Book Review Series – “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Wives Give Sex. All the Time.

The Power of a Transformed Wife, Lori Alexander, Sex in Marriage, Submission


Screenshot 2017-06-15 at 5.52.55 PM.png

Screenshot from The Transformed Wife Facebook Page – 6/15/17

-by Kathi

This is a book review series of The Power of a Transformed Wife by Lori Alexander. If you are just joining us, you may click on previous chapter reviews to catch up.

Introduction & Chapter 1   Chapter 2   Chapter 3   Chapter 4   Chapter 5   Chapter 6

****

Chapter 7 – This Thing Called Sex

Oh, goody…the sex chapter! Before I started reading this chapter I thought to myself: “Self, I wonder what wise words Lori will give women about sex? Let me guess…It will be about how husbands want sex all the time, and how wives are to give it to them anytime.”

Lori’s opening sentence:

Men like sex…a lot.

Oh, self, I am not disappointed in you. P.S. Lori, women like sex…a lot…too!

Again, Lori has changed her nagging target from Ken to her women readers:

Since God commanded older women to teach younger women to love their husbands (Titus 2:4), I’m reminding you that one of the most important ways a wife can express love to her husband is by satisfying him on the marital bed.

There you go, younger women. Lori is here to tell you that you need to give sex to your man anytime he wants it! Tell me, Lori, how well did that work for Josh Duggar or Doug Phillips? I’m sure that their wives were very submissive and worked to satisfy their husband’s sexual appetites, but they needed more. A wife can do all that she can to try and satisfy her husband’s sexual appetite, but sadly it may never be enough.

Lori then spends three pages quoting a reader’s comments to a man who states he has authority to tell his wife that she needs to have sex with him three times a week. Said reader made up her mind when she got married that she would never say “no” to her husband when he wanted sex. Her argument is that it is no different than saying “no” to a child who is hungry or wants cuddling. The problem with this logic is that, yes, there is a big difference between the needs of a grown man and a young child. A grown man should be able to hear “no” to sex and be understanding.

If your husband is having an affair or addicted to porn, wives are still required to give sex anytime and anywhere:

I have mentored women whose husbands were addicted to porn and had affairs. Naturally, these women had grown bitter and angry toward their husbands who had betrayed them, but this resentment is against God’s clear command to them. I must stick to the Word of God and teach them their responsibility is to love their husbands in spite of his behavior. If he has had an affair, asked for forgiveness, gone through counseling, and been checked for STDs, then I believe the aggrieved spouse should be willing to forgive her husband for any offense against her.

Part of me understands this. I have seen marriages in which one partner has an affair and they are able to work it out. I would say that is not the norm. If you have a spouse who has had multiple affairs or has viewed pornography for a long time, he most likely is not going to change. However, Lori also tells us that a wife forgiving her husband and offering herself sexually to him may help bring him to the Lord. Telling a wife that she needs to stay in a lie of a marriage is not helpful.

Lori rounds out this chapter with an old blog post about how most men want to go on vacation to have lots of sex. There’s too much discussion from readers about how to discreetly snatch a quickie – now I need to wash my eyes out. Lori ends with 1 Corinthians 7:5 which talks about not depriving one another of sex and highlights that this verse does not use vacation as an excuse to not have sex. Right…because the Corinthians must have had lots of sex while they were on vacation.

Allow me to sum up this chapter:

  1. Lori states that God instructs her to tell younger women to have lots of sex with their husband.
  2. Lori uses other people’s words to back up her statement.
  3. Lori has nothing new to say.

Plowing onward to Chapter 8, “Win Him Without a Word.” I’m guessing wives are out of words because they’re too busy having sex.

137 comments on “Book Review Series – “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Wives Give Sex. All the Time.

  1. This is what I hear as a survivor of childhood rape.

    (Get f*cked against my will to turn Bible God and his pro-sex slavery misogynistic Christian followers on.)
    Bible God is pro-sex slavery.
    Bible God cares more about sexually selfish/sexually sadistic men than he does women. So do pimps that pimp out the sex slaves they own.

    Being scr*wed against your will, being a slave for a man, being trapped with a scumbag man. All the same morals as ISIS, Arial Castro, Phillip Garrido, and the Southern Baptist man that repeatedly sexually abused me when I was a child.

    Do Christian men want to be in the same category with these men?
    Do Christian women want their husbands and sons in the same category with these men? As someone who grew up with Lori’s kind of men, this is the category I want her men in.

    I don’t see the difference from what conservative Christian men are trying to arrange for themselves and what Ariel Castro arranged for himself.

    Lori gets turned on by the same slop the man who sexually terrorized me my whole childhood was turned on by.
    Female submission to men and men getting to do whatever pleases them to their wives and receiving @ss kissing afterward. My rapist did not deserve to have his @ss kissed. He is the kind of man Lori is always going on about who deserves for women to kiss his @ss.

    The men in Lori’s world are the biggest losers, the creepiest of creepy men, the biggest babies, NOT respectable, and pro-slavery of women. All of Lori Alexander’s sadistic misogynistic fetishes my rapist would totally get on board with and approve of. He talked just like the vile sick woman.

    Lori Alexander, you have many of the same misogynistic, sexually abusive, mean spirited turn-ons as a little girl’s rapist. Your fetishes remind a survivor of repeated childhood sexual abuse of her rapist. You are not a real woman, you are not a good woman. If you did not have the spirit of the men I grew up with you would feel guilt and shame.

    The man that sexually terrorized me as a child went to church three times a week, he loved quoting the Bible, he already loved the Lord, the wifely submission verses were his favorites. He had a very submissive, self-hating, bottom of the barrel scraping wife. Lori Alexander does not know what she is talking about. She is just trying to manipulate women into getting scr*wed against their will because what men what and need matters and what women want and need does not. Ariel Castro had the same morals.

    Lori Alexander’s men are the bottom of the barrel. That is why they need Lori to bully their wives to have sex with them. The only way these unwanted men can get sex is by way of manipulation, intimidation, bullying, and force.

    Lori Alexander’s God is not respectable. He is sexually abusive towards women and extremely hateful towards women. I hated growing up with sick Christians like Lori as a little girl, it was so very painful, toxic. Lori’s God always gave me bad feelings as a child, never good feelings.

    The first good thing that ever happened to me was leaving Lori Alexander’s toxic sick world. I learned from women like her that her God is not respectable and I would rather be dead and in hell than married to a Christian man.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. This is a very painful post for me. Although the man I married appears quiet to many it took me years to realize that most of my identity with him was to fulfill his sexual requirements. Yes, there was ‘friendship’ but it was on his terms and sadly years of emotional silence and entrapment caused me to lash out… this is what my adult children remember as I finally confronted him with his ‘sick expectations of our marriage.
    At one time we were part of a so-called ‘c’hristian fellowship and along with Focus on the Family broadcasts – well, it was suggested that yes, whatever it took to meet your man’s sexual needs; then do it otherwise he might wander! So, here I am feeling ‘raped’ as he no longer needs me after four decades of “marriage on paper” and the children and their spouses obviously condone his behaviour?? We live in the same dwelling but are non-verbal – that’s the way he wants it and for now the Lord seems to be allowing this until I have more clarity as to where He truly wants me?

    Like

  3. Carmen – I know what I want but plans in what I thought were in the right direction have not been fruitful. It’s very difficult when I don’t have children or siblings that care. Even the local churches don’t want to be involved. I’m trusting God; I’m getting stronger emotionally and somewhat physically but years of strife and ‘covering up for what happens behind closed doors’ have taken a toll … I don’t have the stamina I used to which is something that saddens me. I gave the best years to ‘him’ and the children and ‘his’ family … always helping with family gatherings, etc.

    Like

  4. What a mess it is, equating suffering for righteousness with giving your selfish, adulterous, husband lots of sex? That doesn’t fix a cheater, whatever Lori thinks.

    Also, sex shouldn’t be suffering!! What even…after reading the insanely selfish story of Michael Pearls honeymoon BS, I just have to think they think sex is suffering because all of their husbands are so selfish.

    I have seen marriages in which one partner has an affair and they are able to work it out

    Sure. And that’s up to the offended partner to decide. NOT Lori. Not anyone else. Lori talks about forgiveness, but what about trust? That’s the hardest part, trusting someone, to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Keep trying! Every step in the right direction is a good one. You know you are entitled to half the family assets, right? You earned them. Keep striving for happiness; you deserve it.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Healinginhim,

    Very sorry to hear of the deep pain you are experiencing. Just wanted you to know that you are loved and wanted. Theres a whole community here that cares about you and values your thoughts. Sometimes there’s no way to figure out why something happened but there’s still time to figure out what you want.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Healinginhim I am so sorry. It is understandable that you would feel horrible.

    I have never been married, but I have been raped. Just because women having sex against their will turns on many Christians does not mean you have to. It is noticeable that Christian men never have to suffer for their wives. It is always the wife that has to suffer for the selfish childish baby/man husband.

    I have felt some of the same ways you feel ever since I was six years old.

    I became an atheist after I started seeing that Christianity is just designed to cater to sexually sadistic unattractive men who can’t get and keep women without a pimp in the sky that says he will set them on fire if they don’t be slaves for the unwanted men of the world. As someone who grew up in Christianity, it reminds me of a sex slavery cult run by unattractive sexually abusive men. I do not respect my rapist or his pro-rape hero in the sky.

    “Focus on the Family broadcasts – well, it was suggested that yes, whatever it took to meet your man’s sexual needs; then do it otherwise he might wander!”

    After growing up with Focus on the Family I will never believe conservative Christians hate wife beating, hate wife or child rape, or hate sex slavery. It is extremely important to conservative Christian men that they and their buddies be able to get away with these things. And I know why.

    Much love Healinginhim;)

    Liked by 1 person

  8. It is noticeable that Christian men never have to suffer for their wives.

    Meanwhile, in the actual bible, men are the only ones told they should love their wives to the point of actually dying for them, which certainly sounds like suffering. The super patriarchy types seem to skip over that passage. They just like the ones that allow them to be selfish jerks and ignore the rest.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Kathi, “Oh, self, I am not disappointed in you. P.S. Lori, women like sex…a lot…too!”

    “Lori Alexander’s men are the bottom of the barrel. That is why they need Lori to bully their wives to have sex with them. The only way these unwanted men can get sex is by way of manipulation, intimidation, bullying, and force.”

    I think Christianity does a huge disservice to both men and women with the lack of teaching about sex. But, I see even in this post, there seems to be this idea… the only man who wants more sex than his wife is willing to give is somehow abusive. I think that message is really offensive.

    My wife and I have completely mismatched sex drives. Not only that, but sex hurt her for the first six years of our marriage, and if she hadn’t had a vaginal birth, it probably would still hurt her. It’s been a constant struggle throughout our marriage, sometimes at the surface and sometimes in the underlying tone.

    At first, we wouldn’t have sex if I didn’t ask for it. Sometimes she said yes, sometimes no. At one point she was really interested and we got into a silly argument, but as a result, I told her no for the first time. She was devastated and came to realize for the first time ever how much that rejection really hurt – the rejection that she gave me over and over. As a result, we pretty much agreed that the best thing to avoid that rejection was for her to tell me when she was willing – whether she was into it or not – and that was more than she really wanted, but less than I did. We were able to keep our marriage together that way. She has a friend that wasn’t. Their situation was worse than ours, and the church (ala Lori) said, just do it and it’ll work out. That advice drove them away from Christianity and ultimately each other. The church teaches that sex is natural, wonderful and it just works as this amazing part of marriage. And, yes, when it does work for us, it’s like that.

