Lori Alexander 75: Lori Imagines the Evils Caused by Contraception

[hollyfeller]

Lori is doubling down on the "love is not a feeling" weirdness today on her blog and Facebook.  I theorize that she is either socially inept and unable to decipher her own feelings, or she is a crazy person who HAS no feelings.  Similar to after my ex cheated on me and he subsequently told someone that he felt nothing as he watched me sitting on the couch crying after learning the truth.  I would describe him as a sociopath so....

[Loveday]

I found this comment from a reader on her FB post from the other day about the same 'love is not a feeling' topic:

Quote

As someone who works with children, we learned that almost every time a child would fall when practicing a balancing drill was on purpose...if it was pointed out to them, magically, they would stop falling. Falling is an act of choice. Only if we are tripped or startled can falling not be prevented, and I believe the same to be true about falling in love.

I mean, ultimately, what we have as a definition of marriage in the bible was an ownership contract for a man to gain a woman as property. So at the end of the day, love does not play a factor and it would be more incorrect for it to be taught that a woman can utilize wisdom when choosing a husband. It should not be her choice to begin with.

First off...falling is an act of choice?? We CHOOSE to fall and injure ourselves? Sure, Jan.

Secondly, that second paragraph sums up Lori's belief on marriage perfectly, I think. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by Loveday
clarity

[louisa05]

This comment on the blog post is so sad: 

Quote

You are so correct! My husband and I have been married for almost 30 years. We were “not in love” with each other when we got married , I’m not sure we even really “liked each other” very much and honestly we had no real attraction towards each other. But everyone in our families thought it would be a good Christian match so to speak. But we were both believers (most important) and I was willing to be a submissive wife, and he was/is a Godly husband. We have three children and have done everything by God’s word. We have built a life together and love each other according to scripture…but to this day, I think we can both honestly say neither of us have any “feelings” toward each other and there is no warmth like I see in other couples. Don’t get me wrong, we are kind, respectful, helpful with each other. We don’t fight at all. We don’t hurt each other in any way. But yet, we have a successful marriage according to God’s word. I just wonder what we’ve done wrong because i see other couples and successful marriages and they seem to enjoy each other, want to be together. We would never every divorce, but it feels like something is missing.

And, of course, Lori and her minions responded to tell this poor woman that her marriage is happy and that couples don't need to have any warmth toward each other or want to be together and that what she describes is actually a good marriage. 

Lori seems to believe that (heterosexual) marriage should involve suffering of some sort, at least for the woman. It's disturbing. 

[usmcmom]

I think someone mentioned, on Twitter, that Lori did not love Ken when they got married. This was a few days ago; so, maybe her recent posts are in response to that. I think she’s saying “No, I do not love my husband. We aren’t commanded to love as part of marriage, so....” I can’t believe she is proud of that idea  

Along that line, I think it is really creepy that Lori insists love is not necessary and also insists sex is only right within marriage. For something so sacred that it should be postponed until marriage, you’d think being in love would be a reasonable expectation.  She’s basically telling young women to have sex with someone they don’t love. 

[delphinium65]

53 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

She’s basically telling young women to have sex with someone they don’t love. 

Lori likes telling women to ignore their feelings. She seems to think that her god made a mistake when he gave women (and men, but that's another can of worms) emotions in the first place. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori has frequently admitted she didn't love Ken when they married, That she never felt "butterflies" when he was around. That she didn't particularly like him and they fought all the time prior to marriage. She does say he ticked the boxes for a "godly husband." This doubling down on No Feelings!! she's doing is simply describing herself and her marriage for the last nearly 40 years.

Given the way she has described her parents' marriage as distant, unemotional, without affection and that they fought all the time for years and years and years, I assume that she saw/ still sees her complete lack of feeling for Ken as perfectly normal. The fighting before and after marriage was normal. It's only when Ken threatened to divorce her and take away her money train that she "changed." (Tip  --She hasn't changed.)

Given the spoiled brat bitch Lori was before they married -- why did Ken put up with it beyond the 3rd date?   Why didn't he drop her? Why did he propose?  Why in God's name did he marry her and tie himself to the spoiled brat bitch for life?  Did they have sex before marriage and he felt (and she insisted) he had to marry her?

