bring him pleasure AND bear his children."  If they truly believe that bearing children is the only reason for sex, Ken and Lori are sinning if they continue to have sex because, clearly, there is no reason to have sex if you are not hoping for a child.  UNLESS....somebody is doing it "simply for pleasure."  Tsk tsk...that's not what God intended, according to their blather on the blog today.  As far as that drivel about "he is no longer needed to leave his mother and father...." it sounds like he's saying once the babies are done arriving, the man might as well pack up and go back home to Mommy. 

Quote

When birth control entered America and women began preventing having babies {one of the main reasons God created sex}, they began having sex only for pleasure, thus using their bodies unnaturally.

They use the same argument in the above quote (and I may have them out of order) - that sex for pleasure is unnatural. 

Then:

Quote

Let's stop acting like men and begin using our bodies for their natural function the way God intended for us to use them and not society's perversion. Enjoy being a woman. Enjoy sex with your husband.

BAM!  Their readers are told to enjoy sex with their husbands.  WHICH IS IT?!?  Sex for pleasure is unnatural and sinful....but enjoy it!

*****************

Ken and Lori, if God did not intend sex to be pleasurable, he would not have made it feel so good - so good that you believe that is what keeps a man alive and breathing and able to go on in this cruel world...the promise of sex.  If God did not intend for sex to be pleasurable for a woman, he would not have given her a clitoris and the ability to reach orgasm.  Also, if sex were only for the creation of babies, God would have made it known that he expects couples to stop having sex when child-bearing years are over.  You've been very open about the fact that you continue to have sex. Might we be expecting a pink or blue announcement from you soon? 

[Florita]

1 hour ago, usmcmom said:

 They use the same argument in the above quote (and I may have them out of order) - that sex for pleasure is unnatural. 

Then:

BAM!  Their readers are told to enjoy sex with their husbands.  WHICH IS IT?!?  Sex for pleasure is unnatural and sinful....but enjoy it!

That's what I was going to say!

Lori is not only contradicting herself within the same post, but even the same paragraph!

[salex]

Didn't this bitch only have 4 kids?  We know she used contraceptives because she tampered  with them to lie to ken and get pregnant, not because she wanted a baby so badly but because she wanted to QUIT WORKING!!!!!

She tells women to have sex even if it is painful / view it as a chore.  She says to enjoy sex .  She says do it to keep your husband.... Basically, she has no true theme she just spews words on a page every day. 

 

[church_of_dog]

1 hour ago, usmcmom said:

I looked for her little "written by Ken" label but couldn't find it. Aside from the relative brevity of the post, it reads like Kennonized words to me.

 

[Koala]

28 minutes ago, salex said:

Didn't this bitch only have 4 kids?  We know she used contraceptives because she tampered  with them to lie to ken and get pregnant, not because she wanted a baby so badly but because she wanted to QUIT WORKING!!!!!

She tells women to have sex even if it is painful / view it as a chore.  She says to enjoy sex .  She says do it to keep your husband.... Basically, she has no true theme she just spews words on a page every day. 

 

Speaking of which, a reader just replied:

Quote

It always makes me so sad to see women leaving their babies with other people, trying to act like men by going to work, some even intentionally getting pregnant so they can take from the hard working men. 

Yes, dear reader...I know of just such a story:

Quote

I do have a funny story to end this with. Ken told me I could stay home after I had my second baby. I was a full-time school teacher. I wanted to stay home with Alyssa so badly that I put a hole in my diaphragm and we conceived Ryan! I was so happy because I got to stay home and raise my babies.

Now, I don't recommend using deceit like this in anyway to get your way. I wasn't a submissive wife back then at all but I did get to stay home. 

Now remember guys, Lori totally doesn't recommend tricking your spouse into getting you pregnant.  But it DID work

[molecule]

Here's what popped into my head when I read this post: Ken told Lori he wanted to try anal sex.

Instead of telling him no (because that would be unsubmissive of her), Lori wrote a post about the proper functions of male and female body parts.

