Lori Alexander 81: It's All the Fault of Women

[SongRed7]

18 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Lori Alexander, who swears up and down she doesn't write those (self-published) books for the money, is flogging her new book hard. Really hard. 

She's quoting her book on nearly all of her FB replies and keeps the May 31 Amazon announcement on top of the FB string.

It was interesting on one of her posts of the same, someone asked  why there weren't bible verse references for each daily entry.  Lori's reply was something along the line of "it would take too much time to put a bible verse on 365 days of messages."

So really, it's not bible wisdom, it' a book of Lori's own opinions.  Reader beware. 

[Alisamer]

6 hours ago, SongRed7 said:

It was interesting on one of her posts of the same, someone asked  why there weren't bible verse references for each daily entry.  Lori's reply was something along the line of "it would take too much time to put a bible verse on 365 days of messages."

So really, it's not bible wisdom, it' a book of Lori's own opinions.  Reader beware. 

My translation of Lori to actual English on that is this:

"My blathering is usually blatantly unbiblical and on the rare cases it isn't I am too lazy to bother looking up verses. I don't want you to read the Bible anyway, just do what I say. If you read the Bible you might either confuse your ladybrain or realize I am full of caca."

Lori doesn't want to have to look up verses, she might have to accept that she's not 100% correct about everything if she can't manage to twist the meaning of a verse to support whatever ridiculous rule she's made up for women to follow that day.

[Jackie3]

On 6/22/2022 at 5:56 AM, SongRed7 said:

It was interesting on one of her posts of the same, someone asked  why there weren't bible verse references for each daily entry.  Lori's reply was something along the line of "it would take too much time to put a bible verse on 365 days of messages."

 

Too much time? What else does she have to do? Besides, it's the Bible a vital part of her brand? She should have those verses at her fingertips.

Honestly, she couldn't find 365 separate verses to support her nonsense.  There is too much in the Bible about joy and kindness and love--and those verses would be useless to her. She relies on a small handful of verses to support her nonsense.

[louisa05]

25 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Too much time? What else does she have to do? Besides, it's the Bible a vital part of her brand? She should have those verses at her fingertips.

Honestly, she couldn't find 365 separate verses to support her nonsense.  There is too much in the Bible about joy and kindness and love--and those verses would be useless to her. She relies on a small handful of verses to support her nonsense.

She really only references one chapter of the Bible. The rest is irrelevant to her. So slapping Titus 2 on the top of each day wouldn't take too much time. 

[Antipatriarch]

On Bruce Gerencser's blog, he linked to Lori's article Nudity on the Beaches and Public Pools (June 15, 2022).

This part cracked me up (as it did him; emphasis mine):

Quote

About five years ago, women began wearing thong bathing suits on our beaches here in San Diego. When they were laying on their stomachs on their towels, they looked naked. I got to the place where I despised walking on the beaches with my husband. I hated being where naked and promiscuous women were, but he liked walking on the beach, so we continued walking on the beach.

He liked it, huh? 🤣

But as with all things in Lori's world: It's the husband's decision, and the wife should submit in whatever way he wants her to submit.

Quote

If their husbands lust, it’s their sin, not the wives. Yes, it may make you uncomfortable but forget about being your husband’s Holy Spirit and enjoy yourself at the beach or pool. If he wants you to hold him accountable by warning him (this is what my husband asked me to do), warn him when a naked woman is nearby. If he doesn’t, then don’t! Remind yourself that this is NOT your issue or problem.

Even the (very conservative) church I used to attend didn't go this far. They taught that a woman's submission didn't include joining him in his sin, and that she had a right to refuse as a matter of conscience.

[Jackie3]

On 6/23/2022 at 11:19 AM, Antipatriarch said:

Quote

If their husbands lust, it’s their sin, not the wives. Yes, it may make you uncomfortable but forget about being your husband’s Holy Spirit and enjoy yourself at the beach or pool. If he wants you to hold him accountable by warning him (this is what my husband asked me to do), warn him when a naked woman is nearby. If he doesn’t, then don’t! Remind yourself that this is NOT your issue or problem.

 

So, basically, they walk the beach with Lori scanning for "naked" women. When she sees one, she warns Ken, to keep him accountable. Meanwhile, he is trying to get an eyeful before Lori issues her warning.

This seems like such a sad way to enjoy San Diego's beautiful beaches. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Jackie3

[louisa05]

This bitch: 

 

Spoiler

I’m trying to make this make sense. All I’ve got is that for it to make sense we have to assume that visible skin = consent. We also have to disregard that the modesty references in the Bible are about humility and not flaunting wealth (and if Lori acknowledges that, then she’s in trouble because flaunting wealth is part of her brand) and don’t actually mention clothing styles or how much skin clothes cover. 
 