Edited April 13, 2020 by Red Hair, Black Dress

[kmachete14]

The whole “love is not a feeling thing” is supposed to keep your marriage going after the honeymoon phase / butterflies/ through the tough times. 
 

Lori likes to use it to justify arranged marriages and marriages devoid of any real connection. 
 

CS Lewis coined the phrase, and his entire monologue on love being an action literally says that FALLING IN LOVE ignites a union, but CHOOSING to love keeps it going. You still have the “falling” part. 
 

Here is the quote from one of his books: 

Spoiler

Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called ‘being in love’ usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending ‘They lived happily ever after’ is taken to mean ‘They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,’ then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be ‘in love’ need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense — love as distinct from ‘being in love’ — is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be ‘in love’ with someone else. ‘Being in love’ first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. it is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.

We used the passage in my wedding readings, even though I am not religious. It makes my blood boil when I see Lori corrupt its meaning. 

[louisa05]

In addition to taking the idea of love as an action out of context as @kmachete14 said, there seems to have been a movement within evangelicalism and fundamentalism to boil marriage relationships down to the bare bones of gender roles and theology. 

The last few years I taught at Christian school, which was the late 90s, this really seemed to be emerging. Chapel speaker for high school would go on about looking for a partner who was ready and willing to fill the appropriate gender role in marriage as the number one thing. Number two was to make sure the potential couple's theological beliefs perfectly matched up or that one (usually the woman, of course) was willing to sacrifice her beliefs to the other. Any mention of love or attraction was only to downplay it. I remember one speaker telling the kids that if the person checked all the gender role/theology boxes but you weren't attracted to them, just pray and God would make you attracted to them. My thought at the time was that this kind of created a situation where people would be forced to suck it up and pretend to have attraction because I'm not sure God is in the business of passing that out on request; and they were already taught that their prayers would always be answered if they had the right kind of faith. 

This was so widespread that a friend of mine who married in that period and was raised in evangelicalism and attended an evangelical church at the time of her wedding had bought into it to her detriment. She told me during her engagement that she was worried about how much she was physically attracted to her soon to be husband from the very time she met him. She had been convinced that it was a bad thing and might result in a bad marriage. 

And, of course, we see the same idea about gender roles and theology in the fundy courtship questions and such, too. 

The idea that the high divorce rate in evangelicalism is due to people marrying someone they are in love with and attracted to was pretty prevalent then, too. I always assumed it had a lot more to do with so many rushed marriages, a lot of very young marriages (every year I was at that school, at least one student was getting married within weeks of graduation) and the attempt to pigeon hole people into artificial roles within marriage. But none of that could be it, right? Of course not. 

[delphinium65]

2 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

a partner who was ready and willing to fill the appropriate gender role in marriage

In LoriLand (and that territory in general) spouses are pretty much interchangeable beyond those narrow roles.  Why bother trying to find someone you actually care about?  Just find a man who will issue commands/woman who will obey all commands, and you've got a good 'Christian' marriage. And they wonder why the rest of the world wants nothing to do with that? 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, delphinium65 said:

Why bother trying to find someone you actually care about?

So you have a shot at life being pleasant and not just something you need to endure?  So sex is something you actually want and enjoy as opposed to a marital obligation that again, is just endured?  So your relationship means something under the surface?  

So you have a real spouse that's more than just getting a randomly assigned partner in a group project?

I know I'm preaching to the choir but this makes me sad that people buy into this, and angry she's trying to sell it when it's clear it's a case of sour grapes for her and her pathetic excuse for a marriage.

(and yeah, I've been divorced (twice) so I'm sure my opinion would mean nothing to her but if there is one thing life taught me it's being in a bad marriage leaves you far more lonely than being alone ever could.

[delphinium65]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

being in a bad marriage leaves you far more lonely than being alone ever could.

Better to be alone than wish you were!  Been there, done that, I get what you're saying, and agree wholeheartedly.  

[louisa05]

Just now, delphinium65 said:

In LoriLand (and that territory in general) spouses are pretty much interchangeable beyond those narrow roles.  Why bother trying to find someone you actually care about?  Just find a man who will issue commands/woman who will obey all commands, and you've got a good 'Christian' marriage. And they wonder why the rest of the world wants nothing to do with that? 

