Aunt Lori Alexander 23: Transformed to Evil

[EowynW]

I found a Lori wannabe 

 

https://m.facebook.com/faraboverubies31/

[Tiger Lily]

1 hour ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Here is a capture of the fellow who left that comment. These were all deleted of course.  Since I can't comment anymore on her page, I am finding it is much more effective to reach out directly to anyone who leaves a comment mentioning they were deleted. Then I direct them to the tumblr in case they want to share their story. 

I've also messaged a few of the fan club and asked them a serious question of mine that Lori deleted to see if they could help. They gave their answer to me and then I mentioned its nice to see some Christians will take the time to answer me, where as Lori just deleted.

Oh, wow!  I didn't catch this one.  Seems this man caught on quickly -- good for him!  Thanks for sharing this.

Re:  the fanclub, I honestly believe they're unaware of some of the wacky things Lori has stated on her old blog.  They may not be aware of her inconsistencies or her hypocrisy.  It would be good to point the AL blog out to them although the problem with that is Lori has been busy cleaning up some of her comments.

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Ohhhh this is good. 

I posted here the hypcrisy or lie about her iphone.

https://thingsgodlywomensay.tumblr.com/post/161586059169/she-didnt-need-an-iphone-until-she-did

Well I just caught another. In googling about the marital rape situation to see what she has said in the past I came across a Peaceful Wife post where April speaks out condemning marital rape. Ken comments. Here is the last part of his comment mentioning they have iphones.

Spoiler

 

The date of that comment is September 7, 2014. I looked backed then on the Lori post I originally capture and it was written on April 19, 2014. So in those 5 months or so Lori decided she need an iphone despite saying in April that she has lived 50 years without on and still doesn't need one.  I thought originally she went from 2014 to 2016 without an iphone when really it was just a few short months. Or heck she probably had the phone in April too, but had to make herself look frugal. 

 

[BlackSheep]

3 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

Now for those who feel angry and frustrated with Lori's craziness, please read this breathtaking article from a truly inspirational woman. It has many of the themes Lori talks about (woman preaching, rape, victim blaming,  marriage, true love, infertility, mentoring) but what a story. Even my husband was at loss for words. After reading it, it is much harder to be bothered by someone like Lori.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39795047

What this woman has been through! The article mentions that she wrote a book. I can't find it at Amazon though.

She emerged from her losses stronger, found hope, and... well, I won't spoil the rest for anyone who wants to read the article.

[AlwaysDiscerning]

This quote sure doesn't help Lori with the rape issue. 

What she is telling young women is that denying sex is a sin, even if you are sick. Think how guilty this might make a woman feel if she is sick and wants to say no but then she thinks of Lori's words and how its a sin to say no. Just because she can have sex while puking doesn't mean other can and they shouldn't be held to that standard. 

That is what is so disgusting about her and then the men point their wives to a place like Lori's and say "look, she had sex while puking, WHY CAN'T YOU". 

How many women say yes but really want to say no just so they aren't riddled with guilt that they are sinning by saying no. Remember how much they love the "fake it till you make it", especially when it comes to sex. 

Also, whats this about how when they were married she said she would never say "no". Isn't part of her whole story is that she use to deny Ken sex until she was transformed?

[BlackSheep]

From a different perspective - What kind of man would want to have sex while his wife is having "severe morning sickness"?

That's just plain sick.

[Tiger Lily]

6 minutes ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Also, whats this about how when they were married she said she would never say "no". Isn't part of her whole story is that she use to deny Ken sex until she was transformed?

That's what I was thinking.  I used to believe that Lori had a martyr complex but when I really think about it, I can't picture her doing anything she didn't really want to do even if it was to please Ken or her children.   I think she wants her follows to PERCEIVE she's a martyr for the cause.  Also, she has changed her stories so many times that I'm not sure we can believe anything she says.  We can only go by her cold, self-righteous attitude and her actions.  And if this story is true of Lori being sickly pregnant while pretending to enjoy sex, that makes Ken all the more revolting, ick.

[BlackSheep]

1 hour ago, Tiger Lily said:

Also, she has changed her stories so many times that I'm not sure we can believe anything she says.  We can only go by her cold, self-righteous attitude and her actions.

