5 Reasons Never To Date Women In The Clergy

She was a platinum blond.

I was the dance instructor.

Naturally, I took advantage.

However, after what amounted to no more than a month-long courtship I realized it was not going to work out and kindly let her go.

Then things got crazy.

She showed up at my doorstep at 3AM one night with lingerie underneath her jacket.
She constantly called me and e-mailed me.
Through friends I found out she was drawing pictures of me.
And other even weirder things (that shan’t be mentioned here) that drove me to consider a restraining order.

There was certainly a lot more to this unique lady I dated, but one of the things that stood out about her was that she was an ordained priestess for some kind of Gaia-Earthy-Pagan faux religious thingy or another. I would go on dates with three additional “Ladies of the Cloth” (one an actual “witch”) and in all instances all of them were batshit insane.

Ergo, all men need to be warned about what they’re getting into when they decide to date a woman of the clergy.

1.  No Sex (usually)

Understand, unless the woman is of the hippie-dippy Paganesque type religions, you are not getting any from a woman of the cloth. Of course there’s always the chance you might, but if they’ve gone to the lengths to get a Masters in Divinity at a seminary and commit themselves to God, that is some serious religious hamster you are going to wrestle with.

2.  By Default You Are Ranked Second

God or Gaia or Jesus or Vishnu or whoever the hell she’s committed herself to is the most important thing in her life. Not you. It’s just like dating a born-again, except they actually have read the Bible and know their religion and don’t need to rationalize away their visceral desires for you. When they say “Jesus is my life” they aren’t joking.

3.  Hypocrisy

Though well-intentioned, understand the hypocrisy of nearly all women who are in the clergy. NOT ONE real religion, in it’s original form, allowed for women to be pastors, priests, rabbis, or imams. This means if a girl REALLY believed in that religion then she would accept and respect the religion’s rule that women are not allowed to be clergy. It’s like churches allowing gay marriage. Not that I’m against gay marriage or don’t want women to have the right to become clergy, but if a church allow for such things then it is admitting it was wrong in the past, bringing up the question “Well what else were you wrong about?”  It calls into question the validity of the entire religion.

Ergo, if the woman is a pastor or a rabbi, etc., not only is that religion likely of the “churchianity” variety, but she herself did not respect the religion and is using it primarily for her own personal aims. Which in turn leads us to…

4.  Ego and Selfishness

Again, there most certainly are kind, genuinely well-intentioned women of the cloth. But not all of them. Most of them looked at religion like most of their 17-year-old male counterparts contemplating a career in religion—an easy degree, a way to get out of ‘Nam, or (worse) an immediate path to power. Imagine the ego maniac that declares a political science major thinking at the age of 17 they have the wisdom or right to rule over other people. Or the education major who loves the idea of pontificating over a captive audience of 13-year-olds. Clergy is no different. You are the shepherd, they are your sheep. It’s just too tempting to get power before the age of 26 (if you burn through seminary fast enough). Alas, this is why most people (male or female) in religion are there first and foremost for themselves, merely using God as a convenient and “noble” excuse to pursue power. This technically ranks you 3rd place behind her and “God.”

5.  They’re Insane

And finally, they’re batshit insane.

Again, yes, I’m sure this one time at band camp you knew this one female pastor one time who wasn’t insane. All I ask is that you go date a sample size larger than I have and we can do a statistical study. In the mean time, I know that every single one of these girls I dated had major mental issues.

Problems with intimacy, problems with control, anger issues, mind games, abusive pasts, destructive pasts, and a weird “eeriness” about them that I just couldn’t put my finger on.

This is no guarantee you will find a boiled bunny in your pot when you come home, but I will merely state there are four datapoints strongly suggesting a trend and that you could perhaps expect the same.

The truth is, though, you should just avoid dating women of the cloth in general. The lack of sex alone is reason enough, but when combined with all the other baggage and complications that comes with it, you’re wasting the one life God has given you on this planet.

Read Next: Never Date A Girl Who Has Rescued A Dog

74 thoughts on “5 Reasons Never To Date Women In The Clergy”

  1. The one that is the most logical reason is the Hypocrisy that you mention. The rest can belong to any other women (substitute “I live for Jesus first!” with “I live for my job first!”, etc). Any woman who is a clergy in an Abrahamic church is participating in the deliberate destruction of that institution, and she full well knows it and thus is guilty of far more even than hypocrisy, she is in fact engaging in nihilistic deconstruction in order to feed her ego. That is nothing but a huge gaping hole of evil on display, and a sure sign that you want no part of that shit, no matter what you may think about her actual religion in question.