    I don’t know what the solution is to mismatched sex drives. There were some clues, but mostly it’s not an okay subject to talk about because “it’ll all work out”. In many ways I feel robbed by that teaching. Yes, in many ways, our love for each other helped us overcome challenges, but it seems our love for each other forced us each to give up some essential aspect of who we were to preserve who we were together.

    “However, Lori also tells us that a wife forgiving her husband and offering herself sexually to him may help bring him to the Lord.”

    Lori’s message is a message of abuse and codependency. This is also the message of authoritarianism. It goes like this. If your husband is wonderful, obey him, because of course why wouldn’t you. If he’s okay but asks you to do things you’re not sure you’re okay with, obey him, because then if something really big comes up he might listen to you. If he’s a complete abusive jerk, obey him, because maybe your behavior will convert him. And even that is too light of what they are saying. She is really saying, if you don’t let him walk all over you, you WON’T convert him. That is the message of codependency.

    Paul is not trying to lay codependent guilt on the wife when he says the husband might be won. The husband is 100% responsible for his actions just as the wife is 100% responsible for hers. I think Paul is saying is that Christians have a natural, healthy “glow” about them and that a wife living a godly life should naturally attract a man to what she believes. However, we know that is not always the case. Cain was not attracted by Abel’s glow, neither were the Pharisees to Jesus’s, nor were the synagogue leaders to Peter and Paul’s. We don’t see Paul wallowing in guilt in his letters because he couldn’t convert them. In fact, as Jesus recommended, he shook the dust off his feet and moved on.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. the only man who wants more sex than his wife is willing to give is somehow abusive.

    I don’t think anyone is saying this. But if a man insists on sex always and a woman is told she can never refuse (or not allowed to refuse) that IS abusive. Mismatched sex drives are a thing and they have to be worked out between a couple. It’s not always the man who wants more sex, either. So.

    As for the ‘husband might be won’, I think that is meant for a nice, normal non-Christian husband, say a Buddhist or something (or more likely at the time a follower of one of the many roman gods). I think he was just saying don’t leave your husband because he’s not a Christian. Not that any bad behavior by a husband can be fixed ‘without a word’. I don’t see that at all.

    Like

  11. healinginhim & christianity hurts – Thank you for sharing with us. The pain you have had to endure over your life is horrible. You are special and valued to us here. I do hope that you are able to find peace and rest with your life.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Healinginhim, “So, here I am feeling ‘raped’ as he no longer needs me after four decades of ‘marriage on paper'”

    For our first few years of marriage, it really did feel like rape. I learned not to ask how she was feeling because she would tell me the truth that it really hurt. She would ask me to go as fast as I could to get it over with. So there is was, my wife consented to painful sex because I really needed it, but the result for me was that this thing that was hyped up to be the capstone of our marriage usually came off as the emotional equivalent of rape.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. “patriarchy types seem to skip over that passage”

    Patriarchy types can’t go thirty seconds without having their bottoms thoroughly kissed, but their children can go eighteen years being sexually, physically, and emotionally terrorized.

    In patriarchy, a husband and father not getting his bottom kissed is more outrageous than women and children being physically, sexually, and emotionally abused.

    The tough ones in the family have to be the children and wife. The father and husband is the needy temperamental crybaby. He can’t tough anything out. Toughing things out is always the children and wife’s job. Poor feeble daddy needs his infantile bottom kissed more.

    If these men had the minds of mature grown-ups they would be embarrassed, but that is never going to happen.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Christianity hurts, “The tough ones in the family have to be the children and wife. The father and husband is the needy temperamental crybaby.”

    That is soooo true! For me it was both my dad and mom. They had naturally low tolerances, but there was a pecking order. My mom had to be the adult in their marriage because my dad used work as an excuse to be gone 12-14 hours per day, and when he came home it was my mom’s job to serve him, and the children’s job to let him sit in his chair and read undisturbed.

    My mom, though, was the same way, though not to the same extent. She was overwhelmed by the typical children noise in our house, but instead of it being her issue that we could help with, she expected us to provide that emotional stability. The church watched this all and when they intervened, it was always to reinforce the hierarchy rather than bring emotional stability. So, my siblings and I are now either abusive (some more, some less) or codependent. Not surprisingly, the abusive ones are church leaders.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. The father and husband is the needy temperamental crybaby.

    There is a weird sense that men are somehow both leadership take charge guys who should be in charge of everything while at the same time they are also completely incapable of having an actual rational discussion with you, cannot control themselves at all unless women are completely covered up or alt give them sex constantly, and are emotionally unstable to the point where women should approach them as if they might fall apart at any little thing.

    Wouldn’t it be much simpler to realize women and men are both human and ALL have emotions, faults, needs, etc?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. To continue the thought, because my parents were so overwhelmed, they just fought parenting fires. That meant that two of the kids got all of the parenting (the now abusive ones), and then they let those two parent the rest (the codependent ones). When the family order was broken, it was most often the codependent ones who were expected to sacrifice for the good of the family. That is, we were first abused, then when we got angry about the abuse were abused again to preserve the appearance of family peace.

    To bring this back to the topic, that is the role of the wife in complementarian/patriarchal society. To preserve the “appearance” of a wonderful godly family, the wife is told that she should willingly subject herself to abuse. When that abuse becomes too much for her to bear and she reaches out to the church in anguish, the church then tries to force her to willingly subject herself to abuse. It’s no surprise, then, that the complementarians have to create the token Uncle Tom complementarian women who get paid and praised to reinforce the message. If it were just men like Piper, I think women would be wiser, but women like Lori Alexander, Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth, Elisabeth Elliott and Debi Pearl saying the same thing and somehow how much God blessed them when they submitted to abuse seem to be able to dupe many.

    Like

  17. “Wouldn’t it be much simpler to realize women and men are both human and ALL have emotions, faults, needs, etc?”

    The men in my family were emotional, hysterical, and irrational. They were always having meltdowns. My Southern Baptist preacher grandfather is infamous in our town for his tantrums. People who don’t know him, know of him because they have heard about his tantrums.

    My mother and grandmothers were treated like dogs and they never cried and always took care of what they had to take care of.

    Like

  18. That’s one thing that makes me really angry about complementarianism. My father and my mother were not irrational, they just needed to be discipled about how to have a truly godly marriage and the advice they got and the examples they saw were abusive.

    My wife and I have a non-abusive marriage and when I tried to speak out against the message of abuse (redemption by suffering) taught in video series like Paul Tripp’s “What did you expect?”, I got completely shut down by my former church. So, in the comp. church, normal families abuse their wives and children and the unwritten rule is that the non-abusive families are not allowed to give marital or parenting advice. This is a bit of an exaggeration – I don’t think all comp. families are abusive, but the church doesn’t seem to care as long as they teach comp. theology.

    Like

  19. @Mark:

    For our first few years of marriage, it really did feel like rape. I learned not to ask how she was feeling because she would tell me the truth that it really hurt. She would ask me to go as fast as I could to get it over with. So there is was, my wife consented to painful sex because I really needed it, but the result for me was that this thing that was hyped up to be the capstone of our marriage usually came off as the emotional equivalent of rape.

    And you felt that way because you were a decent man (unlike Pearl, Wilson, Phillips, etc). Those MenaGAWD would sate the Urrges in their Arreas, then roll over for a restful night’s sleep once spent and sleep like a satisfied baby.

    It’s no surprise, then, that the complementarians have to create the token Uncle Tom complementarian women who get paid and praised to reinforce the message.

    Look up the term “Judas Goat” or the original source of “Black Sheep” — trained animals who lead the unaware herd/flock into the slaughterhouse. Goat or Black Sheep so they can be recognized and pulled out of the herd/flock just before the hammers and bleeding-out knives to do it with the next herd/flock.

    Like

  20. I can’t tell you how many marriage retreats and ladies conferences I sat through and heard this crap. Thankfully my husband has never subscribed to this horse puckey that he has the right to demand sex from me whenever he wants Being a sex slave to your husband doesn’t guarantee that he will never cheat on you. I know of a couple from our former church in which the husband cheated on his wife when she was pregnant. She was very much the submissive wife. They moved out of state for “intense counseling ” or so we were told and they’ve gone on to have a crap ton more kids. I always thought she stayed with him because she had been brainwashed into believing that it’s God’s will to stay married to a loser and like a good submissive wife, she didn’t have an education or marketable skills so she had nowhere to go.

    Like

  21. “So, my siblings and I are now either abusive (some more, some less) or codependent. ”

    Childhoods effect our adulthoods for better or for worse.

    My grandfather brutalized my father and his little brother to make them more obedient to God. My father grew up to be an unhinged bully and his little brother grew up to be the biggest drunk driver in our small town.

    Being a girly girl I wanted to be a stay at home mother and have twenty kids. I sincerely very much wanted it, not because they told me that is what I had to do, because it was really my dream life, but I am afraid of marriage and hate sex.

    Sweet attractive women have wanted to marry my cousin, but he has twice chosen women that are like his mother. They treat his kids like trash or like rivals. He hates his mother so I don’t know why he didn’t marry one of the cute women his kids adored.

    Like

  22. Christianity hurts, I can see why you chose your pseudonym. I can feel the pain as I read your words and my heart aches for you and the harm that was done to you and the misogynist teachings that degraded you, me, and all women. That is why it is so important to keep talking about this. Thankfully, I know quite a few men who are challenging these teachings. I have to look at Jesus. What did he teach? How did he treat and respond to women? That says it all for me. Any man who objectifies women, demands that he is in authority over women, I look at that guy as a fool. He is denying women of their personhood. They are WRONG! I so appreciate your comments here – even the painful ones. I am sure that your words are resonating with someone else who has gone through similar circumstances and it is validating them, too. Thank you for being part of this community!

    Liked by 3 people

  23. healinginhim,

    My heart also aches for you, too. It sounds like you are very alone in your marriage. Please continue to treat yourself as a valued person of God. If you are feeling used like an object, you can say no. You are not a receptacle, an object to be used so he can have his moment of pleasure. Sex is about a relationship. If he is failing to treat you as woman to love and cherish, he is the one abandoning his marriage vows. Four decades is a long time to be alone in a marriage. I’m so sorry!

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Sunshine, “They moved out of state for ‘intense counseling’ or so we were told and they’ve gone on to have a crap ton more kids.”

    Guessing they moved out of state because the husband’s sterling reputation was tarnished. To reclaim the appearance of a godly marriage they had to move elsewhere.

    This is another aspect of the modern church that I find unacceptable – how sin is swept under the rug. The worst examples of that are covering over criminal behavior, but I think it is a disservice to the church that there is the appearance that everything is wonderful and no one has any issues. Then when people do have issues, they’re afraid (and usually rightly so) to seek help from the church leaders. The ‘Competent to Counsel’ church leaders should be making mentor/mentee connections between counselors/counselees and mentors/mentees, but instead, they take it on themselves and try to keep it hidden.

    Keeping sin hidden like this invites gossip and spiritual blackmail. The leaders have the dirt on everyone, so no one dares challenge the leadership. I think that’s how women get forced back into abusive marriages. The leaders collect all the dirt on their marriage by ‘counseling’ the couple. Then they impose their will by ignoring the sins of the husband and highlighting the (supposed) sins of the wife. If the wife refuses to cooperate, then they publicly shame her by excommunication, in which it is okay to spill all the dirt on her in front of the congregation.