The people who bought into that really have no idea what loving relationships can be like, either. I think some of that goes back to the newer culture of homeschooling, home churching movements that praise the idea of cutting families off from the outside world. The same friend I mentioned above has seven kids and homeschools (she and her husband are both licensed teachers so their education does not suffer). When the older kids were really young, she had this idea that came from all the evangelical homeschooling movements that they would not need activities, friends or connections outside the family. They would always and only "be each other's best friends". Fortunately, as they got older, she quickly saw that it was not feasible. Differences in ages and interests made it very apparent that they needed interactions outside the family--now they have a family rule that every kid has to have one activity that the others aren't in as well, so they have some independence, too. But a lot of these families do not come to that conclusion and the kids don't learn how to build  relationships of any kind outside their family. Add in the segregation of genders that inevitably happens at some point (Christian school didn't allow opposite gender kids to sit together on a bus...boys were in the back, girls in the front, with teachers in the middle to separate them; at lunch tables, at sporting events, etc...) and you have teens and young adults that don't know how to relate to or develop relationships with the opposite sex. So they are prime candidates for this brainwashing that marriage can be a matter of matching up two random people who have the right qualifications. It's like hiring someone for a job. 

@HerNameIsBuffy I think Lori's notion is that if marriage is something to endure, you're sacrificing for God and are even more holy. Not sure where she got that as a lot of evangelicals buy into Prosperity Gospel light--if you're a good Christian, you get happiness and everything you want.  I'm betting she takes no stock in the verse in John where Jesus said he came to that we may have life and have it more abundantly. An abundant life isn't endless misery; it's living to the fullest possible. At least that is the interpretation I was taught by both the mainline Protestants and the the Catholics. Catholics like some suffering but they don't teach that you find it in marriage. 

[hollyfeller]

28 minutes ago, delphinium65 said:

In LoriLand (and that territory in general) spouses are pretty much interchangeable beyond those narrow roles.  Why bother trying to find someone you actually care about?  Just find a man who will issue commands/woman who will obey all commands, and you've got a good 'Christian' marriage. And they wonder why the rest of the world wants nothing to do with that? 

Why did God create humans with any individuality at all?  I know that Lori thinks women should ignore their feelings and not use their brains, but why not make everyone mindless automatons if the goal was just to breed, breed, breed?

P.S. I am now convinced that Lori has no emotions at all.  That's why she thinks women need to be taught to "love" their husbands and children.  She thinks otherwise they wouldn't know how! 

Edited April 14, 2020 by hollyfeller
Fixed typo

[feministxtian]

I STILL don't get it. Considering what I had to work with (childhood), nobody needed to teach me to love my kids (even when they drove me bonkers). Nobody had to teach me how to love Mr. Xtian...that was easy. This idea that if someone checks off the boxes then that's that is so wrong. It's essentially an arranged marriage. For heaven's sake...try it before you buy it. There's more to this than legos. But, then again, this is the bunch that confuses intimacy with sex. These stupid "courtship" rules do not allow for any intimacy to develop between the couple. 

Lori admits she didn't love Ken. How sad...how utterly sad. I'd give anything to see Mr. Xtian's dumb-ass grin when I'd go visit him at work...

[kmachete14]

Even the Bates and Duggars it was pretty obvious that the girls were head-over-heels obsessed with the guys, including in terms of attraction. Granted, if they never get to interact with boys, and a half-way decent looking one comes along and gives them attention, they are going to swoon. 

Unlike Lori, although Michelle and Kathy are off their rockers, sell-outs, and all the rest, they at least understand that in order for their daughters to put up with the "headships," and live the "dream" of having an adorable family for Jesus, they need to be attracted to their future husbands, at least at the beginning enough to have kids in quick succession so they are stuck. 

I think it also has to do with fundies complaining they can't find spouses that align with their beliefs. Lori is essentially just saying well if you find one, then you better marry them no matter what, since it's so rare (according to the people who comment on her blog). 

Lori might also be insecure about her own looks and project that into her ideas. If she didn't feel confident that men were attracted to her, she might just do away with the attraction in any relationship. 