    1. Yup. Women want what they can’t have, and struggle to be what they can’t be — faithful, truthful men of character. Their egos are what propel them to the extremes of feminism in an attempt to steal real power from men that earned it and deserve it. Because of this their words, thoughts and deeds are by necessity hypocritical. The funny thing is they’re the first to accuse men of hypocrisy, because of the duplicity of their own thoughts and actions.
      I’ve been on the mission field in what I considered to be a truly faithful church two decades ago, only to see the power of the faith wrestled away by the feminist in the church — both men and women — who tried to make the teachings of Christ and his church conform to the contemporary western ideologies and culture. They created a perverted religion that seeks to maintain peace withing this decrepit world rather than stand for the very things it claimed made the church and its members different. Ego and pride killed the faith. And, I have to say it wasn’t just limited to the women, but spread quickly to the minions of white knight beta males who stood behind their batshit crazy women.

  2. A long time ago I went on a single date with this woman who was training to be a hospital chaplain. It was someone I met on Yahoo personals back in the infancy of online dating. I should have known something was up when I talked to her on the phone and noticed a bizarre lisp. When we met for the date she was driving a Honda Civic with longhorns on the front a la boss Hogg from The Dukes of Hazzard. She called her lisp an “accent” although it was unlike any accent I’ve ever heard. That was the most awkward date ever. Anyway, my dad is a minister and I’m a religious person but over the years I’ve seen nothing but weirdness from female “clergy” that I’ve encountered. Many if them are used up whores who had a come to Jesus moment, felt bad about their past, and then decided to start preaching to others all while not being able to get their own lives in order.

  3. Secondary observation, from someone who has also dated new age goddess types – when they do have sex, they often have trouble accepting their animal self. The desire to spiritualize sex often comes from the fact these girls don’t accept their regular human drives, so they have to cover their normal sexual desire with tantra bullshit.
    If you just gorilla fuck them in bed they will 1) love it and 2) feel bad for loving it. Then have a talk with out about “respecting feminine energy” where you will have to practice an advanced game technique called “nodding” and then proceed to gorilla fuck them again.
    Good article, capt’in. Always enjoy your posts.

    1. where you will have to practice an advanced game technique called “nodding”
      Aw fuck man, that busted me out laughing hard!

    2. “Then have a talk with out about “respecting feminine energy” where you will have to practice an advanced game technique called “nodding” and then proceed to gorilla fuck them again.”
      That’s gold right there.

    3. Had a christian g/f back in the day when I was a christian, too. We were getting busy in the car. She stopped, said: “we shouldn’t be doing this”. I paused, and said “No, we shouldn’t”. Then we went right back to doing it. Classic “agree and amplify”, way back before the internet and “game” was a thing.

  4. In modern America, we date female chaplains.
    In Catholicism, we have no female clergy!

      1. Do your research, retard.
        In Catholicism, only priests are technically clergy. Both nuns and “brothers” have taken religious vows and dedicated themselves, but they aren’t clergy any more than a buddhist monk is “clergy”.

        1. Technically, by tradition, anyone who has taken ecclesiastical tonsure is a cleric. This includes monks and even nuns (and deaconesses).
          That said, the major orders, and all minor orders except that of deaconess (which only existed in some local churches, and which was not at all the same thing as a deacon), are reserved to men by divine law. Because this is what most people mean, nowadays, by “clergy,” it would be right to say that monks and nuns are not (necessarily) clergy in this sense. A monk could be a bishop, priest or deacon, of course.
          Because there has been a major emphasis on shedding the trappings of tradition and honor in modern Catholicism, there has been a strong tendency to emphasize the lay-origins of the monastic movement (and thus to say that monks and nuns aren’t “clergy,” properly so called), and the minor orders have all disappeared, along with the lowest rank of major orders (subdeacon). I have no doubt that Catholicism will recover a full understanding of these traditions as we get a bit more daylight between us and Vatican II (which didn’t call for any of this; but the hippies sure did take advantage of the “spirit” of that council to justify all kinds of degradations of Catholic custom).

    1. Unfortunately the catholic clergy even all male is afflicted with the problem of effeminacy and the feminine imperative.