She's peppered her post with references to natural and unnatural functions. She's reminded him of just how much she has done what God called her to do by having sex, having his babies, and presumably nursing his babies. She has become a good wife and pleases her husband sexually. He needs to remember just how blessed he is to have her as his wife.

In case a reminder of the natural (God-designed) and proper functions of man, woman, and sex isn't persuasive enough for Ken, she has brought science into the mix by referring to medical studies that prove anal sex is damaging. She ignores the fact that medical studies of anal sex were mostly done in males having non-monogamous anal sex with other males, not in monogamous long-term heterosexual relationships, which means that many of the results may have less to do with which parts are together and more to do with non-monagamousness.

But then she goes back to biblical roles and throws in the words "perversion" just to make Ken feel guilty about his request.

She isn't actually saying no, she's just trying to make him retract his request.

[gWife]

2 hours ago, usmcmom said:

 If they truly believe that bearing children is the only reason for sex, Ken and Lori are sinning if they continue to have sex because, clearly, there is no reason to have sex if you are not hoping for a child.  UNLESS....somebody is doing it "simply for pleasure."  

I think that they believe, despite biology (menopause or other causes), they should continue having sex that is open to conception, because God might decide to allow the woman to become pregnant, whatever her age. Never mind those science-y reasons why it won't happen!

[Koala]

I honestly don't think Lori realizes it when she contradicts herself.

[formergothardite]

I don't follow this thread super close, but the amazing thing is that no matter how much time has passed since I last read the thread, Lori is still basically saying the same shit. She hasn't written anything original or different in years. It is always sex, submit, contradict herself, sex, submit, contradict herself, sex, submit, contradict herself, with the occasional bit about hitting children. 

[Koala]

Reader:

Quote

What if my husband wants me to have anal sex? Don't I have to obey him?

Lori:

Quote

No, Laura, you do not since it is bad for your health and can cause you harm. Anything that can cause harm does not have to be obeyed. My dad who was a pathologist {a doctor who spends his life looking under the microscope for analysis} told me that anal sex is dangerous since it is the sewer system of the body. We should never play in a sewer!

Freaks...

Can you imagine what these people talk about around the dinner table??  What on earth would have brought about such a conversation??  I would have died of embarrassment.  

On another note, you gotta love the reader who thinks birth control makes men gay  I will never know where they come up with this shit.

[formergothardite]

Anal sex is at the top of the list of things I never want to have talk with my father about. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to discuss the subject with me either. 

[Whoosh]

 

I'm still pretty new to this whole concept of fundies sharing online and I really just can't even read a lot of this stuff let alone comment.  However, FG's comment caught my eye in the activity feed and I just had to see how y'all got there so I read back a bit.  Somehow I managed to seemingly glue these two quotes together - I will comment on the first one here and the second one at the end.  I think this point about research results is very important and not at all understood by many.  I want to add on a bit by saying that people typically also fail to acknowledge the fact that people who are marginalized, degraded, emotionally abused, etc (I may not be using the best terms there - forgive me) are far more likely to have low self worth which can lead to poor self care and risk taking behavior.  As long as these toxic societal influences have grossly disproportionate impact on gay/bi/etc men, we aren't really going to be able to conclude all that much based on studies about penis use that don't factor these issues into the equation.  Sorry - struggling with wording here.  I am sure someone can phrase this better.

1 hour ago, molecule said:

<snip>

She ignores the fact that medical studies of anal sex were mostly done in males having non-monogamous anal sex with other males, not in monogamous long-term heterosexual relationships, which means that many of the results may have less to do with which parts are together and more to do with non-monagamousness.

<snip>

41 minutes ago, Koala said:

<snip>

On another note, you gotta love the reader who thinks birth control makes men gay  I will never know where they come up with this shit.

WHAAAAA??? 

Nope. Nopenopenope.

I am amazed at all of you who can read and speak rationally about this stuff on a consistent basis.  Baby steps for me.