Honestly, for many of these young girls, having a "cute" husband might be the thing that KEEPS them fundie. No matter the wacko beliefs, they find their husband irresistible. If you marry a man you have no affection for, or attraction, then what is really holding the illusion together??? Might actually make people question their beliefs more. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori was pretty darn cute when young, and to hear her tell it guys in high school/ college were all over her trying to ummmm..... get in her.... ummm ... unmentionables. Happened All. The.Time. Nearly every date. From her telling, there seemed to be a lot of dates although she says she had no friends in school.

Also if you read between the lines (and it's not difficult) Lori was a bit of a tease, What used to be known as a c**k tease. The kind of girl that slapped a boy's face and demanded to go home when he tried to do what she very clearly intimated he could do (and she wanted him to) , Not excusing the boys at all, but it was the 1970s and a different time and mind set.

I have nothing to base this on except intuition and knowing girls like Lori, but I've always thought she was a technical virgin -- everything except P in V. The kind of girl described as "she can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch."

[delphinium65]

53 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Also if you read between the lines (and it's not difficult) Lori was a bit of a tease, What used to be known as a c**k tease. The kind of girl that slapped a boy's face and demanded to go home when he tried to do what she very clearly intimated he could do (and she wanted him to) , Not excusing the boys at all, but it was the 1970s and a different time and mind set.

Do you think that her judgment of women for being 'immodest,' and assuming the worst possible motives for them, is based on herself when she was younger? It would fit with judging by oneself thing that so many people do.  

[Xan]

37 minutes ago, delphinium65 said:

Do you think that her judgment of women for being 'immodest,' and assuming the worst possible motives for them, is based on herself when she was younger? It would fit with judging by oneself thing that so many people do.  

I think that's it exactly.  She knows what she was like herself.  I think her dislike of women in general is from her pretty accurate feelings about herself.  I don't know if I'd go so far to describe her as a c*ck tease but she certainly seems to assume the worst of women so she must be basing it on something in her own life.  From "Spanglish":  "Lately your low self esteem is just good common sense."  It's perhaps Lori's only evidence of common sense.

I've never really understood the pathology behind women like Lori and Phyllis Schlafly.  Women have had a rough enough road without dealing with other women attacking them.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Xan

[seattlechic]

I'm a dork. old content. never mind....

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by seattlechic
old news!

[Georgiana]

2 hours ago, Xan said:

I've never really understood the pathology behind women like Lori and Phyllis Schlafly.  Women have had a rough enough road without dealing with other women attacking them.

My sister is like this.  Though a different flavor, the internalized misogyny is the same.  At least in my sister, it springs from a deep-rooted self-hatred that is not identified as self-hatred.  My sister would tell you she loves herself, but if you talked to her for a few minutes you'd see that isn't totally true.  Hating women and especially thinking of women as being inherently lesser is a very easy way for women to hate themselves without having to admit to themselves that they hate the person they are.  

Admitting you hate the person you choose to be on a daily basis suggests you need to do some real work, and that feels a lot worse in the immediate than just internalizing misogyny.  But in the long term, the work pays off and internalizing and justifying self-hatred just adds up the work you need to do to get out.  

Lori is a shitty human being, but she's not stupid.  On some level, I think she knows she's a shitty human being and hates herself for being the person she is.  But instead of admitting that and working to fix it, she instead works to prove that she's actually superior for hating herself and being a shitty person.  That's why women who genuinely love themselves and are good people leading happy, productive, fulfilling lives are such a threat to her.  They show her for the miserable creature she truly is.   

[SongRed7]

19 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

I have nothing to base this on except intuition and knowing girls like Lori, but I've always thought she was a technical virgin

She  confirms exactly that in her first book.  Here is a direct quote (Page 16): "Even though my sisters and I all married Christians and were technically "virgins" when we got married, I wish she (referring to her own mother) had provided stricter boundaries for us...."

 

changing subjects: Totally speculation, but I was wondering why she has been so focused in recent posts on breaking the pandemic/getting back to work, finances/stimulus (today).   

I surmise (again total speculation) that the shut down has finally affected the Alexanders in several ways. As a private consultant, I'm sure a lot of his business has dried up, and most likely, many of his clients (with closed offices now and no income coming in) may have to reduce expenses including consulting fees. So while there is probably still some accounts payable money coming in, it may be drying up quickly.  No only is this Ken's income, but also son Ryan.  What is there back up plan? Can consultants get unemployment? I'm not sure unless they were paying into the system. Maybe one of you know the rules in California. 