  5. The more religious a chick declares she is, the more I know she’s got lots of dirty sexual secrets in her closet…lol

  6. 1. No Sex (usually)
    The reason I laugh at the neckbears going on about how great female chastity is.

    1. They extol the virtues of female chastity for selfish reasons, not any that benefit society or even women.
      Chastity is their way of further pedestalizing women that at the same time removes other men as sexual competition. Neckbears have no chance with universally desirable women anyway, but this is their hamsterizing way of ensuring others don’t get to play with toys denied to them.
      Of course, this never works out, as chastity is a temporary condition.

      1. We extol female chastity for the same reason that we extol male self-discipline. Anybody who can’t control their appetites and use them in the right way and for the right reason, is an unphilosophical soul who will make themselves and those around them, miserable.

      2. Besides, if you had bothered to read the writings of the sages and fathers who wrote on women (including their sexuality), you would realize that they were the most hard-core “red-pillers” you’ve ever seen. They had an abysmally low opinion of women, and their advocations to chastity had nothing to do with “pedestalizing” …unless you mean putting them on a pedestal of excrement and abuse.

    2. Female chastity used to be a guarantee that the offspring sired by her when you marry is yours. But it has become a weapon like all things.

  7. “1 Timothy 2:12
    But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

    It’s right there. One reason that women shouldn’t be in the clergy of the very religion that told them not to do it.

  8. “There was certainly a lot more to this unique lady I dated, but one of the things that stood out about her was that she was an ordained priestess for some kind of Gaia-Earthy-Pagan faux religious thingy or another. I would go on dates with three additional “Ladies of the Cloth” (one an actual “witch”) and in all instances all of them were batshit insane.”
    Does the red flag have to be flapping in your face before you see it or were you “exploring” 😀

    1. Any woman who calls herself a “witch” or “priestess” has a few screws loose. Complete nonsense…

      1. As I tell my sons; all women have a few screws loose. Some women have 90% or more of their screws loose. The best you can do is try to avoid those ones, and the preistesses of Gaia and the witches (I know several) are the worst ones most to be avoided.

    2. yeah, “ordained priestess” is an automatic deal breaker, no doubt. That being said, I won’t fault him for busting a nut on her face before he caught the next train out of town.

  9. You might check the history of Buddhism. There have been Buddhist nuns for about 2500 years. Lots of limits on them as well, it makes for interesting study.
    And yeah, I’m a part time seminary student.

    1. I’ve lived in both Mahyana and Hinayana countries. I trust Western “Buddhists” about as far as I can throw the bathtub.

  10. …Imagine the ego maniac that declares a political science major thinking at the age of 17 they have the wisdom or right to rule over other people. Or the education major who loves the idea of pontificating over a captive audience of 13-year-olds. Clergy is no different. You are the shepherd, they are your sheep.

    Yep. Anyone who seeks moral authority is usually a disturbed individual, man or woman.

    1. Bullshit. Decent clergy are not seeking “moral authority over others.” They are seeking to give people the knowledge and equipment to lead truly good lives.
      I’m in seminary right now, and I have little desire for “moral authority over others.” I do want morality itself to have authority over others, and I want to help people understand the hows and whys of it all, because it is my honest conviction that loving God aright is its own reward, and that many other things in our lives are put right by the effort.
      Besides, in the end, anybody who has an idea about morality, and thinks that idea should prevail – even if his idea is “people shouldn’t try to have their moral vision prevail” – is seeking to exert a moral authority over others. In the end, moral authority is not at all bad, but is necessary and unavoidable. The question, is getting it right.

  11. Show me a Christian church that allows women to be clergy, and I’ll show you a church that will eventually deny the resurrection of Christ.

    1. Have you studied Assembly of God doctrine? We do affirm ordination of women, women missionaries, and husband/wife missionary couples and are one of the more conservative denominations when it comes to alcohol, sexuality, and firm belief in the Bible as the word of God, up to and including, the resurrection of Christ.

  12. two words…. Tantric Sex…..
    get her into that and you’ll have more pussy than you can handle.
    otherwise spot on article… especially point 5… religion = mentally unstable….. spirituality = balance.