[molecule]

31 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

 I want to add on a bit by saying that people typically also fail to acknowledge the fact that people who are marginalized, degraded, emotionally abused, etc (I may not be using the best terms there - forgive me) are far more likely to have low self worth which can lead to poor self care and risk taking behavior.  As long as these toxic societal influences have grossly disproportionate impact on gay/bi/etc men, we aren't really going to be able to conclude all that much based on studies about penis use that don't factor these issues into the equation. 

You're absolutely right. Being a white Christian heterosexual married woman, it just doesn't occur to her that research studies can reflect such a different world view and set of experiences than she has. I have read some of the anal sex research studies (not for a while, though), and I haven't seen anything that can apply in monogamous heterosexual relationships. 

Lori is using science just like she uses the bible: she is looking for things that support her view rather than looking to be informed and actually learn and grow from what she reads.

Her comments about the anus as part of the body's sewer system make it pretty clear that if she found all sorts of studies saying anal sex is safe and if God came to her during prayer time and said to her, "Fear not. The back door is not a sinful portal to intimacy," she would still find a reason not to do it. Of course, if she were a feminist and knew that she had a right to choose what to do with her body, this would be no big deal.

It's kind of funny that Lori is building an argument about marital sex on a foundation of studies of gay men. Then again, I doubt that she has actually looked at any of the research.

[usmcmom]

*sigh* So. Much. To. Talk. About...

First, can anybody tell me when Lori and her father might have had a legitimate need to talk about anal sex?  It's just that....I mean...how....wha...OH MY GEYAWD!!

Second...disclaimer* If a woman wants to have anal sex with her husband...go for it. If she doesn't want to have anal sex with her husband, she has the right to say no to that.  Now, for Lori to say that a woman doesn't have to honor that request from her husband, when Lori has said A GAZILLION TIMES that "The Bible does not say...submit to your husband, except...." well, once again she is contradicting herself.  Isn't it Debi Pearl, whom Lori worships, who has said something like "You're not special....who cares if it hurts?" regarding sex.  So who says this is the point at which to draw the line?

Lori has told women that a wife needs to submit to her husband (and remain married to him, of course) if he asks her to break the law (tax fraud, anyone?), when he is addicted to porn, when he physically abuses her, when he calls her vile names, when he threatens to break their children's bones, when he cheats on her. And yet....suddenly, when the issue of anal sex comes up...NO!  It is bad for you. You are free to be rebellious in this situation. 

The hypocrisy....the contradictions.  I just can't. 

I. JUST. CAN'T...!

I JUST CAN'T!!!!!

 

[FJismyheadship]

This Charity sounds like a real piece of work

 

"It always makes me so sad to see women leaving their babies with other people, trying to act like men by going to work, some even intentionally getting pregnant so they can take from the hard working men. They want the kids, they want the daddy to take care of them (child support) But then they won't get married. If they did, they might have to stop their sinful lives! I wish more young women would just give their lives to God and be happy in the role they were meant to have."

Someone sounds angry. Wonder if her husband has a baby mama or something? Lol

[SilverBeach]

On 11/30/2015 at 7:42 AM, 2xx1xy1JD said:

So....these poor kids will continue to grow up with a father who constantly threatens physical violence. 

Domestic violence escalates and often starts with words. That poor woman seeking advice from Lori would have done better to call an abuse hotline. Lori doesn't know what put your foot down means? Setting limits for how much mistreatment you will take is wrong? Screw her and her hateful advice. How about the scripture that says a husband is to love his wife the way Christ loves the church? I hate scripture being used to oppress women and children. Lori makes me so very stabby.

[church_of_dog]

25 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

*sigh* So. Much. To. Talk. About...

Second...disclaimer* If a woman wants to have anal sex with her husband...go for it. If she doesn't want to have anal sex with her husband, she has the right to say no to that.  Now, for Lori to say that a woman doesn't have to honor that request from her husband, when Lori has said A GAZILLION TIMES that "The Bible does not say...submit to your husband, except...." well, once again she is contradicting herself.  Isn't it Debi Pearl, whom Lori worships, who has said something like "You're not special....who cares if it hurts?" regarding sex.  So who says this is the point at which to draw the line?

Lori has told women that a wife needs to submit to her husband (and remain married to him, of course) if he asks her to break the law (tax fraud, anyone?), when he is addicted to porn, when he physically abuses her, when he calls her vile names, when he threatens to break their children's bones, when he cheats on her. And yet....suddenly, when the issue of anal sex comes up...NO!  It is bad for you. You are free to be rebellious in this situation. 

The hypocrisy....the contradictions.  I just can't. 

 

That is what caught my eye and I'm glad you mentioned it.

When Lori says:

Quote

Anything that can cause harm does not have to be obeyed.

that is a MAJOR contradiction to so, so, so much else she has said! 

Especially since "harm" is a very broad word that applies to pretty much every situation in life.  Aside from harm to one's physical health, there is harm to one's own or others' mental health, harm to one's own or others' psyche, harm to one's community, harm to the environment, etc. etc. I could go on...

Countdown to Lori "clarifying" that she ONLY meant [insert language that applies to her opinions only] in 3...2...1...

[Florita]

I can't believe Ken hasn't chimed in yet. C'mon, Ken, they're talking about anal. You must have at least a 1,500 word wall o' text ready to go on that subject.  

[Loveday]

I'm wondering when Ken is going to jump in with some replies to Lori's commenters. I mean, how often does he get the chance to discuss anal sex on her blog? 

[Hisey]

1 hour ago, church_of_dog said:

That is what caught my eye and I'm glad you mentioned it.

When Lori says:

that is a MAJOR contradiction to so, so, so much else she has said! 

Especially since "harm" is a very broad word that applies to pretty much every situation in life.  Aside from harm to one's physical health, there is harm to one's own or others' mental health, harm to one's own or others' psyche, harm to one's community, harm to the environment, etc. etc. I could go on...

Countdown to Lori "clarifying" that she ONLY meant [insert language that applies to her opinions only] in 3...2...1...

Oh, please. This is no surprise. She once said that the joyful wife didn't have to obey when her husband told her not to eat a piece of toast. She could eat it, you see, because you don't have to obey when it comes to nutrition (her words, not mine)

You have to obey till it' something important to Lori, then you don't have to obey.

[Koala]

Something I've been mulling over- 

Lori has been very clear that she doesn't believe women should be teaching men.  One of her readers even mentioned the other day that she was concerned that by teaching online, Lori has no ability to limit her teaching to women.

I have noticed lately, that "Dave" and "Rob" comment on Lori's blog frequently.  Before them it was Cabinetman, and I am sure there have been others over the years.  Lori always responds to them, and never once does Ken step in and redirect the men to another blog.  Never once does he tell them (on Lori's behalf), that his wife hasn't set out to teach men, and any further comments will be deleted.

Interesting that...

I also wonder if "Dave" is of the infamous "Privileged to be Dave's Doormat".  He is a big proponent of wife discipline and always seems disappointed when Lori won't take her suggestions on "discipline" to the next level.

Today he commented twice and he and Lori seem to be quoting scripture at each other....

He even says:

Quote

 The world and church have redefined love and grace to mean 'no confrontation, no judging. Be nice.' Well to hell with being nice.

What a guy.  Naturally, Lori seems to love him.

And for those who haven't been following along, here's the "Privileged to be Dave's Doormat" comment:

Quote

"Doormats serve a very specific and even edifying purpose, do they not?  What if the

doormat said, 'I don't

want to be a doormat anymore' in a grumbling, complaining attitude?  Then what

would the floors of the house

look like?  All manner of dirt and filth from the outside world would be spread


throughout our homes.  But if the

doormat takes pride in serving the home, filtering it of all the junk that would

otherwise enter that home, then I

say, 'God, would you allow me to count it a privilege to be a doormat for my home?  