A cold, self-righteous attitude is one of the few things about her that is consistent.

[Curious]

Who wants to have sex with a pregnant woman that has such extreme morning sickness they puke.  I'm trying to even imagine how that would work because we already know Lori just says no to anything that might be "dirty"   Does she seriously expect us to believe they were missionary and she's puking?  Besides being incredibly gross, that's a great way to aspirate.  I also find it hard to believe that even the horniest many alive would be turned on while his partner is actively throwing up.

I just asked my husband what he would do if we were having sex and I started throwing up and he said he would stop, make sure I was ok and clean up whatever needed to be cleaned up.   After I explained why I asked, he was like who wants to have sex when their pregnant wife is suffering morning sickness in the first place?   I said "Apparently Ken Alexander"

In the 20 years, we have been together, I've had many times where I am not medically cleared to have sex and he has NEVER complained or tried to force the issue.  Is he thrilled, probably not, but he has never once said anything to me because he's a decent human being, unlike all these Commend Men that will apparently shrivel up and die if they don't get sex immediately when they want it.

How do they manage to make it from puberty to wedding night if horrible things will happen if their urges are not immediately satisfied?

The attitude that women no longer have bodily autonomy after marriage is sick.  I noticed the bible verse quoted (if you quote the WHOLE passage) says the exact same thing about men as it does women, but for some reason, that is never mentioned.

[EowynW]

I was reading this and saw Ken pop up in the comments. It's from 2014 but in case you guys hadn't seen it. 

 

http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2014/01/husband-needs-to-change/

[delphinium65]

20 minutes ago, Curious said:

The attitude that women no longer have bodily autonomy after marriage is sick.  I noticed the bible verse quoted (if you quote the WHOLE passage) says the exact same thing about men as it does women, but for some reason, that is never mentioned.

Yep. Consent is meaningless if you cannot say no,

Well, this guy addresses a wife's right to have sex with her husband, but you're not going to like it any more than I do:  https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2017/06/28/why-it-is-not-wrong-for-men-to-see-women-as-sex-objects/  Look in the comments where he says 'While husbands and wives are to have sexual access to each other’s bodies are the access rights identical? The answer if we look at the above principles of the Scriptures is NO' and then goes on to explain exactly what he means. But don't do it while you're eating unless you really want to puke.

[onemama]

6 hours ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Also, whats this about how when they were married she said she would never say "no".  Isn't part of her whole story is that she use to deny Ken sex until she was transformed?

Are you sure that story in her blog post is about her?  She talks about "both her pregnancies", but Lori had four.    Which leads me to another problem I have with Lori: all her examples of self-sacrifice, self-denial, budgeting, having a hard life, are all borrowed.   Lori doesn't know the life she's teaching other women to live. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Here is the whole thing

http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/06/never-defrauding-him-sexually.html?m=1

SHe does quote joy filled wife in the begining, but I think that part I shared is her. It's confusing though.  I thought the mention of both pregnancies was odd too.

[cindyluvs24]

On 6/29/2017 at 2:43 PM, AlwaysDiscerning said:

Ken of course is oddly silent during all this. Where is her command man to jump in and put all these people in their place?

He's probably "working late."

[louisa05]

Yep. Consent is meaningless if you cannot say no,
Well, this guy addresses a wife's right to have sex with her husband, but you're not going to The answer if we look at the above principles of the Scriptures is NO' and then goes on to explain exactly what he means. But don't do it while you're eating unless you really want to puke.

That is the most twisted disgusting piece of steaming bullshit I have read in a long time.

WTF is wrong with these people???

[Fascinated]

52 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

That is the most twisted disgusting piece of steaming bullshit I have read in a long time.

WTF is wrong with these people??

Well, the Bible is what is wrong with these people. Because the Bible tells them that god created Adam in his image, complete with lots of strong manly muscles and a nice big sex drive.  Also, a penis.  Hmm, where to put this penis though?  Enter poor, weak, sinful, easily deceived Eve, along with her vagina.  So, from this we understand that, as this biblical gender guy mansplains, men often don't even care about their wife's mind, as long as she's pleasant enough, cleans his hut or whatever, keeps her silly mouth shut and spreads her legs on demand.  