    I’ve seen a couple versions of this play out. In one circumstance, the wife was having an affair and the husband was trying to save the marriage. When he chose to work directly with his wife instead of through the church implementing their solution, the church excommunicated them both, and the congregation was blindsided by the leaders’ version of the dirt. In the other circumstance, the husband was addicted to porn and the wife wanted a divorce. The leaders wanted them to reconcile, but it wasn’t working. I think the leaders started gossiping to get the congregation behind their solution, but the congregation was siding with the wife – that she should divorce. Facing that backlash, the leaders turned a blind eye when she resigned membership and excommunicated the husband.

    Like

  25. Healinginhim, you might want to go outside the church for help. There are many good therapists and there is no sin in seeking one who doesn’t have the Christian, patriarchal slant. It seems to me that you need to talk to someone who supports YOU as a woman and a human being. It might be harder to find that within your church community.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Great comments, JA! Completely agree that we men need to own our own sins and not use patriarchy as a way to justify objectifying and enslaving women! I try to teach my daughters that they have a right to be treated with kindness and respect just like all others, but I do fear that they will be pressured by comp. and patriarchal Christians in my family and even in our church to settle for less. I try to differentiate between ‘nice’ness and kindness – that God doesn’t expect them to shove their self-image in a box for others’ sake or to preserve the peace, despite what our culture seems to teach.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. One thing I can note here is that the Bible does teach some wonderful things about sex, the Old Testament being particularly “earthy” in that regard, and not just in the Song of Solomon. I personally think that Sarah’s statement “shall I have pleasure?” in Genesis 18:12 just might mean that Abraham “hadn’t been working for a while”, so to speak.

    With regards to those who have been abused, 1 Peter 3:7 and Colossians 3:19 come to mind as noting that a husband who is harsh with his wife will suffer his prayers not being answered. God’s saying “you wanna be harsh? I’ll give you harsh!”, more or less, there. (praying for you, hurts…no excuse for that kind of [redacted])

    Particularly regarding Alexander’s thesis, I’m reminded of something the pastor who did my wedding told my wife and I; he asked if we were sleeping together, and when we said no, he went further and said to stop if we were. His explanation; there are some times when you’re “going to need to pray” instead of making “the beast with two backs”. So I would dare say that, apart from our theological differences here, that the thesis offered goes well beyond what Scripture commends.

    Like

  28. I have no idea how I landed on this email list so as to even get this article in the first place. All I can say is that if I had a rather negative view of Christians and Christianity in the first place – which is, in fact, the case – this article did absolutely nothing to change my mind. I have opted out of the emails. Hopefully, I will not receive any more nonsense like this. I have one word……incredible!

    Like

  29. Carol – “…you might want to go outside the church for help.”
    I did. Went to a Women’s Resource center seeking an apartment. When the counselor heard my story she wanted to open a file. Two summers later she opened a file concerning my adult children’s emotionally abusive behavior.
    This counselor also professes to be a Christian – I’ve explained the spiritual abuse that I received in this small community and the lack of support … Some would consider my faith “too strong” … regardless, this counselor was there for me and tried to guide. She has since retired and I give her credit as she couldn’t do much more but give encouragement and possible contacts for legal support. She did warn me to have an escape route … that “the quiet ones” (my husband) are often the most unpredictable … I agree but I have also reached a point that if he wants to harm me; so-be-it … that’s how tired I am. 😦
    Yes, it’s up to me to move on and out but it is still emotionally and physically exhausting and also something in my gut tells me to be patient as I continue to make plans. I’ve re-entered the workforce at a an age when many are retiring, enjoying being grandmas … I’m a grandmother – my little grandchildren are oblivious to the situation. I’ve warned this daughter that eventually her children will discover the truth about all the deceitfulness and lying which includes her and her siblings.
    Several counselors have admitted that I need a few more friends and a support system to help me move on.

    Like

  30. Wow! This angers me. I liked sex. I initiated sex a least half the time. He left his Facebook up and I decided to post as a joke “I’m an idiot” on his wall. My son had done this to me and it was the funniest thing people’s responses. I never posted. He had made friends with 5000 people most he did not know. Most were girls or women in provocative poses with little clothing. Some were complaining about their pages getting reported. They were on beds. Only dressed in thongs etcetera. Many were under eighteen. We went round and round for a year or more, during that year he upped the emotional abuse. He insulted the counselor, he insulted the pastor. He said extremely spiritually abusive things to me. “Jesus hates you, God’s gonna kill you, God’s gonna make you gay, you are reprobate, unchosen etcetera. Sometimes he would just hint at those things in public like walk past and say Ms. Romans chapter two. That meant God’s gonna make you gay, stuff like that.” It kinda killed the mood for sex and let me say if a wife would do those things it would kill the mood for her husband. There were times I did when I didn’t want to because of teaching like this, so the writterof this book is contributing to women being coerced. My counselor said since he treated me this way, boundaries, I could sleep in another room and say no. We separated soon afterwards and it’s heading to divorce. He says he got forced to leave because he’s a real Christian. Ugh.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. He was “forced to leave because he’s a real Christian”? Hmmm…even if we would assume he was, and you were not (I’m NOT making that claim!!!!), that’s at the very least an “interesting” way of applying 1 Cor. 7:12.

    Along these lines (thank you, “jesusfollowingishard”!), it’s worth noting that you cannot preclude divorce for infidelity, and in certain cases, I think the spouse who fails to divorce an adulterous spouse does clear harm. People who are married to adulterers are not required to stay with them and “put out until hubby shapes up”.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. You know how people say the church fathers, such as Augustine, are misogynists? Well, in spite of some of his more subordinationist views of women, Augustine has the following to say to wives about a husband’s infidelity in his sermon “To the Married”:

    “Do not allow your husbands to fornicate! Hurl the Church herself against them! Obstruct them, not through the law courts, not through the proconsul . . . not even through the Emperor, but through Christ. . . . The wife has not authority over her body, but the husband. Why do men exult? Listen to what follows. The husband likewise has not authority over his body, but the wife. . . . Despise all things for love of your husband. But seek that he be chaste and call him to account if his chastity be amiss. . . .

    “Who would tolerate an adulterous wife? Is the woman enjoined to tolerate an adulterous husband? . . . Those of you who are chaste women, however, do not imitate your wanton husbands. May this be far from you. May they either live with you or perish alone. A woman owes her modesty not to a wanton husband but to God and to Christ.”

    So if Augustine is misogynist, then what does that make Lori Alexander, her husband, and those just like them who turn a blind eye to such grave sins and tell wives to suck it up? In spite of all their flaws and even sometimes offensive views of women (at least to my modern ears), I’d still take the church fathers any day over their ilk. Even the church fathers have their limits.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. That screenshot has me queasy. That is blasphemy plain and simply. Not only does it make eternity all about what works you do or don’t do(no Jesus really needed). It also makes the wife the savior of the husband because in reality it is her driving him to sin or keeping him from it. Spiritually abusive to the max!
    Real men who have opened up about porn problems are the first to tell you that their wife’s sexual response/initiation had little or nothing to do with their problem.
    I’m sure the rest of the article is great but I’m going to need some time to get over the nastiness of the screenshot.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. LEB – I hope you’re still reading. My book review series is a critique against Lori’s toxic teaching. Take a look from the beginning and you’ll see that I am not a fan. She is growing weary on me and causes me to drink more than my fair share of wine in order to handle her toxic nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. momzilla76 (great name, btw!) – Yes, that screenshot from her Facebook page is horrible. How did it come down to women suffering for their husbands? How did scripture get so twisted? She is like the pharisees that Jesus rebuked for placing heavy burdens on others when they’re not willing to lift a finger themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Well Kathi – that statement just proves my theory. “There’s only one way to kill poison — with more poison. 😉

    Like

  37. a campaign to destroy her book??? Whatever.

    Also, that girl who says she’s dated the debi pearl/Lori Alexander way and gotten engaged? What is dating the Lori way? Is thata chapter in her book? if it results in marrying a man like Michael pearl who works you like a slave on your honeymoon I will have to pass

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Mark – You and your wife’s situation reminds me of how purity culture sets up sex in marriage as a magical experience. The problem is that not everyone is able to experience that. I wonder how many marriages have been ruined by the amazing promises of fulfilling sex when potential issues are not addressed.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Some comments:

    1. Jesus never said, “People with penises get anything they want.”

    Jesus did say, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” These commands are about caring, protecting, and fairness.

    If a wife doesn’t want sex, the husband needs to respect that — and be loving and patient. And if a husband doesn’t want sex, the wife needs to respect that and be loving and patient.

    2. “Do Unto Others…” — Turn About is Fair Play – Women Wanting More Sex

    Lori implies that men want sex more than women, but what about women who want more sex than their husbands?

    Can wives demand sex from their husbands—and get it every time? Is there a double-standard here?

    Here are some stories from women want more sex:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/sex-confessions-women-want-sex-more-than-men_n_3203879.html

    3. People should talk about their sexuality before they marry.

    They should discuss how to have sex — and how often.

    Christians have such taboos about sex, and so it’s not a surprise that they enter very mismatched and sexually unsatisfying marriages.

    My first marriage was a train wreck. I knew my husband and my sexual values were different, but we were Christians and had to pretend to follow the Evangelical Christian script.

    Like

  40. There is a major error made here that is being overlooked. Counselors who work with sexual addicts typically recommend a season of abstinence from sex, not more sex in order to address the underlying issues. The root issues cannot come to the surface as long as an individual is having their addiction fed. A wife who is obligated to continue feeding an unhealthy addiction will never see her spouse come face to face with his work. The addiction may go underground for a season to reserface later or he may simply work harder to keep it hidden, but he will not be cured by her sex sacrifice.

    Like

  41. So according to Lori guys who are still jerkin’ the gherkin are gonna’ get sent to hell?? What kind of cruel and petulant god would do such a thing?

    Like

  42. Kathi, not sure what you mean by purity culture, but definitely abstinence before marriage. We did buy into the Josh Harris side-hug stuff, but that was our decision not something forced on us. The pastor’s daughter said she would never marry a man she hadn’t kissed, so not ultra-conservative in that respect. We were pretty open with each other about sex, I thought at the time, but we just didn’t know what to ask. Our pastoral counseling was… “well I don’t need to counsel you because you grew up in the church and are both Christians.” I’m definitely happy we’re married and were able to deal with the difficulties.

    I’m mainly trying to say that just as some women are going to feel blessed following Lori’s redemption through suffering approach, some women are going to really struggle through consenting when they know it’s going to be more painful than pleasurable. In fact, I think it’s more difficult for a woman who feels completely enabled to say “no” to say “yes” in that situation compared to a woman who believes her calling from God is to say “yes”.

    FYI, just to add another dimension… Did you know that the modern modesty / purity culture is actually a child of the feminist movement? I’m not going to try and dig up the article, but it goes basically like this. In Puritan New England, a man was brought up on charges because he had been denying his wife sex for years. The court ruled against him, because, obviously, women need sex… a lot. Men were considered to be pure and above needing such worldly pleasures, whereas women had uncontrollable passions that needed to be satisfied. A man who would deny his wife sex was almost forcing her to find her outlet somewhere else (sound familiar?) Also, because women were so uncontrollably passionate, they needed to stay home, cook, clean and take care of the kids, so their busy hands would keep them out of trouble.

    The feminists did not like the idea of being forced to stay home, and decided that in order to get women access to the public sphere, they needed to convince society that women were pure – pure enough to be in public without concern for their passion. This happened, I believe in the late 1800’s. It was wildly successful. The roles switched, and men now had the uncontrollable passions, and women were the very symbol of purity; however, those pure, altruistic women did the most altruistic thing possible, which was… to stay home, cook, clean and take care of the kids.