At the end of the day, though, it’s all about controlling anyone born female. 

[Sarcastically spinster]

On 6/25/2022 at 2:23 PM, louisa05 said:

I’m trying to make this make sense. All I’ve got is that for it to make sense we have to assume that visible skin = consent. We also have to disregard that the modesty references in the Bible are about humility and not flaunting wealth (and if Lori acknowledges that, then she’s in trouble because flaunting wealth is part of her brand) and don’t actually mention clothing styles or how much skin clothes cover. 

Not quite.  I know this thought process.  It's:

Dressing provocatively --> inviting lust --> lust by men --> uncontrollable sexual sin by men --> men seek release --> men act out sexually by masturbation, porn, or sex.  

Basically, if you dress in anything that isn't a paper bag, you're participating in normalizing an ungodly sexual ethic and therefore you're sinning even if you didn't actively participate in any way but by wearing clothes.  

And this is why there is so much shame for so many women in that culture.  They walk around constantly carrying the unknown weight of the sin of any man in their vicinity who lusts because they had a wardrobe malfunction or their bra strap slipped out.  

[FluffySnowball]

On 6/13/2022 at 7:13 PM, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

on EB today, Lori is telling her fangirls/ leghumpers that if you have a sex drive and are horny just get married.  Marriage was made because people want sex.  So just get married. ... And have sex.  Because you can't have sex until you're married. So the basis for marriage is 2 people who want sex. That's all there is to it.

This tells me everything I need to know about why Lori married Ken.

I still think Lori did everything but PinV and got married to have actual sex. Of course Lori's idea of sex is 5-10 minutes and some lube.  

Not to be rude -- but Lori always stresses lube as if it's always necessary, from day one.   Umm ,,,,, I'm 99.99999999999% sure that's not the way it works for most people.

Except for Ben Shapiro who thinks WAP is a disease.

You’re likely right but I still don’t get it though… 10 minutes and lube sounds so depressing and sex can be amazing, so… like, she married for something she wasn’t actually too much into? I don’t get the whole concept. I wouldn’t  move a muscle and get off the coach for the few minutes of misery she seems to advocate for. What I mean is: if you really wanna get married to have sex, why not make sure it’s heavenly? 

[feministxtian]

4 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

You’re likely right but I still don’t get it though… 10 minutes and lube sounds so depressing and sex can be amazing, so… like, she married for something she wasn’t actually too much into? I don’t get the whole concept. I wouldn’t  move a muscle and get off the coach for the few minutes of misery she seems to advocate for. What I mean is: if you really wanna get married to have sex, why not make sure it’s heavenly? 

If he isn't willing to work hard enough to curl my toes...forget it! 10 minutes? Unless its a quickie to relieve the pressure, 10 minutes isn't enough to get my clothes off. Fortunately, I was blessed with a husband who cared more about my satisfaction than his own. I'mma stop now, 3 years of celibacy sucks!

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori's leghumpers/ fangirls are playing "How Cheap Was My Wedding" today on FB.

They are trying to out do each other in a version of 'name that tune"  as in -- " I can beat that. My wedding only cost $100 total  (rings, food, license, flowers, dress, etc.). At the courthouse. No honeymoon."

I think the winner is definitely the fangirl. who bragged about her bread tie ring.

 

[crawfishgirl]

She's also stating on FB that her wedding ring cost around $200.  Even though it was many years ago, I find it hard to believe.  She was upper-middle class, and having an expensive ring is expected, even if the bride/Daddy has to supplement it.  And we all know that she likes nice things, even when she humble-brags otherwise.  I think that she is lying once again.  

[kpmom]

51 minutes ago, crawfishgirl said:

She's also stating on FB that her wedding ring cost around $200.  Even though it was many years ago, I find it hard to believe.  She was upper-middle class, and having an expensive ring is expected, even if the bride/Daddy has to supplement it.  And we all know that she likes nice things, even when she humble-brags otherwise.  I think that she is lying once again.  

Even if it's true about the $200 wedding ring, you and I know damn well Ken has made up for it after all these years with other jewelry or other gifts.  He was a student studying for the ministry back then, but not anymore, that's for sure.

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Lori's leghumpers/ fangirls are playing "How Cheap Was My Wedding" today on FB.

They are trying to out do each other in a version of 'name that tune"  as in -- " I can beat that. My wedding only cost $100 total  (rings, food, license, flowers, dress, etc.). At the courthouse. No honeymoon."

I think the winner is definitely the fangirl. who bragged about her bread tie ring.

 

To be fair, that game seems to break out every time weddings come up on social media. It has erupted at FJ in the past.  I fully expect to  eventually read about someone’s alley wedding followed by a reception where the guests dumpster dived for food. And, of course, they’re now the happiest couple in the history of marriage just because of that. 

[byzant]

To misquote monty python- dumpster dived we dreamed of dumpster diving - stone soup and hard labour at my fictional wedding 

[mango_fandango]

I’ve seen it, and similar games, on other forums too. Yes, weddings can be crazy expensive and people shouldn’t feel pressured to spend money they don’t have, but don’t turn wedding discussions into a game of one-upmanship. There’s no need to humblebrag.

[3splenty]

My grandma used to say that money doesn't make a marriage.  You can spend millions or a few dollars, but if you don't put work in afterward, it's all for nothing.

She also told us, "Marry the man who loves you when you wear a burlap sack, not just a fancy gown."  

 

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, 3splenty said:

My grandma used to say that money doesn't make a marriage.  You can spend millions or a few dollars, but if you don't put work in afterward, it's all for nothing.

She also told us, "Marry the man who loves you when you wear a burlap sack, not just a fancy gown."  

 

I really doubt any man marries a woman to see her in a wedding gown. It always appears that women care more about that than men. 

1 hour ago, mango_fandango said:

I’ve seen it, and similar games, on other forums too. Yes, weddings can be crazy expensive and people shouldn’t feel pressured to spend money they don’t have, but don’t turn wedding discussions into a game of one-upmanship. There’s no need to humblebrag.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with a nice wedding. And if you're inviting people, for the love of God, feed them! I've been starved at so many weddings. A 5 p.m. wedding with nothing but appetizers at the reception. An 11 a.m. wedding with nothing but cake. A 3 p.m wedding with a 90 minute ceremony (fundie lite, you don't want to know) and a 2 hour receiving line so that everyone was literally starved by the time the reception began and we were served nothing but tiny pieces of cake, four nuts and two chalky mints. 

And, at the same time, you don't need three dresses, decorations in the bathrooms, and custom made dinnerware. There's a happy medium which should be what you can afford and are happy with. 

[Pammy]

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with a nice wedding. And if you're inviting people, for the love of God, feed them! I've been starved at so many weddings. A 5 p.m. wedding with nothing but appetizers at the reception. An 11 a.m. wedding with nothing but cake. A 3 p.m wedding with a 90 minute ceremony (fundie lite, you don't want to know) and a 2 hour receiving line so that everyone was literally starved by the time the reception began and we were served nothing but tiny pieces of cake, four nuts and two chalky mints. 

And, at the same time, you don't need three dresses, decorations in the bathrooms, and custom made dinnerware. There's a happy medium which should be what you can afford and are happy with. 

I feel like there must be some time of day that you can invite people to participate in your life-changing day -- without having to feed them (much). Like, I think something like a ceremony at 1pm and people heading home around 4:30 should be perfectly safe for a cake-and-punch get together?

Other than that, yes, I think people should be fed: but it doesn't need to be fancy, really.

It's so strange to me that, no matter how we live on a daily basis, if we want to have a wedding suddenly we all incur the social obligations of the gilded age elites. I don't think a dinner party is required in order to have a social event. I think whatever social events are normal for you in normal life form a fine basis for a wedding gathering. 

No, I can't feed 300 people dinner without spending my entire monthly income (and then some). "My" people don't really gather in those quantities on one family's dime terribly often. It's basically weddings and funerals. And funeral people (strangely nearly the same actual people as 'wedding people') seem fine with ye-olde plastic tray of costco sandwiches and assorted veggies to fill one's belly so we can socialize a bit longer. Often it's potluck, and that's lovely. I think weddings can be like that. We don't need to adopt the pretentions of a class of society that barely exists any more just because 'it's a wedding'.

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, Pammy said:

I feel like there must be some time of day that you can invite people to participate in your life-changing day -- without having to feed them (much). Like, I think something like a ceremony at 1pm and people heading home around 4:30 should be perfectly safe for a cake-and-punch get together?

Other than that, yes, I think people should be fed: but it doesn't need to be fancy, really.

It's so strange to me that, no matter how we live on a daily basis, if we want to have a wedding suddenly we all incur the social obligations of the gilded age elites. I don't think a dinner party is required in order to have a social event. I think whatever social events are normal for you in normal life form a fine basis for a wedding gathering. 

No, I can't feed 300 people dinner without spending my entire monthly income (and then some). "My" people don't really gather in those quantities on one family's dime terribly often. It's basically weddings and funerals. And funeral people (strangely nearly the same actual people as 'wedding people') seem fine with ye-olde plastic tray of costco sandwiches and assorted veggies to fill one's belly so we can socialize a bit longer. Often it's potluck, and that's lovely. I think weddings can be like that. We don't need to adopt the pretentions of a class of society that barely exists any more just because 'it's a wedding'.