Here's what I seriously don't understand (I know, here I go again).  Amongst god- and bible-believing people there is obviously much disagreement and differing interpretations of god's word.  I'm going to sound like a five-year-old probably, but why cannot god look around right now and see what a mess his creation is? Why does he not clarify?  Why all the mystery?  Why not fix the problems his words have caused?  We clearly need a newer testament to allow for greater comprehension in the modern age.  So we can know if Lori and the men and women who buy into her crap, and this lovely man linked above, are correct or not. With all god has accomplished, I really don't see why he can't manage a little public clarification of his intentions and instructions.  It would be nice. 

[Koala]

*Big sigh of relief*  2/3 of the comments have been deleted.  Most of what's left reflects the appropriate amount of worship for The Godly Mentor.  In the really good ones, it appears that her readers are arguing with someone that doesn't exist.  That's cute.  

Like this guy:

Quote

No that is not "marital rape". There is really no such thing.

Quote

My wife would never say no to me, although if she is very tired or sick, I try to be understanding, as the Bible commands, and let her rest. However, if I ask she complies

He goes on to respond 8 more times, but the comments of whoever he's responding to have been deleted.  

The "new mods": Keepin it balanced 

 

 

[louisa05]

24 minutes ago, Fascinated said:

Well, the Bible is what is wrong with these people. Because the Bible tells them that god created Adam in his image, complete with lots of strong manly muscles and a nice big sex drive.  Also, a penis.  Hmm, where to put this penis though?  Enter poor, weak, sinful, easily deceived Eve, along with her vagina.  So, from this we understand that, as this biblical gender guy mansplains, men often don't even care about their wife's mind, as long as she's pleasant enough, cleans his hut or whatever, keeps her silly mouth shut and spreads her legs on demand.  

Here's what I seriously don't understand (I know, here I go again).  Amongst god- and bible-believing people there is obviously much disagreement and differing interpretations of god's word.  I'm going to sound like a five-year-old probably, but why cannot god look around right now and see what a mess his creation is? Why does he not clarify?  Why all the mystery?  Why not fix the problems his words have caused?  We clearly need a newer testament to allow for greater comprehension in the modern age.  So we can know if Lori and the men and women who buy into her crap, and this lovely man linked above, are correct or not. With all god has accomplished, I really don't see why he can't manage a little public clarification of his intentions and instructions.  It would be nice. 

This guy is doing some major twisting of scripture, first of all, to reduce every living thing to an object to be used. In case you didn't actually read the article, he also twists every normal human daily transaction to people using each other for their own ends. If you pay someone to cut your hair, in his version of how the world works, you are using that person--ignoring that it is a business transaction that the person consented to on the agreement of being compensated. So I'm not sure we can fairly blame the Bible for his sick twisting of it. Nothing in the Bible says that. He cites stewardship over the earth and animals as justification, but even most hardcore evangelicals I know interpret stewardship as having an element of care and respect (doesn't quite make the majority environmentalists, but still...) not merely a utilitarian relationship. And I have yet to meet a Christian who defines every business transaction as using another human as an object or would agree to specifically defining a human as an object in any sense. This guy actually is justifying men ogling women in public as morally acceptable and we know that this is not a normal teaching even in hardcore fundie circles. I would say he is an island unto himself and if he seeks to populate it, it is going to be a small group. 

As to your second point, the Catholic answer is that Christ founded the Church to safeguard his teaching and interpret it for changing times. Now, I know good and well, that the answer most here are going to have to that is to mock it and say "oh, hell no". But you asked and that is the answer that one of the oldest forms of Christianity provides. As a Catholic, I can tell you that I think you'd have to search for a long time, and the search would be futile, if you were looking to find a priest or theologian who would agree to using scripture to define women (or any humans) as objects or who would condone these teachings on sexuality in marriage. 

Here is a brief recent piece responding to the whole "husbands get sex on demand" thing by a Catholic counselor who writes at Patheos: 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2017/06/husband-right-sex/

 

 

[Tiger Lily]

48 minutes ago, Koala said:

The "new mods": Keepin it balanced 

I love that they can't delete the Angry, Haha and Pride buttons which outnumber the rest.  Lori and her evil minions can delete all they want, however, they can't hide what people really think of her "Godly" wisdom.

[onemama]

4 hours ago, AlwaysDiscerning said:

I think that part I shared is her. It's confusing though.  I thought the mention of both pregnancies was odd too.

It is confusing, but I think it's the Joy Filled Wife's testimony, not Lori.  The style is different. 

[Quiver Full of Kittens]

41 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

 So I'm not sure we can fairly blame the Bible for his sick twisting of it. Nothing in the Bible says that. He cites stewardship over the earth and animals as justification, but even most hardcore evangelicals I know interpret stewardship as having an element of care and respect (doesn't quite make the majority environmentalists, but still...) not merely a utilitarian relationship. And I have yet to meet a Christian who defines every business transaction as using another human as an object or would agree to specifically defining a human as an object in any sense. This guy actually is justifying men ogling women in public as morally acceptable and we know that this is not a normal teaching even in hardcore fundie circles. I would say he is an island unto himself and if he seeks to populate it, it is going to be a small group.

Sad thing is I know a few guys who do see it as a business transaction. Marriage is the contract. She gets a house, food, clothing, some spending money, kids. He gets housekeeping, home cooking, and sex on demand. It's his compensation for providing the basics. No doubt absolutely disgusting and heartbreaking, but the reality of some ladies I know. 

[louisa05]

Just now, Quiver Full of Kittens said:

Sad thing is I know a few guys who do see it as a business transaction. Marriage is the contract. She gets a house, food, clothing, some spending money, kids. He gets housekeeping, home cooking, and sex on demand. It's his compensation for providing the basics. No doubt absolutely disgusting and heartbreaking, but the reality of some ladies I know. 

Oh, I know that there are people who believe it to be a business transaction. Our dear Lori, the reason for this thread, describes it as such. 

But this guy goes a bit further in defining every business transaction as using another person as an object, thus using people as objects is, in his view, a normal part of life. Therefore, wives are objects owned and used by husbands. The wife, in his twisting, is not really part of a business transaction as she is merely property. I would guess that if pushed, he would say that she doesn't even deserve the house, food, clothing, spending money part of the deal--that's probably optional or something the husband should get gratitude for providing as he is not required. He never puts wives on the same level as a person contracted with in business. This guy is much worse than Lori and Ken who at least give the husband the duty of providing her basic needs in exchange. There is no mention of an exchange in this guy's explanation. 

[Quiver Full of Kittens]

4 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Oh, I know that there are people who believe it to be a business transaction. Our dear Lori, the reason for this thread, describes it as such. 

But this guy goes a bit further in defining every business transaction as using another person as an object, thus using people as objects is, in his view, a normal part of life. Therefore, wives are objects owned and used by husbands. The wife, in his twisting, is not really part of a business transaction as she is merely property. I would guess that if pushed, he would say that she doesn't even deserve the house, food, clothing, spending money part of the deal--that's probably optional or something the husband should get gratitude for providing as he is not required. He never puts wives on the same level as a person contracted with in business. This guy is much worse than Lori and Ken who at least give the husband the duty of providing her basic needs in exchange. There is no mention of an exchange in this guy's explanation. 

I see what you're saying. Mea Culpa. I supposed I equated the idea of I give you money so I can use you for a haircut and the idea of I give you a house so I can use you for sex. 

[AlwaysDiscerning]

23 minutes ago, onemama said:

It is confusing, but I think it's the Joy Filled Wife's testimony, not Lori.  The style is different. 

I guess either way , Lori quoted  it on her site so she must endorse it.  she sure needs to learn how to cite better too if she doesn't want to be wrongly attributed. Isn't joy filled wife the one who has a higher sex drive? Must be easy to never say no then if he only wants it once in awhile.

[delphinium65]

37 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

.This guy is much worse than Lori and Ken who at least give the husband the duty of providing her basic needs in exchange. There is no mention of an exchange in this guy's explanation. 

He says that a husband must provide 'her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage,' but he decides when and how. He reduces marriage to a financial transaction, he buys a woman, he provides for her needs-as he sees fit, and she puts out whenever he commands.