    But, it’s hilarious that conservative Christians try to defend the purity/modesty culture as if it continued unbroken since the beginning of time. It’s more like 200 years old at best.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Mark – By purity culture I mean groups that constantly teach abstinence, modesty for women, women are not to make their brothers stumble, etc. Personally, I think waiting for sex until you’re mature enough and in a committed relationship is best. With that point, I did not push that down my kids throat at every chance I could get. I simply stated my point, told them that I would love them no matter what, and we have open conversations about sex. Purity culture takes it to the extreme almost making sex out to be something bad, even though they promote it as a magnificent thing. Christians complain that worldly culture is obsessed with sex, yet the same can be said about purity culture. I hope I’m making sense with that. That leaves young couples who have waited their whole young lives for that magical moment frustrated when they find out that sex isn’t always magical, especially in the beginning.

    I had a chuckle when I read her thought about vacations not being a time listed in the verse to abstain from sex. The Bible also doesn’t talk about sneaking in moments for sex. It really is amazing how they can twist scripture to meet their agenda.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Purity culture also teaches that men are to ravish in their wives and wives are to give sex to their husbands at will. Again, I bring up Josh Duggar because he was raised in that culture. Clearly the teaching doesn’t work for everyone.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Kathi, was the issue with sex on vacation because the children were in the same room? I think I read something like that once.

    As for the women wanting more or less sex? It kind of shows that whatever the belief behind it is, the end result is expected to be the same with regards to women in that they must be controlled regardless. (In some quarters) bags

    Like

  46. Mark,

    Can you give us your sources for this? I have read a fair amount on Puritanism and divorce in the 17th Century, written by Ph.D.-level scholars of Early American history.

    What you are saying doesn’t ring true, but I’m open to being proven incorrect.

    What is your source for Puritan belief that men were above needing sexual pleasures?
    What is your source that women had to prove they were pure in order to go out into the public sphere. What year did this take place? Who organized it? Who made the decision that now women could work outside the home?

    Like

  47. Lea – The issue was that when men go on vacation they expect lots of sex. There was lots of talk about how to do that when there are children in the same room. Women are told to expect that because the husband works so hard for the family he deserves it. Examples such as: bathrooms at a hotel or relatives house, family showers at campgrounds, or under the blanket by the campfire.

    One woman says, “We have sex all the time, anywhere.” I hope they do this legally because there are a lot of places where you can have sex.

    One man says, “They (speaking of women) feel that they should be able to go on family vacation and not think about sex. This makes me sad for the men married to these women. It’s important to heed the biblical admonition that your body does not belong to you but belongs to your spouse. The frequency of sex then is determined by the spouse who wants it, not the spouse who doesn’t”

    The other thing to consider here is when I went to find the blog post that she is referencing all of these comments from, I could not find it because she has scrubbed it off her blog. She has a link for it in another post, but it goes no where. Why would she scrub this post off her blog when she uses it as a reference in her book?

    Liked by 1 person

  48. One man says, “They (speaking of women) feel that they should be able to go on family vacation and not think about sex.

    So weird. I think the key in here is ‘family’. Granted I’m not married, but when I have all my nieces and nephews on vacation it is exhausting. Is that the problem? Maybe take your wife on a just you two vacation.

    these are either non problems or completely selfish refusal to acknowledge the reasons. Mom is probably tired. Help with the kids, get two hotel rooms or a condo where you have your own room, etc. stop just blaming women for everything!

    Liked by 1 person

  49. If anyone is looking for that history, here’s some brief cliff notes. The whole idea that women had to stay home and refrain from involvement in the public sphere dates back thousands of years to the Talmud—NON-Biblical Jewish rabbinical teaching. The Talmud taught the horrific idea of the Ten Curses of Eve—including being stuck inside the house and having to suffer polygamy. These hurtful traditions were passed down through generations, especially in the Middle Ages when a bunch of lonely monks in monasteries wrote all kinds of crazy ideas, blaming women.

    Now the actual feminist movement in America dates all the way back to the 1600’s when Quaker women preachers came to America to confront the Puritan errors. Elizabeth Hooten and Mary Fisher are great examples.

    The modern feminist movement was born out of the pre-Civil War antislavery movement. For hundreds of years American law had given women the legal status of children, requiring them to have legal guardians to make their decisions for them. Women were not allowed to do just about anything until the abolition movement opened the door for them to get involved in the public sphere.

    Since women couldn’t vote, they petitioned Congress like crazy. I’ve read the official Congressional Record where the Congressmen were upset that the women kept flooding them with antislavery petitions. One Congressmen actually suggested that Congress provide these women with husbands to keep them too busy to get involved in politics. Another actually said, “If the women would just leave us alone, then the South wouldn’t be so alarmed!”

    Long story short, after the Civil War many women like Susan B. Anthony who were heavily involved with the abolition movement, birthed the feminist movement by simply asking for the same freedoms that they had fought for others to receive.

    Sorry if I’ve gone off topic. Now I promise to get back on topic. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  50. That screen shot! First, Piper says father represent God to their children; then Alexander claims women can save their husband by giving them sex. The idolatry is rampant.
    On the man in Puritan New England who was disciplined for his lack of conjugal duty, there is more to the story (there always is). Here is a transcript of the record of his excommunication:

    Case # 12 Page 26/7 James Mattock February 23, 1640
    “James Mattocke, cooper, by our pastor (in the Name of the Lord and with the Consent of the Church, taken by their silence) Cast out of the Church for these Scandalls Committed by him, partly in Ould England and partly in New England.
    In ould England,
    1. For that he denyed Coniugall fellowship unto his wife for the space of 2 years together, upon pretence of taking Revenge upon himself for his abusing of her before marryage, and also for the avoyding of Charge by Children of her, when as yet he very suspiciously and offensively frequented the Company of one Whittakers wife all that time, and gave her 2s [two shillings] a week towards her maintenance, yea so obstinately Continuing therein as that the Magistrate of Bristow Imprisoned him in Newgate pryson there for tenn days and her the said Whittakers wife in Bridewell there.
    2. For that in Ould England after his profession of Religion he was knowne to be sundry times drunken, and so ragingly overtaken therewith at one time, as that he offered uncleane dallyance and flfthy Carryage to a Certaine maid in a victualing house openly.
    3. In New England for that he was openly drunken 2 times. Also for that from hence he hath sundry times written to the said Whittakers wife for her Comeing hether, and that having received 4 letters from her, and pretending to show her letters to the Elders, he brought theim [sic] but 2 of the sd [said] 4 letters, and (as he said) burnt the other wherein the greatest evills betwixt them was suspected to bee.”

    Source Link: http://www.firstchurchbostonhistory.org/recordsofdisciplinaryaction.html

    Like

  51. Avid Reader, I recommend you pick up a book by Regine Pernoud called “Women in the Days of the Cathedrals”. Believe it or not the early Feudal Era in Western Europe gave women a ton of rights. They could inherit property, have professions, etc. So, no, your statement regarding the Middle Ages does not entirely pan out. In fact, women in monasteries could become very powerful landowners as abbesses. Wives learned their husbands’ trades and worked alongside them. Women were also doctors, barbers (bloodletting and leeches, yay!), etc. It was the renaissance of Roman Law in Europe that took these rights away. We have only regained them in the West in the last 100 years.

    In fact, if you study various cultures at various times, you’ll find women’s rights waxes and wanes. For example, the Mongols under Genghis Khan granted women extraordinary rights, while their Chinese neighbours were meanwhile practising footbinding and oppressing women. If you were to graph women’s rights, you would find it isn’t a flatline where women were oppressed since the beginning of time until their rights suddenly rose in the last 100 years. It’s more of a rollercoaster, varying in time and place.

    I think this information is important to know because it first of all contradicts the notion that women have always “had their place” beneath men, and is thus an important counterpoint to make in a debate. It also warns us that our rights can be taken away in a blink, and thus we should do everything in our power to retain them and counteract misogynist propaganda. Finally, it gives oppressed women hope that it isn’t always like this, and that men can at times be decent enough not to oppress women 24/7.

    Liked by 3 people

  52. the Mongols under Genghis Khan granted women extraordinary rights,

    But they also raped and murdered an insane number of women.

    This gets into ‘our’ women vs other women. Which is also kind of the Viking thing…common to history. Not very Christian.

    Like

  53. Lori’s advise is dangerous. Imagine having a husband who has multiple partners, the comes home and wants his wife to submit and have (unprotected) sex with him. The physical risk he puts his wife through with potential STDs is no different than holding a gun to her head. HIV, herpes, clamedia etc can compromise a woman’s quality of life. Some STDs can cause infection which can turn into cervical cancer or lead to infertility.
    If our bodies are a “temple of God” why would He expect his wife to allow herself to become infected by sexual disease? Another problem is chronic pornography abuse. How far does a woman allow herself to be sexually demeaned by a husband who wants her to reinact scenes he has watched? (Non-mutual bondage? Whips? Dominance? An added person? Animals?) There is an endless supply of unhealthy and cruel pornography that some addicts require their spouse to re-enact.
    I personally would support a campaign to “sabotage” Lori’s book (and blog) to limit the potential damage her advise causes. She targets young inexperienced women who need wisdom, not idiocy. Kathy, thank you for this series.
    This is for Lori: healthy married sex includes more than just 10 minutes and lube.

    Liked by 2 people

  54. Clockwork Angel,

    It sounds like we are discussing two totally different topics. We were discussing Lori Alexanders crazy notions. My whole point was that what Lori teaches dates back thousands of years to the Talmud. These hurtful traditions were passed down by church fathers who were those monks writing books that still influence pastors today.

    Now of course throughout history there have been many examples of women owning property in different cultures. There were many powerful women around the world who held leadership positions. That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of women suffered under the brutal system of feudalism. If people have time to dig deep enough they will find the facts. There were rich people and poor people. Guess who got the justice and who suffered.

    Now Mark was specifically discussing how the modern feminist movement helped women gain access to the public sphere so I wanted to respond to that train of thought. I’m not sure how that discussion got confused with the Middle Ages but do appreciate the history discussion.

    Like

  55. Also if anyone is looking for historical sources to research—-the books History of Women Suffrage (6 volumes) are available for free online. They give an interesting look at how the feudal system oppressed women as well as a detailed history of the movement from primary sources. Now I’m hoping we can get back on topic.

    Like

  56. This “review” misrepresents the book from paragraph one. It is angry screed by an angry woman… and it offers no objective assessment of its subject.

    In short, it is a waste of page space.

    Like

  57. Monte314 – I think you’re mistaking me for Lori. She seems angry about everything from women who work to yoga pants to doctors. One of the main differences between me and Lori is that even though your comment is negative, it will remain because criticism is okay. If I would have left that same comment on Lori’s blog you can be sure that it never would have gone through moderation.

    Liked by 2 people

  58. Carmen – Yes, because I do not believe in Lori’s toxic teachings I’m afraid I shall be labeled as an angry feminist. Sigh. What am I to do?

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Well, in my books ‘angry feminist’ doesn’t have a negative connotation. 🙂

    I have never detected an angry note in anything you’ve ever written. In fact, your book reviews have been quite tame, considering the toxic nature of Lori’s suggestions. But then again, to those who are in agreement that women should be second-class citizens, your comments might be seen as blasphemous. You’d never speak like this, but I have no problem telling Monte314, “Suck it up, buttercup – you’re just plain wrong!”