    1. No, religion is what happens when a grown man practices “spirituality.” “Spirituality” is vague bs, which is why so many women are “spiritual, but not religious.” Anybody who takes “spirituality” seriously, though, realizes that it raises questions. The process of answering those questions carefully, thoughtfully and justly, is called “religion.”
      Example: Okay, so, killing people seems to be bad in general. But is it always bad? That guy over there is about to rape and kill a 9-year-old girl? Is it bad to kill him? Do some people need to be killed? Do people have a right NOT to be killed, even if it seems convenient that they should be killed? When do they forfeit their right to life? When is it merely justifiable to kill them? Is it ever morally praiseworthy to kill them? Morally obligatory?
      Now, some Starbucks-sipping woman or faggot who is “spiritual, but not religious,” will bring all that “balance” you’re talking about, to just whine about how they feel that killing’s bad, mkay, and can’t we all just get along? And then when Moslems sell hundreds of girls into slavery, they’ll wring their hands and say “why isn’t anybody doing anything about this?” But the religious man, if he can, will take his sword or rifle to his Catholic priest, have it blessed on the altar overnight, keep a vigil, hear Mass and invoke the Saints in the Litanies, and then go out and kill what needs killin’, while being careful to observe justice and not kill what doesn’t need killing. And when he comes home and hears the betas whining about all the deplorable violence, and how surely a nice picnic with Boko Haram would have been a more “spiritual” way to handle the problem, he’ll roll his eyes and go home and put another kid in his wife.
      “Spiritual but not religious.” What a faggot! “Spirituality” is for unserious people – women, betas, the type who want tingles without responsibility or the hard task of thinking clearly and living well. Religion is for thinking men, and the very few good women. (Sadly, most “religious” women are actually only “spiritual.”)

      1. Excellent comment – religion is a deliberate exercise, and you rightly call out spirituality as feel-good thoughtless bullshit. But it can go the other way too – spirituality masquerading as religion. See the lot of modern non-denominational Christian churches that are essentially selling Feels and devoid of any religious rigor. Hint: If your church is set up with a rock-band stage and has in its program what in any other context would be called a telethon or infomercial, congratulations, you’re buying your spirituality.
        Not saying that the business model is new, but it seems that the moral vacuum propagated by the dissolution of the family, popular media, and structural mobility has quickened the fall from Religion to the nearest closest substitute that looks like it, which is mass-produced, commercialized, all-tolerant, and Jesus-branded Spirituality.

        1. Boy, that’s the Truth. I was raised atheist, and when I converted to Christianity in my late teens, I attended a “non-denominational” Protestant Church. I initially joined because I was a ‘cellist, and this group had a full, symphonic orchestra. Sometimes I would get to play interesting music – Handel’s Water Music, Bach Oratorios, Holst’s Planets, etc. As time went on the music got dumber and dumber. The symphony was disbanded. The youth “worship” service I went to, was nothing but emotional manipulation: one “happy Jesus” song followed by a “sad Jesus” song, over and over until you felt like a battered househusband.
          I read a lot of history and found the Orthodox Church, where the standards for worship are generally high. Fast forward ten years, and I’m a monk who can read Greek and Latin… and the conclusion I reached from reading the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, is that the Catholic Church actually has the best claim to be the original Christian Church.
          So, I’m joining up – but, as you say, even in Catholicism, the crisis of Western civilization in the past century has taken its toll. And you’re quite right to say that the reason “religion” sucks in the modern West, is because it has degenerated into spirituality, and is no longer religion at all. By and large, all the parishes (even “traditional” ones) are churchian, sentimental, emotionally saccharine, feminized. Luckily I’ve hooked up with a good group of guys; we chant the Office and encourage each other in keeping up the traditional spirituality. There are some new signs of life with the young priests. But I just went to Sunday Mass, and listened to some beta priest coo about all the “love in our hearts” in that sing-songy voice that tells you he has all the genuine emotional depth of a woman. I read that the clergy attracts narcissists, and when I listen to this guy, I can believe it. Of course, I think I have a priestly vocation, so maybe I should look in the mirror!
          People say women are “more emotional.” I don’t think that’s true. I think women are superficial and less disciplined, and so their lives are more victimized by their fickle relationship with their emotions. But a real man has a deep emotional core that has produced the greatest works of art, music, literature, etc., in all of human history. I get sick of going to Mass and facing the expectation that I should be a light-minded faggot, clapping my hands and acting as though a self-centered rock song were an appropriate course of action in the presence of God Incarnate in the Blessed Sacrament. Whenever I complain about this, people say I’m ