Lori Alexander 14: Environmental Notebook Doodles & Self-Righteous Husband Bashing

[Chocolatedefrauded]

I see the "no quit" rules from parents as part of the whole entitled "my kid is so special and will earn a scholarship and be famous because they are so special" attitude. Special coaching, extra lessons, straight As. required. Those parents are scary to me and I'm just a bystander. I can't imagine how hard it is being their kid. 

The middle & upper class pushing kids to succeed is so damaging. Nothing the kids do is good enough. Any mistake is embarrassing & humiliating to the parents. They really do live through their kids.

my kid tried dance, swimming, tennis and te kwon do. We made her give it a honest effort, like a month or session of lessons. She picked up some skills, nothing fancy, along the way. Music is what she loves. Still swims like a fish but doesn't want to be on a team.

patents can screw up their kids in many different ways. I see it around me & wait for the inevitable breakdowns & issues.

[louisa05]

There are times when kids need to follow through on their commitments.

I had kids quit plays multiple times because they wanted to do something else or didn't want to come to rehearsal. Every single HS drama teacher I know has at least one story of a kid quitting within a week of the performance. I had a lead do it once.

That is letting down your classmates and not keeping a commitment. If the kid decides they don't like an activity like that, tell them they don't have to do it again but that they have to see the commitment through this time

[onemama]

20 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

There are times when kids need to follow through on their commitments.

I had kids quit plays multiple times because they wanted to do something else or didn't want to come to rehearsal. Every single HS drama teacher I know has at least one story of a kid quitting within a week of the performance. I had a lead do it once.

That is letting down your classmates and not keeping a commitment. If the kid decides they don't like an activity like that, tell them they don't have to do it again but that they have to see the commitment through this time

I agree. 

Here's an interesting reply on the Moving Away thread:

Reader says:

Quote

 

This is something I would struggle with. Actually, for the first 9 years of our marriage, we lived in my husband’s hometown, but I was absolutely miserable (to the point of being suicidal). I HATED it there. The fact that I was surrounded by abusive in-laws (and that he didn’t defend me from them) made it much, much worse. I dreamed constantly of going home. I finally reached a breaking point and found a job in my own hometown, and my husband followed me here.

How should I have handled it, instead? I am a much better wife and mother now, and we are more financially secure in this low-cost area. I stay home now, which would have never been possible in his expensive area. And I would never have been able to find God again if I were still in the depths of my misery.

My husband, too, seems to be more genuinely happy than before. Yet I know he is homesick. And I know he feels out of place, because the two areas are drastically culturally different.

I know it was probably wrong to drag him away. But knowing how miserable we both were, knowing that there was in-law abuse involved, and knowing that going away brought us back to God, what should I have done instead? And what should I do now? (Even though he has not mentioned realistically moving back, the very thought of it is enough to almost send me into a panic attack.)

 

Lori hasn't replied yet. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Lori's response to all that will be that she MUST follow him wherever. In-law abuse? So what? Pain is a great teacher. Happiness and anxiety doesn't matter. Only your husband's happiness matters. 

[molecule]

Lori's post about sex-starved men really ticks me off. I've said before that I am in marriage ministry, and a lot of what I do relates to sexual issues. I actually agree with her on the devastation caused by a lack of sex in marriage. Although many marriages are sex-starved because of relationship problems that need to be addressed, there are also many where women just don't understand how emotional sex can be for men or where men don't understand that their wives have a sexuality that works differently than theirs. I do agree with Lori that it is a big problem for a lot of marriages and that many men are emotionally starved when they aren't having sex in their marriages. (Whether they should feel that way or not, the reality is that many of them do.)  I hate the fact that I agree with Lori in even a small way about anything.

Unfortunately, Lori approaches this solely in a legalistic way. She says that women need to give their husbands sex, and the only reasons she gives  are to keep the husband happy and to do the woman's share of upholding 1 Corinthians 7.  She describes sex only as a duty--and then tells women they shouldn't approach it like a duty. She's given no reason why a woman might see it as anything other than a duty. 

She completely ignores what the bible says about the value of sex. It is described as a source of joy, connection, and unity in marriage. It is for the wife's happiness as much as for the husband's. 

The bible says that the relationship between Christ and the church is like the one-flesh relationship of a marriage, yet Lori doesn't have anything to say about that. No wonder Lori is so legalistic about everything. If she views sex as nothing more than a ten-minutes-and-lube obligation with guidelines of move, smile, and moan a little, she's going to view her relationship with Jesus as nothing more than an obligation with lots of rules and no heart, just lubricating her way into heaven by obedience.

Anyone else think that Lori has never had an orgasm? The thought gives me the tiniest twinge of sympathy for her. 

I hate reading her sex posts so much.

[onemama]

30 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Lori's response to all that will be that she MUST follow him wherever. In-law abuse? So what? Pain is a great teacher. Happiness and anxiety doesn't matter. Only your husband's happiness matters. 

I posted a reply to that one and it's disappeared.... I guess Lori doesn't agree with the leaving and cleaving principle as the foundation of marriage.  For her, marriage is all about the wife submitting to her husband. Period. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

22 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

Furthermore, Melania worked as a model. Which is a job. 

Conservatives are trying their best to forget it. (Can you imagine what they would have said if Michelle Obama did racy naked shoots? Even fake lesbian racy shoots...) Better doing as if it never happened. 

[Hisey]

55 minutes ago, molecule said:

Lori's post about sex-starved men really ticks me off. I've said before that I am in marriage ministry, and a lot of what I do relates to sexual issues. I actually agree with her on the devastation caused by a lack of sex in marriage. Although many marriages are sex-starved because of relationship problems that need to be addressed, there are also many where women just don't understand how emotional sex can be for men or where men don't understand that their wives have a sexuality that works differently than theirs. I do agree with Lori that it is a big problem for a lot of marriages and that many men are emotionally starved when they aren't having sex in their marriages. (Whether they should feel that way or not, the reality is that many of them do.)  I hate the fact that I agree with Lori in even a small way about anything.

Unfortunately, Lori approaches this solely in a legalistic way. She says that women need to give their husbands sex, and the only reasons she gives  are to keep the husband happy and to do the woman's share of upholding 1 Corinthians 7.  She describes sex only as a duty--and then tells women they shouldn't approach it like a duty. She's given no reason why a woman might see it as anything other than a duty. 

She completely ignores what the bible says about the value of sex. It is described as a source of joy, connection, and unity in marriage. It is for the wife's happiness as much as for the husband's. 

The bible says that the relationship between Christ and the church is like the one-flesh relationship of a marriage, yet Lori doesn't have anything to say about that. No wonder Lori is so legalistic about everything. If she views sex as nothing more than a ten-minutes-and-lube obligation with guidelines of move, smile, and moan a little, she's going to view her relationship with Jesus as nothing more than an obligation with lots of rules and no heart, just lubricating her way into heaven by obedience.

Anyone else think that Lori has never had an orgasm? The thought gives me the tiniest twinge of sympathy for her. 

I hate reading her sex posts so much.

I agree that if a woman is withholding sex to manipulate her husband, or because she doesn't really care how he feels, that this is a bad thing.

I have a huge problem with her assertion that a large majority of women do this.

It just doesn't feel right. There are other reasons--reasons that would require Lori to have empathy--that make much more sense. Reasons like physical problems, exhaustion, suppressed anger (perhaps due to spouse's poor behavior), lack of knowledge about a difference in sex drives, etc.

Her latest comment is so hypocritical. Women, apparently, can choose to be aroused. They are just too bitchy to make that choice! Men, however, can't help being aroused--they're wired that way, you see--so women must cover themselves with burkas.

On Lori's FB page today, she is railing against "porn for women" in the form of 50 Shades of Grey. This book did not really interest me, but it seems clear that many women find it erotic. So you'd think that would be a good thing, so it would get them "aroused" like they are supposed to be. But, Josh, one of Lori's MRA friends, wrote in to dismiss it scoffingly as female porn. HIS women are supposed to get aroused ONLY by from him. (Josh did not share his opinion of "male porn". I wonder if he thinks it's equally bad?)

It's getting worse and worse to be a woman in Lori's world.

[Imrlgoddess]

I would like to know where all these scores of women are that are actively, visciously withholding sex? I know I'm not the most world traveled person ever but I've been around.... I have known plenty who have a fair give & take in that area. Some days she's tired, some days he's tired. I can only think of one man that has truly, really & truly, been denied to a point that it's damaged him emotionally. They are a front row, high mass at the cathedral type couple. Just a couple years into their marriage she shut it down cold. It slowly went from a few times a year to only on the anniversary. Every conversation about it ended in fights & her telling him she thought he'd have outgrown that "phase". 

Whether she is asexual, I believe the term is the days, or she's latent homosexual & terrified of the backlash, she had zero desire for any form of intimacy. At all. He never left her. Never cheated on her. Considered it many times but never pulled the trigger. Finally the once a year produced a child & that's his glue. There is no romantic relationship between them & never will be again. They are roommates who raise a child but can't pursue relations outside the marriage. 

THAT. is denial. All this bs Lori & her congregation bitch about isn't denial it's human nature. How do they explain men who deal with ED? I assume that's a woman's fault too, if she weren't such a harpy he'd be able to get it up each & every time. What happens to marriage & intimacy when both parties are too old & things don't work right anymore?? Does that mean the biblical marriage is over?? I mean old age shouldn't be a deterrent right? Didn't Sarah or one of them have a baby when she was supposed to be past the prime? By their logic God can & will continue to send babies regardless of nature. 

[onemama]

1 hour ago, Imrlgoddess said:

What happens to marriage & intimacy when both parties are too old & things don't work right anymore?? Does that mean the biblical marriage is over?? 

A marriage can survive without sex. It can even survive when one of the partners is disabled and completely unable to have sex and needs a lot of care.  I knew one such couple (she died several years ago) and they made it. He was with her, and she with him, until she died.  There's a lot more to marriage and to intimacy in marriage than sex! 

[polecat]

5 hours ago, louisa05 said:

There are times when kids need to follow through on their commitments.

I had kids quit plays multiple times because they wanted to do something else or didn't want to come to rehearsal. Every single HS drama teacher I know has at least one story of a kid quitting within a week of the performance. I had a lead do it once.

That is letting down your classmates and not keeping a commitment. If the kid decides they don't like an activity like that, tell them they don't have to do it again but that they have to see the commitment through this time

 

I absolutely agree with this. It's one thing to try tennis/baseball/swimming lessons, discover it's not your thing and quit. It's another thing entirely to make a commitment to a team and then flake on that commitment.

2 hours ago, Imrlgoddess said:

I would like to know where all these scores of women are that are actively, visciously withholding sex?

Fom what I've observed of the Christosphere, the idea of "sexless" is entirely subjective and can simply mean "less often than the man wants." That means that any one of us could be a wicked woman withholding sex from our husbands. If you turned your husband down because you had menstrual cramps -- you're one of them. If I said no because this new antibiotic is making my stomach sick, I'm one of them. We're potentially ALL wicked women of Babylon viciously depriving our men of the sex they so desperately NEEEEEED.

*rolls eyes*

[smittykins]

I always wondered why the Duggars insisted that their kids continue to take music lessons, when it was abundantly clear that most of them had no real talent.

[Meridae]

I have always wondered what these people think of women with higher sex drives than men. Do they even believe women HAVE sex drives? Or are sex drives in women viewed as dirty and immoral?

[ViolaSebastian]

4 minutes ago, Meridae said:

I have always wondered what these people think of women with higher sex drives than men. Do they even believe women HAVE sex drives? Or are sex drives in women viewed as dirty and immoral?

Rest assured, Lori's written a post stolen someone else's comments and made into a post about that very topic. Prepare to set your emotions to enraged! Part of her answer includes "taking better care of yourself" and "get your husband checked for medical issues." Interestingly, that sort of advice never seems to go the other way, when women have the lower sex drive.

http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/08/women-who-have-higher-sex-drives.html

[AlwaysDiscerning]

The post says "we reap what we sow". Right, so a man with a low sex drive is because the woman did something to cause that. 

[Chocolatedefrauded]

One if the commenters say they pray before sex....I can't even......why is religion part of everything with fundies? Do they try to breathe biblicaly too?

[molecule]

1 hour ago, polecat said:

 

Fom what I've observed of the Christosphere, the idea of "sexless" is entirely subjective and can simply mean "less often than the man wants." 

 

Most of us define sexless marriage the same as clinical psychologists do--sexual intimacy ten or fewer times per year. And when we discuss refusal, we are not talking about saying no when you're tired or have cramps, nor are we talking about health or pain issues that interfere with intercourse.

And yes, we know that about 25% of marriages have a wife with a higher drive than the husband. And most of us (Christians in general, not fundies, as I have no idea what they would say) would first point to low testosterone or porn use as an explanation for a husband's refusal, not at the wife's behavior. 

That's part of what bugs me so much about Lori. There are a lot of Christians who are working hard to support and heal marriages. Some of us focus on what women may need to do, and others focus on what men may need to do--but all decent Christian marriage ministers I know will be the first to acknowledge that most relationship problems are the result of both spouses' actions and reactions. (And we are not talking about abuse here, either. That isn't a relationship problem. That's a major sin-on-the-abuser's-shoulders problem.)

[Emilycharlotte]

Regarding the quitting/not quitting issue, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer for every child in every situation.

It is important to teach kids not to be "quitters", as in people who have a pattern of giving up too easily, not honoring their commitments, letting others down, etc.   However, all rules have occasional exceptions, and I have seen parents doggedly enforce the "You can never, ever quit once you start" rule to a point that just was ridiculous. Sometimes we realize we have made a mistake, and it's ok to change course. 

I guess I'm not one for hard and fast rules, but my opinion is---know your child, talk to your child, teach them to follow through, discuss the difference between quitting a flute lesson and quitting a team that depends on you---but don't be dogmatic about it, and recognize that occasionally quitting might be the best answer.

 

 

[polecat]

3 minutes ago, molecule said:

Most of us define sexless marriage the same as clinical psychologists do--sexual intimacy ten or fewer times per year. And when we discuss refusal, we are not talking about saying no when you're tired or have cramps, nor are we talking about health or pain issues that interfere with intercourse.

 

I know where you stand on this issue, molecule, and I think you know exactly where I stand on it. I GET that sexless marriages exist and have NEVER denied that. My beef comes in with what THESE people describe as sexless, and I think you know that perfectly well.

I've already explained this comment and why I made it (creatively edited out). I realize that many rational people do NOT follow this train of thought, but having followed many red pill Christian blogs (i.e., Lori-like blogs), I know exactly what I'm talking about. One in particular -- SSM, to be specific -- posted a blog from a man who griped about his sexless marriage only to reveal later that he was only having sex twice a week. Do they not count? Or do we only go by your version? 

[Koala]

Reader:

Quote

if it were not for testosterone and the sex drive that God put into men making them attracted to women for sex, I personally don’t believe that the vast majority of men would choose to have anything to do with women at all. 

Lori:

Quote

Ken and I have spoken about this and we agree.

I think that speaks volumes...

[ViolaSebastian]

I just can't believe sometimes that these men have mothers, sisters, and daughters. I'm of the belief that women are much more than their relations to men, but that said, I can't believe people would say this sort of stuff about relatives whom they supposedly love and who happen to be girls and women. Does Ken truly believe that if it weren't for sex, his son-in-laws would have nothing to do with his daughters? And where does that leave the relationship between men and their daughters, that's hopefully sex-free? Frightening.

[Imrlgoddess]

I firmly agree with you @onemama. I meant the question from Lori's POV. Assuming she's correct & men marry for sex then what happens when it's not a driving factor?  I'd be curious to see what happens to she & Ken in 5-10 years. Maybe she'll just be relieved that he hasn't asked all week & she got to sleep in. 

As an aside, has she ever successfully answered a comment regarding sex with a disabled partner? I'm sure I remember seeing someone post on her blog about it...

 

[ViolaSebastian]

Quote

Fun tip from a man, ladies. If you read Fifty Shades, no good Christian man will like, date or respect you. You look down at us for porn, we feel the same when you read bodice rippers.

Thank goodness this MRA douchebag is here to tell me about how to earn respect. God forbid I get it on account of being a human being.

[onemama]

20 minutes ago, Imrlgoddess said:

I firmly agree with you @onemama. I meant the question from Lori's POV. Assuming she's correct & men marry for sex then what happens when it's not a driving factor?

I understood you, lmrlgoddess, and I just answered the questions.  I should have worded my answer differently to reflect that. Sorry it was confusing!

If you take their view of marriage to its logical conclusion you see how ridiculous it is!  

[usmcmom]

3 hours ago, polecat said:

I absolutely agree with this. It's one thing to try tennis/baseball/swimming lessons, discover it's not your thing and quit. It's another thing entirely to make a commitment to a team and then flake on that commitment.

 

I really do agree with you on this. We just found ourselves in very bizarre circumstances. When our son was in junior high he really wanted to try out for the basketball team despite the coach's horrible reputation for volatile behavior. Think Bobby Knight with junior high players. We were hesitant but let him give it a try and he made the team. The first red flag was when the coach began locking the gym doors during practice, refusing the parents entry even at the designated pick up time. We were denied access to our children whom he had under his authority  for 2 1/2 hours a night. That was just the tip of the ice berg. When I asked the other parents if they were concerned they always answered "Yes, but he is such a good coach."  It was really bizarre. Then he started threatening kids' parents via messages from our children - "Tell your dad I will take him outside if I hear him yelling at you from the stands again."  Our son kept saying he could handle it until one day he admitted he was "emotionally exhausted from being afraid for practice each day."  That was it!  I actually hate myself for not pulling him out sooner. I told him he was done and he insisted he would be the one to tell the coach and his teammates which, in my opinion, is quite courageous for a 13 year old boy who had been bullied by this grown man. This man went way beyond tough coaching and pushing the kids to their full potential.  I really believe he was mentally unstable and dangerous  

With our daughter, the softball parents fought so badly amongst themselves that one mother actually filed a lawsuit against another for criticizing her daughter's pitching. Those battles of course seeped into the girls' interaction and it turned into an afternoon cat fight every day. My daughter actually talked to the coach and told him how destructive things were among the players and he did nothing to fix his broken team. So we told her she could quit, after I found her up several nights unable to sleep because of the dread she felt for this sport she used to love. When the coach asked me to convince her to stay I told him no. I reminded him that she and I (and other parents) had come to him about the serious in fighting that was going on (I mean - LAWSUITS over high school pitching??!!?) and he did nothing to control the mess. He lost a few players that year. The two involved in the legal case remained, of course. 

I don't think kids should be allowed to quit EVERYTHING but adults quit jobs that aren't a good fit; so I personally did not feel I could make my children stick with a miserable situation when most adults would not put up with the kind of things they were dealing with. 

I think kids have to learn get along/ work with difficult people; however, when that difficult person is an adult in authority and has all the power, how do they do that, especially when it is not an essential situation, like a mandatory class? When they become adults, they are on more of a level playing field (pardon the pun) and can address the conflict with more confidence and security. 

Quitting for lack of play time or because they decided they don't want to get up for practice?  No. We just happened to run into two bizarre situations that made our heads spin.