Also, with son Steven's practice temporarily shut down as well, is he able to pay his employees?  How much is that costing? Are they all furloughed and on unemployment?  I''m sure they have a panel of current patients, but in tough times with people losing their jobs, orthodontia (except in extreme cases) may not be considered a necessary expense at least in the short term. This may cause some cash flow issues for that son. 

Now, one would think (and Ken's made hazy reference to it in the past) that Ken at least has some investments. But with the stock market in the tank, you have to wonder about the value of those investments (again in the short term at least, especially since he's near retirement age). 

So I find it interesting that Lori, who never worked a day in her life is now all concerned about getting people back to work.   Even Ken on his public FB post was complaining about the unemployed and the extra "benefits" people are getting and essentially complaining how people at the lower end of the pay scale, may actually be getting more money to stay home. I don't even know  if that's true, but why is he picking  on people on the lower end?  Sounds like sour grapes.

 

NOW, don't get me wrong, I don't wish financial ruin on ANYONE, but maybe they are starting understand what it's like for most of the country.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by SongRed7

[Liza]

22 hours ago, hollyfeller said:

P.S. I am now convinced that Lori has no emotions at all.  That's why she thinks women need to be taught to "love" their husbands and children.  She thinks otherwise they wouldn't know how! 

I agree that Lori does not love her husband or children (cannot) but she definitely experiences emotions such as:  anger & rage on a daily basis.  She is not aware that she cannot & thinks the norm is that you "learn to".  

I think all of this lines up with being a Narcissist:  inability to love others, even ones own children, needing to control others (first, ken and children and now other women ... the reason for the Ministry along with being seen as "godly" by Ken so he can't divorce her.  She is un-selfaware which is also a symptom of Narcissism.  

Here is what the diagnosis entails.  She seems to have at least 5, the requirement for NPD:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

[Loveday]

@Liza  Wow. Just...wow. I definitely see some of those symptoms in Lori, but what's really, truly frightening is that I see EVERY SINGLE ONE of those symptoms in the Cheeto In Chief of the United States. Not that it's news to anyone, but that list really brings home just what a HUGE narcissist that man is. 

If Joe Biden doesn't win the election in November, I despair for my country. 

[Liza]

11 minutes ago, Loveday said:

definitely see some of those symptoms in Lori, but what's really, truly frightening is that I see EVERY SINGLE ONE of those symptoms in the Cheeto In Chief of the United States. Not that it's news to anyone, but that list really brings home just what a HUGE narcissist that man is. 

If Joe Biden doesn't win the election in November, I despair for my country. 

@Loveday,exactly.  Trump has been variously described as a Narcissist &  even a Malignant Narcissist.   Before he was elected, numerous psychiatrists got together & wrote a letter explaining all of this and that Trump would be a danger to our Country.   Yes, Trump has no moral compass and he LIES.  Lying is a HUGE RED FLAG of the Narcissist.  

I worry about Biden.  I really wish we had a stronger candidate, but he is what we have and I really hope & pray that he is able to win.   I, too, am very concerned about all of this.  

I cannot remember a President as divisive as this one.  But he knows how to play right-wing Christians.  Some see through it, but dont care as long as he what he does advances their cause.   

[Loveday]

28 minutes ago, Liza said:

I worry about Biden.  I really wish we had a stronger candidate, but he is what we have and I really hope & pray that he is able to win.   I, too, am very concerned about all of this.    

Yeah, I'm worried about Biden, too. I like him well enough, and think he'd make a far superior president to just about any Republican, not just Trump. But I just don't know.

Am I the only one who watches Governor Cuomo at his daily press briefings and secretly wishes HE could run? I don't know one single thing about him other than that he's NY's governor and he's shown a calm, steadying, yet tell-it-like-it-is presence throughout this pandemic, and he's done his best to cooperate with Trump while not putting up with any of his shit. I know nothing of his past, his politics, or any scandals he may have been involved in. But somehow I keep thinking, why, oh why, can't he be the Democratic candidate this November?!