    Liked by 3 people

  60. In fact, your book reviews have been quite tame

    They are general humorous and exasperated, which is a valid response. The people who defend Lori sound fairly angry though.

    Of course, anger is also a valid response to women being told to submit to abuse, neglec…and to other harmful things Lori says including her medical advice based on utter lack of knowledge. Some of the stuff Lori says is wrong, some is downright dangerous.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Should a man submit to angry screed by an angry woman for a season?
    Oh my (chuckle, flutter hands)…
    First we need to say what kind of screed we mean– just verbal screed? Then the man should submit and joyfully explain to the angry woman just in what ways her screed wastes the highly limited electrons of the Internet. Oh my. In what ways, for example, does her first paragraph misrepresent the book?
    Now if the woman snacks him around for a night, he may want to report her to the church without violating her God-given femininity. Now if she wants to have group sex, he needs to draw the line and gently explain that he’d love to submit to her in this way, but that would cross the line and maybe he could submit by putting down the toilet seat instead.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Anonymous2, “Can you give us your sources for this? I have read a fair amount on Puritanism and divorce in the 17th Century, written by Ph.D.-level scholars of Early American history.”

    http://www.alternet.org/when-women-wanted-sex-much-more-men

    I assume there is the potential for confirmation bias on both sides. I know Reformed Christians look back to the Puritans as the true example of Christendom – where the church had its proper place in society along the family and state.

    For example, Robert Godfrey, in his church history video series said that most Christians believed/were taught the first century church was the pinnacle of holiness from which we’ve now fallen, and that if we could only return, we’d be much better off. In fact, he said, the first century church was riddled with all sorts of heresies, that there was very little theological understanding or sophistication.

    What I was taught is that there are key periods of church history, the 1st century, the Constantine era, the Reformation/Geneva/Westminster, the Puritan/Great Awakening eras, where all the Christian stars aligned and for a generation to perhaps 100 years, there was widespread, true Christianity practiced. I think that it is often in that vein that Reformed/Christian historians go back and cast somewhat a rose-colored glass view of bygone eras.

    Like

  63. Monte314: “This “review” misrepresents the book from paragraph one. It is angry screed by an angry woman… and it offers no objective assessment of its subject.”

    Methinks thou dost protest too much! Isn’t the height of hypocrisy to, in leveling a charge against someone else, be doing precisely the same thing you take offense at?

    Where is your objective assessment?

    Like

  64. I don’t know if you all want to add it or not to the original post, but Lori, from what I saw shared on another site, recently did another one of these things where she wrote some stuff by hand on a notebook page and posted it to her Facebook page or blog.

    She starts out well enough in the newest page.

    She goes on about how she has the right to write what she does, even if others don’t like it or agree. I agree with her there.

    But then, about half way through, she once more gets into this spiel about how if you are disagreeing with HER it’s because you’re really DISAGREEING WITH GOD HIMSELF (and you must hate God).

    Here are some excerpts from her hand-written page that I’ve seen on social media lately:

    by Lori Alexander:

    …. If I continually disagree with someone’s writings I simply stop reading them. I don’t try to badger, bully, or stop them from writing. They are entitled to believe what they want and so am I.

    I understand that many hate the Word of God.

    They don’t want to be taught biblical truths and in fact, many hate God so why do you continue to read? Is it because you do know there’s a God but you falsely believe that if you can silence those who love God that He will cease to exist? That’s not going to happen.

    She says she doesn’t read sites where people critique her work, so heaven knows if she’ll ever see my post here or not.

    I agreed with some of her remarks. I don’t think it’s entirely bad to stop reading someone’s work if you disagree with them, if it’s upsetting you terribly. Yes, she has a right to post what she wants.

    Where she began really losing me, however, is where she seems to be equating disagreeing with her to disagreeing with, or hating, God.

    I am currently a kind of “Christian-agnostic.” I was brought up a Christian. I am not an atheist.

    I was also raised under the sort of views of male headship that Lori espouses, but I realized by adulthood those views are incorrect and based on an incorrect understanding of the Bible.

    I wish Lori had more humility.

    I wish she would realize that her interpretation of the text may be wrong, instead of just assuming anyone who disagrees with her must be an atheist or someone who hates God or hates the Bible.

    Lori should realize that if one approaches the text with an assumption of male headship being true, right, and of divine mandate, or course some passages may seem to support complementarianism (or whatever term it is she uses to describe her view – patriarchy?) ….
    But there are equally conservative ways of reading that SAME text and arrive at other conclusions (that don’t result in a male hierarchy).

    Lori’s way is not the only “right” way of understanding the Bible concerning marriage and women. Someone disagreeing with Lori’s interpretation of the Bible does not necessarily mean they hate God, hate the Bible, or don’t believe in a deity.

    Like

  65. Monte314 said

    This “review” misrepresents the book from paragraph one. It is angry screed by an angry woman… and it offers no objective assessment of its subject.

    In short, it is a waste of page space.

    How is it misrepresenting Lori or Lori’s book when it’s chock full of quotes taken from Lori herself, and one of Lori’s handwritten notebook pages is at the top of the page?

    Liked by 1 person

  66. I re-read the handwritten thing at the top, the stuff where Lori talks about suffering for God or what not.

    She’s just pushing codependency for women once more (Complementarianism is Codependency.

    Though I was never married, I was taught the same stuff from my mother (and somewhat by my father): that I should just endure abuse or rudeness – it’s what God wanted me to do.

    I can say after having spent years silently enduring mistreatment from friends, co-workers, bosses, friends, and an ex fiance’ (never standing up for myself, never being assertive), I realized that being a doormat all the time in every situation only enables the mistreatment to continue.

    Like

  67. This is probably a more middle-of-the road view of Puritan beliefs. I’m not sure that Anonymous2 is really offering a contrary view other than to say that what I read was wrong. http://www.historicbostons.org/home/ravishingaffection.html

    I think the Bible is pretty balanced between male and female sexual sins, but certain passages can be used by those trying to claim one or the other.

    “God has given godly wives who are married to men disobedient to the Word a way to rescue their husbands from their sin”

    I think this proves the comp/modesty view of women and men – that somehow sex is irresistible. More powerful than the work of the Holy Spirit (who I think is vastly denied in conservative churches). That’s why women have to be urged and commanded to be modest, because not even the holiest of men can be expected to resist the “nip slip” or the navel.

    I’ve heard that it is women who preserve radical Islam, and I think in the same way, women like Lori are trying to promote complementarian theology, not by arguing theology, but by creating a legion of women who would sacrifice their bodies in the name of luring and trapping men into a life of outward holiness, and to hopefully indoctrinate the next generation. Once you start with that core, it’s easy to predict how the conservative church will respond to things like spousal abuse, refusal, divorce, clergy sex abuse. In fact, isn’t there sort of a “wink, wink” men are to be the leaders of their home, where the church is also saying that women need to (from the bedroom, of course) lead their men to lead their home?

    Like

  68. many hate God

    Yes, Lori. If people dare to recognize things like abuse are a problem and depression can be seen on MRI’s and might need medication?

    They ‘hate God’. eyeroll

    This is just how lori shuts down the part of her brain that isn’t brainwashed. All those people can’t be right, they must just hate god.

    Liked by 2 people

  69. Daisy, “I wish she would realize that her interpretation of the text may be wrong, instead of just assuming anyone who disagrees with her must be an atheist or someone who hates God or hates the Bible.”

    There is a conservative/evangelical echo chamber. When I was young and foolish, I loved the logic of the modern Reformed writers. They were able to succinctly answer every point of the opposition and show it to be ridiculous. It all made perfect sense and came straight from the Bible.

    However, two things happened: First, I started reading the same modern Reformed writers challenge positions that had been held a long time by my church, and second, I started reading the Bible more cover-to-cover than just studying passages along with a theological books and devotionals. I started realizing that these writers were not faithfully representing the opposition. Instead they were creating a caricature of their argument, or they were taking one point of a multi-point argument, or worse yet, creating a straw man argument that was entirely tangential. Secondly, I would read passages that seemed to contradict their arguments. I would return to the writer and realize that the writer would simply cherrypick passages that agreed and ignore passages that did not.

    Honestly, comp. theology didn’t fall for me because it’s clearly against scripture so much as I haven’t seen anyone come up with comp. theology that was internally consistent. For example, the state has the authority to put a disobedient citizen in jail. What authority does a husband have over a disobedient wife?

    Liked by 1 person

  70. show it to be ridiculous

    I think i said on a different site that mocking is a tell? It is.

    There is something…vicious here? Mean. A petty meanness too. It’s not just thinking you are right, because everyone thinks they are right. It is how you deal with people who simply disagree. (I am not speaking of true evil, of course. Minor doctrine disagreements are not on the same level of abuse and other poor treatment of people.)

    Like

  71. I haven’t read any of the comments yet, or for that matter the critique on Lori A’s sex chapter. However, if Lori believes that having sex is “suffering for righteousness sake” – then she has quite the twisted view of sex indeed. That little hand-written ditty at the beginning of this article points to a very disturbing mindset. But honestly, I believe Lori is just a product of the way women think and behave in Patriarchal circles. They honestly believe that all women hate sex and all men are hound dogs and can barely control their sexual lusts. Disturbing….you bet!

    Like

  72. By the way, along the lines of behavior in Patriarchal circles, I commented over at Lori A’s blog about that very thing. In this case, I addressed Ken since he wrote that blog article entitled: One Long Temper Tantrum, written on June 16. Let’s see if it ever makes the light of day over there. Here is what I said:

    I’m addressing this comment to Ken with the hope that he will respond.

    Ken,
    When you speak of temper tantrums and connect such a term to an adult woman, the very nature of using such a term is infantilizing. I remember my very young son (about 1 1/2 yrs. old) going through a stage of throwing temper tantrums. He would throw himself down on the ground, kicking and screaming. Other times when I would put him in the crib to go to sleep at night, he would start shaking the crib, screaming, crying and holding his breath till his face became a deep red. If an adult woman is throwing temper tantrums, she needs a serious psychological evaluation for mental health issues. Because throwing temper tantrums is not normal for an adult.

    What concerns me even more is what I hear over and over again in Patriarchal circles. You know what that is? What I would call in modern parlance: throwing shade at and dissing women on a regular basis. One would think that if Patriarchalists are right, women must be these evil, conniving, devious, shrews out to attack all men and strip them of their dignity. Why oh why is it that women are always being criticized and excoriated for dreadful behavior?

    For what it is worth, I will give my opinion. I’d posit that it is the nature of a self-fulfilling prophesy in progress, and this is an example of how it works. Let’s take a child who continually hears from his parents that he won’t amount to much of anything because of X, Y, and Z. A child who hears demeaning criticism on a regular basis will begin to believe what they are told about themselves after a while, i.e. – that they won’t amount to much of anything in life. Those tapes play in their head over and over again and they believe what they have been told.

    In like manner, I believe that women in Patriarchal environments who hear the same derogatory comments made about themselves repeatedly, begin to believe what they are told and act accordingly. It takes an exceptional and confident woman to avoid falling into the pattern of this self-fulfilling prophesy within Patriarchy. In my former cult, I was inundated with teachings about the “Spirit of Eve.” We were taught that ALL women were plagued with severe problems, such as wanting to manipulate, confuse, and destroy men, and that they would take every chance they could get to do so. Do you realize the deleterious effects such a teaching can have on a female, hearing such language on a regular basis? I do, because I absorbed those teachings and they tormented my soul and turned me into someone that had twisted thinking. I became a person unlike who I truly was inside, taking on another identity.