Can I serve my husband so

that before he enters his castle, he can swipe his shoes of all the outside mess he's

stepped in all day?  Would you

let me count it a privilege to be that good man's doormat?"

She continues:

Quote

Whoa, Lori. My comments about being Dave's doormat which you quoted in this post have, um, struck a cord... Oh, well. May I yet be a doormat for my husband. 
 

 

[usmcmom]

 

Quote

The world and church have redefined love and grace to mean 'no confrontation, no judging. Be nice.' Well to hell with being nice.

Lori allowing Dave's first comment through illustrates her hypocrisy once again. She and Ken scold FJ and others for foul language, yet when Dave swears in his comment....nothing.  I guess Cussing for Jesus is righteous.  It's especially ironic that his comment comes at the end of a post on those who are afraid to hear the "real, hard truth." Is Lori afraid to remind Dave that we should let no unwholesome talk come out of our mouths? 

It reminds me of how they fell at Cabinet Man's feet in adoration, despite his foul language yet Ken insisted he forbade Lori from reading here - citing the language as one of the reasons. 

Also, can I ask a question about this line from Lori?

Quote

It would be SO much easier to be a blogger and I would be SO much more popular if I simply taught about love and grace, not about the tougher things God commands of us as His children.

Why does she think she has to teach EITHER/OR?  I think she'd be a much more popular blogger if she taught BOTH...you know, like the Bible does.  She insists on teaching anger and hate - anything that allows her to scold others.  That says a whole lot about the type of person she is and the type of blogger she WANTS to be. 

Eh....while I'm here, can we consider "Cussing for Jesus" as a post count title?

edited because...there's no such thing as a pot count title. 

[molecule]

1 hour ago, usmcmom said:

 

Also, can I ask a question about this line from Lori?

Quote

It would be SO much easier to be a blogger and I would be SO much more popular if I simply taught about love and grace, not about the tougher things God commands of us as His children.

Why does she think she has to teach EITHER/OR?  I think she'd be a much more popular blogger if she taught BOTH...you know, like the Bible does.  She insists on teaching anger and hate - anything that allows her to scold others.  That says a whole lot about the type of person she is and the type of blogger she WANTS to be. 

 

 

 

I don't understand the whole either/or black/white approach she takes to everything. i read the same bible she does and don't do that.

The problem isn't that she doesn't teach only love and grace. The problem is that she never teaches love and grace at all. If she included some love and grace now and then, she would attract more readers--and she would still be able to write about what she sees as the truth. Honestly, if she kept her posts as she has them but spoke love and grace in the comments, she would be making progress. It is possible to teach love and grace without going with the flow of society. 

[Koala]

She once made a post quoting a man referring to women as "bitches".  But it was okay, because he was also telling them if they'd quit being so fat and put on some make up, someone might marry them.  I guess that made it cool in Lori's book.

Quote

Christian women need to be told the truth about men ~

Men are attracted to youth and looks. This is normal. Men are not evil, base or perverted for being attracted to youth and beauty. Young Christian girl, if you are not getting approached or asked out, it’s probably because you’re not attractive enough, you’re not nice enough or you’re not available enough. You need to work on this. You need to lose weight, grow your hair out, wear nice clothes and some decent makeup. You might be a b****, and if you are, you need to be nicer. If you really want to find a man and marry, then you need to get serious about it while you’re young. 

http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-truth-about-men.html

Lori was also "allowed" to read Sunshine Mary's blog in all it's filth.  But not FJ.  Because bad words.

[AmazonGrace]

I think the problem with reading FJ is probably all the critical thinking...

 

Oh dear, what a bind Christian girls are in... you need to be modest, and hot enough to attract a man, and being vain is a sin, and at the same time you have to think about your looks to attract a man, and you can't interact with males you aren't related to or married to for fear of impure temptation, yet at the same time you need to be nice to them and available enough...