I’ve been to a couple of early afternoon weddings with just cake or appetizers and cake where everyone was done and out of there by 4-5 p.m. I have no issue with that. But, for the love of God and people, if that’s all the food you’re having don’t plan a reception  over a meal time.  I’ve been to multiple evening weddings with a 5 or 6 pm ceremony and no dinner at the reception. How do they even think that’s a good idea?

[treehugger]

We had our wedding outdoors by the river, only 80 people (we both have big families), and we did a bbq. Everything was done and over by 2 pm.  It was a wonderful day and I have zero regrets.  My cousin did my hair and a friend did my makeup and another friend decorated and a differed friend made the cake and it was so low key and not stressful… I legitimately had so much fun. It was such a happy day.  And the man I married is the man I’d choose again and again and again - 12 years, 3 kids, 8 moves later I can’t imagine my life without him. 

[louisa05]

11 hours ago, treehugger said:

We had our wedding outdoors by the river, only 80 people (we both have big families), and we did a bbq. Everything was done and over by 2 pm.  It was a wonderful day and I have zero regrets.  My cousin did my hair and a friend did my makeup and another friend decorated and a differed friend made the cake and it was so low key and not stressful… I legitimately had so much fun. It was such a happy day.  And the man I married is the man I’d choose again and again and again - 12 years, 3 kids, 8 moves later I can’t imagine my life without him. 

And we had a church wedding then a  dinner reception and dance at a country club. My stylist did my hair and I did my own makeup . And it was not difficult to plan at all because I had managed much more complex events—that were also public at work—- and it was a walk in the park compared to that. 
 

And the country club was free thanks to a friend who was a member. The dinner—buffet with breads, salad, roast beef and roast turkey, potatoes, a pasta dish, three vegetables// was $16 ($21 adjusted for inflation)  a person and the plates, silverware, cloth napkins and centerpieces were provided. Cake was from a local grocery store that makes beautiful wedding cakes that taste good. Music was a DJ and we picked the playlist.

I wouldn’t change a thing either . We’ve been through a lot  in 13 years. Our relationship has been the stable part. 
 

My wedding was the last big joyful family event before my dad got sick and he loved every minute. And I’d never trade that in order to brag that we got married super cheaply. Never mind that it wasn’t actually that expensive. Still almost $20,000 less than the supposed average. 

[SongRed7]

Just the way Lori brags that her college didn't cost much, she isn't relating it in current value.   I checked on an inflation calculator, and Lori's "cheap" $200 ring in 1980 (the year she got married) is equivalent in purchasing power to about $709 today. IRC she said their first home (a trailer) cost around $200 a month Not exactly inexpensive. You can't compare cost back then to costs now. It's apples to oranges. 

And all her talk of promoting inexpensive weddings -- in her first book she actually mentions where all of her children got married:

• Ryan and Erin -- a vineyard in Northern California
• Cassi and Alyssa -- both at same place --Crossings Golf Course --Carlsbad CA
• Steven and Emily -- Emily's home church in Houston Texas followed by reception at "a gorgeous country club."

I'm sure they weren't cheap. Once again preaching one thing, doing another. 

I do agree nothing is wrong with a nice wedding if you can afford it, don't go into debt, and that's what you choose to spend your money one. But some ARE over the top and money could be spend towards a house, etc... but that should be up to each couple and what they can afford

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I do not, cannot, and will never understand why Lori and her fangirl/ leghumpers believe that intentionally and willingly living in poverty is great, good and godly.

The comments under her FB post that there is no Biblical requirement to be financially stable before marriage support that belief.  So many of the fangirls relate being married at 16 and 30+ years and many children later life is still a huge continuous financial struggle, but their lives are so great because God is so good.

They act as if it's a badge of honor and sign of righteousness and God's favor to live with no money, even though hubby works 2-4 jobs  and is still unable to provide.

Lying Lori Who Lies tells us her parents lived in an abandoned building when first married. Really - a doctor had to lived in a abandoned building??!!

Lying Lori Who Lies opines

Quote

Most couples who struggled financially greatly in the early years of their marriage look back with fondness on those years. This is when they saw God’s hand of provision in their lives most clearly!

This is Lying Lori Who Lies who has repeatedly written that those early years in the tiny trailer were the worst years of her marriage.

This is Lying Lori who Lies who married a man studying for the ministry and then convinced (browbeat) him into giving that up for a much more lucrative profession.

This is Lying Lori Who Lies who lives in a house with 6 bedrooms worth over $1M in an expensive city who buys expensive overpriced woo and $14/lb organic butter.

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Red Hair, Black Dress

[Loveday]

I really, really want to know more about that 'abandoned' building.