    Ken, several months ago you commented to someone here at this blog that most of the problems in marriages are the fault of the wife. I think that such a comment is not only harmful, it is erroneous. Each marriage must be taken on a case-by-case basis. Yes, sometimes the problems in a marriage are due to the particular idiosyncrasies of the wife. Other times, however, the greater problems exist within a marriage because of the husband’s particular issues. To blame men specifically, or women specifically, as the major problem in marriages is stereotypical and discriminatory language. Further, such language perpetuates the gender wars which becomes a cycle of dysfunction preventing men and women from having healthy relationships with one another.

    I hope you consider what I have said if for no other reason that it may cause you to give more thought to the manner in which you communicate about these issues.

    Liked by 2 people

  73. Darlene, I think patriarchal thinking promotes selfishness in men. I feel like the sex advice from women like Lori and Debi, after you hear how their men treat them, has to be taken with a giant truckload of salt because their husbands are probably not doing much of anything to please them in bed. Even though thats gross to think about.

    As for the temper tantrum? That’s called someone snapping and calling someone on their **** after a while. It’s not a temper tantrum, it’s just straight up anger and it’s probably righteous.

    Liked by 1 person

  74. I have seen it by more than one Christian author/pastor/speaker that they equate disagreement with their views with hatred of Christianity or God. For them they are so positive that they are the mouth of God their pride has them convinced that they can so nothing even slightly off kilter so every bit of resistance is God hating rebellion. Real people of God are open for critique because they know they are not perfect.

    Like

  75. Mark,

    Good point. There’s good Puritans and bad Puritans just like any other group. I think that the Puritans understood the value of Scripture but didn’t understand the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Quakers understood the leading of the Holy Spirit but didn’t totally understand believers need both Scripture and the Holy Spirit. Hence the clashes between both groups.

    By the way,

    Kathy you’re doing great on this series. Monte sounds like the only one upset!

    Liked by 3 people

  76. Darlene,

    GREAT POINTS!! Very true. There’s way too much accusations towards women in Christian books. I see it all the time in my reading and growing up in the church, I’ve heard way too many preachers blatantly slam women from the pulpit. THIS IS WRONG!

    There are plenty of ways to address genuine issues without slamming people. Jesus showed us how when He saved the woman from the mob that wanted to stone her. Remember He REFUSED to accuse her. (John 8:11)

    Jesus warned us about this in the parable in Matthew 24:45-51. The overseer gets put in charge of feeding the household at the proper time just like the whole duty of ministers is to spiritually feed people. But in the story, the overseer gets lazy, drunk, feeds himself but not others and begins to abuse the household. The story ends with that “wicked servant” getting the same punishment as hypocrites.

    So here we have all these Christian books slamming women left and right—totally disregarding the way that Jesus taught us. To speak the truth in love. To say the hard things. To stand our ground with healthy boundaries.

    Liked by 2 people

  77. @Mark:

    I think this proves the comp/modesty view of women and men – that somehow sex is irresistible.

    Just like in PORNOGRAPHY.
    (And the favorite proclivity of Commander Douggie ESQUIRE upon his Handmaid is something I’ve only heard of in connection to Porn.)

    Like

  78. @Momzilla76:

    I have seen it by more than one Christian author/pastor/speaker that they equate disagreement with their views with hatred of Christianity or God.

    “If you question what I say or do
    YOU REBEL AGAINST THE FATHER, TOO!”
    — Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”

    Liked by 1 person

  79. @Mark:

    ..creating a legion of women who would sacrifice their bodies in the name of luring and trapping men into a life of outward holiness, and to hopefully indoctrinate the next generation.

    How does that differ from Mo David’s “Flirty Fishing” or the Cold War KGB tactic of “The Swallow’s Nest”? Using sexual seduction to recruit, convert, and control?

    isn’t there sort of a “wink, wink” men are to be the leaders of their home, where the church is also saying that women need to (from the bedroom, of course) lead their men to lead their home?

    In the semi-redneck circles I run with, “leading from the bedroom” has a much more direct name: “Playing Pussy Politics”.
    * Which trains women to be sweet smiling sex manipulators.
    * Which sows and cultivates further distrust of women by men (and resolve to keep them under your heel for self-protection).
    * Which fuels Male Supremacy to foaming rabid levels; a Manly Man Patriarch P-whipped by She Who Must Be Obeyed (in secret) will take it out on anything else without a Y chromosome. Hard. (Like serial killer Edmund Kemper killing coed after coed as stand-ins for his horrifically-abusive mother against whom he Dared Not Raise a Finger.)
    * Which has a long and sordid historical trail, from Ahab & Jezebel to Sultan Sulieman and Roxanna harem politics to those “Corrupters of Empire” Chinese concubines-turned-Empresses.

    Like

  80. Mark,

    I agree that the comp position has a lot of problems.

    Thanks for the source for a Puritan belief that men were above needing sexual pleasures. It didn’t sound right to me. I’m not a big fan of Alternet because not all of their writers (or editors) are careful to quote source material. Some articles are well sourced, but not all. This article doesn’t seem to be well sourced nor is the author an academic (from what I can see).

    I find that many pastors pretend they know what Puritans taught, and when I actually give them real legal cases from the 1600’s, they are shocked. For example, many conservative churches believe in two biblical reasons for divorce. But the Puritans had many more, including impotence and “total neglect of duty.” By the 1700s in the U.S., there were laws on the books allowing divorce for cruelty and alcoholism, to mention a couple.

    Like

  81. This is timely (intro from the page), something Lori should read:

    by J W Wartick

    I was raised complementarian. More importantly, I was raised in something of a theological echo chamber where my complementarian convictions went undisputed. All diligent Bible readers would obviously conclude that men were to lead, and even more obviously, that women were not to be pastors. What could be simpler?

    By college, I had only a working understanding of why I was complementarian. Nevertheless, my confidence in that position was quite strong—strong enough that when I met a young woman on campus studying to be a pastor, I concluded she must not take the Bible very seriously.

    After all, how could she?

    Complementarianism was the plain and simple teaching of Scripture.

    Indeed, the myth that egalitarians do not take Scripture seriously exists both in complementarian circles and outside the church. In a conversation with a friend who is an atheist, I was surprised to hear that, though he respected my commitment to the equality of men and women, he did not believe I could also have a high view of Scripture.

    I was taken aback, given that my commitment to egalitarian theology stems from deep and intentional exploration of Scripture.

    Do Egalitarians Take the Bible Seriously?

    Like

  82. Darlene said,

    By the way, along the lines of behavior in Patriarchal circles, I commented over at Lori A’s blog about that very thing.

    In this case, I addressed Ken since he wrote that blog article entitled: One Long Temper Tantrum, written on June 16. Let’s see if it ever makes the light of day over there. Here is what I said: ….

    This is funny, because my ex fiance’ would throw temper tantrums whenever he didn’t get his way, or if I expressed disagreement with him.

    I sort of mentioned that here, on this blog, where I gave one example:

    My ex once threw a fit over the phone with me because he wanted me to drive 40 minutes to his apartment to wash a stack of 4 foot dishes that HE had made dirty. I refused to do so (one of the few times I stood up to that ex.)

    In order to avoid my ex’s melt down’s, where he, a 30 something man would act like a spoiled 3 year old, I would almost always cave in and do what he wanted, I would repress my needs and true feelings, to keep him mollified, otherwise, his griping and huffy, pouty behavior would last hours, and it was so annoying.

    Ironically, all that repression I did to keep the ex happy (which is what Lori is advocating women do in marriages) is one factor of several that led me to dumping the selfish hose- bob.

    I would rather break free, be single, than be putting up with some guy’s crap in a relationship. Imagine me with my face painted half-blue a la Mel Gibson from that movie, holding a sword above my head, screaming “FREEDOM!”

    Hey, sometimes I tired of being single and would love some companionship, but not at the risk of going back to molly-coddling an adult man who expects to get his way all the time while my needs are shoved aside for YEARS. No gracias.

    Like

  83. Lea said,

    I feel like the sex advice from women like Lori and Debi, after you hear how their men treat them, has to be taken with a giant truckload of salt because their husbands are probably not doing much of anything to please them in bed. Even though thats gross to think about.

    Yes, the Christian claims I heard growing up are so misleading – one of them was, if you save sex for marriage, then married sex will be mind-blowing!!

    In reality, in these complementarian marriages, you, the woman, will be pressured to have lousy sex with an under-performing selfish jerk when and how HE wants.

    It would be more honest for complementarian Christians to tell women virgins:
    “You’ll have mediocre to really bad married sex at the whim of a complementarian husband whether you want to or not; it’s your role and duty.”

    Complementarians never, ever make marriage (or sex) sound appealing for women.

    Lea said,

    … their husbands are probably not doing much of anything to please them in bed. …

    Also, all that bad complementarian sex can lead to women taking matters into their own hands, like it does in non-complementarian marriages, such as:
    Woman Writer: “My Husband is Angry Because I Sometimes ‘Strum My Own Banjo'”
    (on Elle magazine’s site)

    Like

  84. @HUG, “Which trains women to be sweet smiling sex manipulators”

    So, then it reduces the comp. church to a message proclaimed from the pulpit – “the man leads the woman follows”, but in women’s Bible studies there is another message – “shhh! You’re now part of the secret women’s society – here we teach you how to manipulate your husbands so that they can look all manly and tough from the outside, but you get get them to do whatever you want.”

    Then, no surprise that the woman is always pinned with marital breakdown – if she followed the program, then no man could resist. However, abusive men know how to turn the tables, which is why women in abusive relationships get abused from all sides.

    @Anonymous2, I think there’s a lot of anachronistic thinking like that. Pastors want to find support for their views, so they cherrypick from documents and history. I found a fascinating book that completely destroyed my view of Presbyterianism. I went to a church in the Scottish presbyterian tradition. It turns out that the Scottish delegates tried to push “Ruling Eldership” on the Westminster Assembly, and the Assembly voted their view down. So, what they did was misrepresent the language of the Confession back in Scotland to make it sound like the Assembly agreed with them. So, all these Presbyterian churches in that tradition use Westminster to set the Pastor and Ruling Elders on the same level, where Westminster only recognizes the Pastor as the office of presbyter/bishop/pastor/teacher. In fact my last pastor used this to justify why “Elders” had to be old, but “Pastors” could be young.

    Another example of where everything seemed clear and buttoned-up from scripture, and in agreement with tradition, yet, in fact, completely the opposite.

    I wouldn’t completely discount the article, although I would agree with you that the claim of what the Puritans believed was a stretch. But I have found other positions thought to be unbroken through history (like Eldership above) that were quite the opposite.

    Like

  85. Mark said

    So, then it reduces the comp. church to a message proclaimed from the pulpit – “the man leads the woman follows”, but in women’s Bible studies there is another message – “shhh! You’re now part of the secret women’s society – here we teach you how to manipulate your husbands so that they can look all manly and tough from the outside, but you get get them to do whatever you want.”

    Complementarianism pushes codependent behavior for women as being godly, one of the traits being that direct communication by women is forbidden.

    Comps such as John Piper really promote that view, because he feels a woman speaking directly and bluntly to a man will make the man feel like a girly-wuss.

    I’m not a supporter of all things Rachel Held Evans, but on complementarianism, she does a stand up job.

    She discusses this complementarian notion to have women speak or act in a manipulative fashion in this blog post:
    _The Absurd Legalism of Gender Roles, Exhibit D_

    Here’s the problem, as I see it: When women are instructed to “influence” men without leading them, to “guide” them without offending their fragile masculinity by using scary words like “let’s,” we end up with women who must resort to non-direct communication in order to try and achieve their ends. The result is a relationship characterized by repression and manipulation.

    Like

  86. Daisy, I think somehow both realities are taught, just like the man leads/woman leads dichotomy.

    What is publicly taught is: Married sex is awesome and mind-blowing.
    What is privately taught to women: Married sex is painful and tiring and if you love God and your husband you’ll suffer through it.

    I don’t see why the church can’t teach the truth – that sex, like all things, was created to be amazing, but as a result of the fall, it’s a mixed bag. There will be good sex, bad sex, painful sex, even among couples that truly love each other, and that not all sexual encounters are loving and non-abusive.

    I don’t see why the church can’t teach that marriage was created to be amazing, but as a result of the fall, it’s a mixed bag. That there will be good times and bad times and hard times, even among couples that truly love each other. And that not all marriages are loving and non-abusive.

    I don’t see why the church can’t teach that human relationships were created to be amazing, but as a result of the fall, there are abusive and codependent relationships, and that we ought to be able to recognize and protect ourselves from those relationships.

    I don’t see why the church can’t teach that positions of authority were created to help us to focus on our gifts and allow others who are gifted to coordinate to help everyone form cohesive and supportive communities. However, as a result of the fall, people will hypocritically pretend to be supportive coordinators, when in fact, they really want to be respected, tell others what to do, and then reap the benefits of that work.

    There just seems to be so much invested in pretending that “Christian” = everything is just wonderful.

    Liked by 1 person

  87. Reminds me of an incident about 2-3 weeks into my marriage. I can’t remember what the disagreement was, but my wife burst into tears. Nothing changed – my demeanor was pretty much, okay, if you need to cry about it, go ahead. I think she was surprised and disappointed because all the women in her life could get what they wanted just by crying and she just then realized it wouldn’t work on me.

    Like

  88. Good conversation going on here! By the way, my comment to Ken over at Lori’s blog still hasn’t​ made the light of day. On another note, there’s a pattern I’ve seen with Ken that is quite revealing. In the comments section of Lori’s blog I have seen him bring up Lori’s bad behavior from the past several times when responding to others. Doesn’t that fall under the category of: He who repeats a matter alienates a friend? She has to be reading those comments and thus, is being reminded of her past behavior over & over again. I wonder if this is a technique for a way to keep Lori in line. I just think it’s unkind, offensive & disrespectful behavior on the part of Ken. I could never bring myself (& I know this is true. of my husband as well) to talk about wrong behavior of his repeatedly from 15 years ago on a public blog of his. There is something seriously wrong with this kind of behavior.

    Like

  89. I feel like I should note that men can also be sneaky and manipulative. Like pretty much everything, traits good and bad can belong to men or women. Certainly you can encourage good or bad traits, though. Comp encourages men to be selfish and think less of their wives abilities and it teaches women to turn off their brains or alternately be manipulative.

    We should encourage everyone to be kind, and honest, and straightforward and to think of others before acting.

    Liked by 1 person

  90. Darlene – In regard to Ken’s temper tantrum post, they are heavily monitoring FB and the blog for comments. I may have been a part of that. On Friday Julie Anne and I gave some push back on the FB page re: that post. JA was too snarky for the last time and got banned. I pushed more.

    Ken replied to me and we had a “conversation” going till about 11 p.m. which left him asking me if I was a believer. I considered that a great deflection technique and went to bed not answering. When I woke up in the morning all of our discussion was gone. POOF! I gave one final push back stating how disappointed I was in the control of the narrative, which was immediately deleted. By Sunday morning I was blocked.

    Their behavior over the weekend highly escalated. People on our FB page reported that their comments were blocked and deleted. They have moved into high “control the narrative mode” by deleting and blocking people. Lori and her readers have called people who disagreed with them mentally ill, sinful, rebellious, and have called for repentance. Meanwhile Lori has lamented that people are calling her names. She is doing a great job at playing the martyr in all of this. I’m guessing she will see a spike in book sales, which I’m sure she will humbly state again that she never intended to make money off of the book. (If that’s the case then why not make it available for free?)

    I’m guessing there will be a blog post written by her regarding these unrighteous attacks. I’ll keep monitoring. In the meantime, I’m also planning on writing an Amazon review. At least I know that won’t be removed.

    Liked by 2 people

  91. Maybe this is the part about sex?

    Gentlemen, it’s not whether you will be tempted to sin on vacation, it’s how and when you will be tempted to sin.

    Like

  92. No surprise. Vacationing is an excuse for CJ to preach to his family for a week and then micromanage them to make sure they have smiles on their faces for the whole week in obedience to Christ. It’s like a mini-SGM church. And by some weird projection, that is what all fathers should desire to do on their vacations?

    Like

  93. “Lori and her readers have called people who disagreed with them mentally ill, sinful, rebellious, and have called for repentance.”

    Don’t forget reprobates! That was a good one.

    About her book there were a few comments that made it sound people were just rushing out to buy her book out of sympathy.

    She did a blog post today recapping everything from facebook.

    Liked by 2 people

  94. Avid Reader, I will say this as politely as possible: You are not a historian. Regine Pernoud is. Patristic scholars / church historians like Schaff, Kelly, etc., are. Rodney Stark is a historian. You have no basis for some of the facts you are stating. Please be aware of the Internet in your research. Many so-called quotes from the church fathers don’t actually exist in the corpus of their writings, or are grossly taken out of context, duct taped together from different parts of their writings to make them seem misogynist, etc. That doesn’t mean they are perfect 24/7, but much of what exists on the Internet is sheer libel. (Hint: If a quote is missing a citation from actual source material, it’s probably fabricated. On the chance it does exist, it is probably taken out of context.)

    Since you are an “avid reader”, like myself, I thought you would appreciate some positive developments for women from history–especially church history–which are useful when discussing women’s rights issues and the way the church treats women. I have even recommended a book by Regine Pernoud for you to read, if you are so inclined. (And believe me, that book was an eye-opener!)

    But please, don’t make blanket statements about church fathers, the Talmud, etc., if you can’t go to the source material and prove it. That means citing the exact work you were reading from, in such a way that I can hit the library or Amazon and read the quote in context for myself. Anything less, and I suspect unintended libel, however good your intentions might be.

    FYI, my bringing up the Mongols wasn’t to absolve them of war crimes against women, but to point out what should hopefully be an obvious discrepancy: The Chinese considered the Mongolians “barbarians”, even as they practiced foot binding on their women, while the Mongolians treated their own women very well on the whole. Who are the real barbarians, exactly? And how much of the Mongolian stereotype comes from reading history through Chinese eyes? But I digress.

    Like

  95. That plays on the Christian martyr complex. She can’t leave the comments up because people might actually agree with the comments, or realize that they are not mean and nasty. However, if she “summarizes” the comments to say that they are mean-spirited, vicious, personal attacks just because she is humbly proclaiming the true word of God, then she can get sympathy and affirmation from her doting supporters.

    I like to say that suffering for being a Christian jerk is just suffering for being a jerk, not suffering for Christ.

    Like

  96. thingsgodlywomensay: I’ll have to check out the post after work. Yes, this reprobate mom works full-time to help support the family. I am a sinful feminist and have bought into all the lies! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  97. Clockwork Angel, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Avid Reader hasn’t read history extensively.

    History is utterly full of confirmation bias. I like Stark because if you research who he is, he’s doesn’t have an axe to grind about trying to prove a Christian worldview, but his detractors have painted him exactly as that.

    A great example of this is a simple question, did FDR’s economic policies bring an end to the Great Depression, or did they prolong them? You can find Ph.D. economists and historians with writings all over the board on this. The Keynesians, and by proxy, the modern news media, claim that deficit spending pulled the economy up by it’s bootstraps. The Austrians claim that the U.S. economy was improving when FDR took office, and his policies actually reversed the upward trend. There are rooms full of indisputable records of all sorts.

    If something this well documented and recent is disputed, then why should we be surprised when historians look at a period of time 500+ years ago that have writings and records collected only by a few people, typically the elite in society, and come to divergent conclusions?

    Like

  98. And how much of the Mongolian stereotype comes from reading history through Chinese eyes?

    I don’t read it through Chinese eyes, I read it through ‘these people raped and murdered and enslaved huge numbers of people, I’m not willing to give them on pass on it’ eyes.

    This is not a mongol vs. Chinese question, its a basic humanity question.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. Despite growing up on the outer fringes of conservative-evangelical-homeschooler culture, I directly encountered this teaching exactly ONCE, at a bridal shower I attended in my late teens. No one present – a good twenty-ish women, almost all of the others already married but a variety of ages and personalities – voiced opposition to the idea that a wife is not allowed to say no when her husband wants sex. That was the day I decided in my heart of hearts that I was never going to so much as consider a relationship with someone who remained a part of that world. Screw expectations, I just… no.

    (Disclosure, as of writing this I’m a single twentysomething vaguely agnostic woman with mental health issues. So I’ve got a few things keeping super-religious males away from me beyond the fact that I wouldn’t date or marry one if such a creature were to – for some inexplicable reason – go after me.)

    (Also HI, I’m a longtime reader and first-time commenter. The community here intimidates me a bit but I have enough feelings about this that I figured I might as well chime in.)

    Liked by 3 people

  100. Mark said,

    What is publicly taught is: Married sex is awesome and mind-blowing.
    What is privately taught to women: Married sex is painful and tiring and if you love God and your husband you’ll suffer through it.

    I think the internet is really helping to bring some of this down and to light – at least the bogus teachings I was raised with (pre-internet days of 1980s on up to the mid or late 1990s)

    I used to post to a Christian board about ten years ago that had many forums (that forum was eventually closed; I don’t think it’s up any more).

    I would hang out in the forum for singles but also lurk in the “married couples” forum, where I’d see all sorts of eyebrow- raising confessions and arguments by married people.

    I came back to the singles forum at that board after having lurked in the married couples area to say how ironic I find it that so many churches shame anyone for being single past 30, but if you go lurk at the Married Couples forum, I told them at the time, you’ll see married people yelling and screaming at each other about How Awful Marriage Is.

    You said,

    I don’t see why the church can’t teach the truth – that sex, like all things, was created to be amazing, but as a result of the fall, it’s a mixed bag.

    Because of the internet, the word is starting to get out, such as…

    Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex

    Like

  101. Clockwork Angel,

    This is a place where people come for healing. To share some of their deepest thoughts. To be real about where they are. No one here is trying to be a historian. We were all sharing from what we had read. You shared a book that had fascinated you. That’s a good thing. There’s plenty of room here for differences of opinion but let’s not start tearing each other apart.

    Now you are correct that many people depend on the internet for their reading. I’m not most people. I read a crazy amount of real books, especially books that are hundreds of years old. I love to read history through the eyes of people that were actually there, not the twisted opinions of people just trying to sell books.

    I’m a skeptic that refuses to believe something just because someone said so. When studying something, I dig really deep, going as far back as I can to comb through as much data as possible to find the truth. Now I could defend myself by posting original sources and historical data on what the church fathers thought about women, but it gets pretty depressing. Besides, how would that help anyone? There’s some other great conversations going on here. I’d rather listen to you all and go read another book than bother spending anymore time defending myself.

    Like

  102. Hello, Octavia!

    I didn’t see your post until now (it must have been in moderation maybe because you’re a new visitor??), or else I would have said hello to you sooner. Or maybe your post was there, and I just didn’t see it for some reason.

    Welcome! 🙂

    Like

  103. Welcome, Octavia! I’m glad you’re here.

    Please don’t feel too overwhelmed and intimidated…we’re just people. Yes, we all have opinions and we welcome yours too. We come from all different walks and are in different stages, yet we have a lot in common. Thanks for reading and feel free to join in whenever you’re comfortable.

    Like

  104. Mark- if we taught kids the truth that waiting for sex doesn’t guarantee good sex lives, the kids may not wait. I have mixed feelings about this because waiting is simply God’s standard with no promises, but if i had had my wedding night before I said, I do, there absolutely would not have been a wedding.

    Like

  105. Welcome, Octavia!

    if i had had my wedding night before I said, I do, there absolutely would not have been a wedding

    Irene, I can’t tell from your comment if this is a good or bad thing, but I think some of the people who got married without even kissing must have chemistry or other problems that they would have known about much earlier if they had just made out a little. You can find out things about a man from the way they interact physically that you might not get otherwise.

    Like

  106. BTW, sorry for posting too much but I just read the ‘temper tantrum’ article and Ken seems to think women should just check emotions at the door? Is that a thing he thinks is possible?

    And if I were Lori, I would be pretty irritated at being constantly referred to as a ‘difficult’ wife.

    Like

  107. Irene, “if we taught kids the truth that waiting for sex doesn’t guarantee good sex lives, the kids may not wait.”

    There’s a lot more to it than that. I think there are things we do simply out of obedience and trust that God’s will for us is because God loves us and wants what’s best. That is not to say that waiting for sex until marriage will make it awesome sex, but that it will be better than not having waited.

    There’s much more to marriage than sex, and if it weren’t for my wife and children, I would still be a legalist in an abusive church.

    My wife may very well have been in your camp.

    Like

  108. Octavia, “That was the day I decided in my heart of hearts that I was never going to so much as consider a relationship with someone who remained a part of that world.”

    Yes. I know many people who grew up in the conservative homeschooling culture, including my wife. Not only do I completely agree with that sentiment, I think it’s compounded by the fact that most churches in that world will sacrifice the couple over the appearance of righteousness.

    It would be one thing marrying someone from that world and knowing that the church will provide real help and counsel if things aren’t working and even, perhaps pushing you apart if the relationship is toxic. It’s completely other when the church pushes two otherwise healthy people into a codependent relationship, and then when the relationship becomes toxic, the church tries to fix it be making it even more toxic.

    And… welcome to the discussion!!!

    Lea said it well: “It’s not just thinking you are right, because everyone thinks they are right. It is how you deal with people who simply disagree.”

    This is definitely an area I can grow in and I hope my responses haven’t kept you on the sidelines 🙂

    Like

  109. Lea, “BTW, sorry for posting too much but I just read the ‘temper tantrum’ article and Ken seems to think women should just check emotions at the door? Is that a thing he thinks is possible?”

    This seems to be a core tenet in Neo-Calvinism, that we can and should control our emotions to the point that they are completely separate from our experience – even our emotions before God.

    To make it relevant to the current discussion. Neo-Calvinists would say the wife should always say “yes” to sex no matter how violent and degrading that sex is. That’s because all the negative emotions a wife might have from that experience – the despair, joylessness, anger – are not valid Christian emotions. Instead, the woman must repent of her lack of faith and pray that God would give her hope, joy and affection. If a wife cannot experience those positive emotions, it demonstrates a lack of faith, such that, if a wife wants a divorce, or complains to the church about that mistreatment, the “REAL” problem the church needs to be involved in is dealing with the wife’s lack of faith and obviously sinful responses to her husband.

    I would like to say that I’m exaggerating, and perhaps I am a little, but if you read the Neo-Calvinists they just love to turn the tables on the victim exactly like this.

    Like

  110. I would like to say that I’m exaggerating, and perhaps I am a little, but if you read the Neo-Calvinists they just love to turn the tables on the victim exactly like this.

    Considering what we know of their treatment of women, such as Karen Hinckley and Marie O’Toole (formerly Notcheva) — we have proof that you’re not exaggerating at all, Mark.

    Like

  111. And I bet anyone that this false and dangerous teacher Lori has every book, has watched every “movie” and has every bit of paraphernalia of the “50 Shades of Pervert” rubbish out there. She is seriously deranged, IMO.

    Like

  112. Avid Reader, I do apologize if I’ve gotten in the way of any of you healing. That was not my intent. I had intended, in fact, to help you all heal by giving reading recommendations that would help paint the world in a brighter brush, which for me has certainly healing. In fact, that one book I recommended earlier helped me do exactly that–heal. Likewise, checking into commonly mishandled church father quotes also helped me heal and realize their not nearly as monstrous as their made out to be. I was at a point in my faith where I couldn’t believe in Jesus anymore, because I thought the church hated women and didn’t care about them. I was wrong, and I am glad I was wrong. Because I nearly walked away from God. After all, if the church is that messed up and misogynist, then what’s the point of all this Bible stuff? Christianity would obviously be a useless faith that does not truly change its followers.

    I hope this helps you understand my motives. God bless. I promise not to push anything on anyone here anymore. I honestly didn’t mean to. I just didn’t want anyone to believe harmful lies that aren’t true, like I did. Lies nearly destroyed my faith, and I want you all to have a very vibrant faith, because I love you all.

    Liked by 1 person

  113. Clockwork Angel,

    We appreciate the insightful thoughts you have shared and hope you will continue sharing your heart. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

    Like

  114. Irene, “if we taught kids the truth that waiting for sex doesn’t guarantee good sex lives, the kids may not wait.”

    It’s absolutely true that waiting does not ensure good marital sex–but statistically speaking, it sure helps by reducing the likelihood of STDs, reducing the likelihood of relational issues, eliminating the possibility of stepchildren, and the like.

    Regarding bad sex and the link to Relevant’s article provided, it strikes me, per “Jess’s” commentary on being in a chemistry-less marriage, that even arranged marriages in India generally allow the couple to meet before their wedding day so they can figure out if there is basic attraction. We can debate over what level of affection is appropriate–my wife and I enjoyed osculation prior to wedlock–but if we pretend that spirituality compensates for basically “flatlining” at seeing the other person, we are being gnostic fools.

    Like

  115. I think until Lori herself is emotionally or sexually abused, which I hope she never is, she should keep her mouth shut. Until Ken screams at her and calls her a bitch and tells her nothing she does is good enough over and over and over…..keep quiet. Does she understood that sex with an emotionally abusive man just makes you feel USED?? I hope she has no clue I do not wish pain upon her. But she is healing pain upon ME and doing it with a Bible verse to boot.

    Liked by 2 people

  116. Mark — yep!! The church I grew up in, most people had zero trouble sacrificing… well, pretty much ANYTHING in order to appear perfect on the outside. (Which is why a good number of families have at least one child who’s all but severed contact completely once getting out on their own. I probably would’ve been one of them if not for health issues.)

    For me personally, it’s more of a mental-health thing. I can only put up with so much manipulation and general BS, and I like to save what little patience I have for people I’m paid to play nice with. Walking back into the fire… would not end well for me or anyone else around me, but mostly for me. And as much as I realize that there ARE some good men who for whatever reason remain in the tradition they’ve grown up in or perhaps misguidedly stumbled into the crazy without realizing what they signed up for… I’m not a fixer. I’m not gonna try to bring someone out of that. Thought about it once, and may still end up trying if a particular situation in my life plays out, but it’s not something I have the heart for. I’m not my mother. I’m not going to pounce on the first half-decent specimen that looks twice at me. I believe in LOVE, in all forms but especially relevant in this case between two human beings who commit // attempt to spend the rest of their lives together.

    The one good thing I’ve learned from watching my parents’ marriage // playing relationship counselor for them since I was a preteen – if you don’t genuinely LIKE someone, DON’T FREAKING MARRY THAT PERSON. The only reason my parents are still together is because they’re two of the most stubborn people I’ve ever met and because my mom needs my dad’s health insurance or else she will probably die. Not because of, y’know, actually wanting to put up with each other.

    Abigail – YUP!! Been there done that. One of the worst feelings I’ve ever had.

    Like

  117. Seems like a woman can’t win in legalistic churches. If you’re a virgin they shame you. I expect Hollywood to ridicule middle aged celibates, but the church? Oh, if you land a man like every Christian woman does (if you don’t it’s because God hates you) you’re his sex slave, plus you keep his house immaculate and manage your own private daycare with the full quiver he has forced you to produce.

    Most churches ignore me (or worse) because I’m disabled, single, and poor. But at least I’m not a Stepford wife who imagines disagreeing with her vapid ideas is hating God. For all we know women like her may be victims of emotional if not physical abuse. Misery loves company.

    Liked by 1 person

  118. Thank-you for the conversation here. I have learned volumes and appreciate the fact that Kathi is making a concerted and educational effort to warn the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ, from using Lori or Ken Alexander’s teachings as a model for relationships and marriage. You are still strong and courageous Kathi! Smile!

    The fruits of their marriage and lives should never be used as a replacement for the teachings, Words, and Ways of Jesus Christ, for He treated women far different than the patriarchal model taught by ministers of another spirit. And when I ran, bolted out the doors of a church (and Praise our LORD, never to return) who taught patriarchy, ESS, and carefully hid the sexual crimes and practices of leadership’s homes as well as the pastor’s sordid practices from the lower laity, I began to read and understand the Holy Scriptures for myself.

    It was then, that God, the Holy Spirit, pointed me to Jesus and His teachings. And it was then, that I began to know deep within my soul, how much Jesus loved women; how much Jesus loved me, His child; how much mercy, grace and freedom he gave me, a sinner, because He died and rose again so that I may live with Him forever when I am called to His Heavenly Home;

    and at the end of the day, how humbling it is to know how much Jesus values me, men and women alike, for He created them in the first place. Our faith is not about lording it over others, it’s about serving Jesus and pointing people to Him.

    The Gospel of Jesus Christ has been distorted, perverted, and destroyed because of the patriarchy, the matriarchy, and any kind of human hierarchy traditions of man, because man desires all of the power, man desires all of the worship, and man desires to be god, in place of Jesus Christ, Who is in fact, our One and only true Mediator between our Father, and us, His children.

    May the chains and burdens that man places on us, be broken, so that we can all be at that well, where Jesus met that Samaritan women on that day, treating her with respect, dignity, and love, despite the fact that she was a ‘horrible sinner.’

    Thankfully, Jesus still says that He is the One who has all of the authority, per Matthew 28!

    I appreciate all of you here that minister to my soul. And I haven’t heard the word “Sorry” coming out of a believer’s mouth/soul in ages. THANK-YOU Avid Reader for that exchange for it fills my soul with hope, His Hope!

    Liked by 1 person

  119. I am sorry Rachel for the way in which c’hurch folks treat you. I can guarantee that your voice ministers to folks here; like me. May God be with you and show you how much He loves you today and everyday. Please keep speaking.

    Liked by 1 person

  120. Katy, great that your journey has gone so well since leaving. I still struggle emotionally with the god I grew up with even though intellectually I’m in a similar place to you. I’ve only been “out” for about three years, though.

    Like

  121. Pingback: Book Review Series – “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Shhhh…Be Very, Very Quiet | Spiritual Sounding Board

  122. Pingback: Book Review Series – Lori Alexander’s “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Shhhh…Be Very, Very Quiet, Part 2 | Spiritual Sounding Board

  123. Pingback: Book Review Series – Lori Alexander’s “The Power of a Transformed Wife” – Parents Rule, Children Drool | Spiritual Sounding Board

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s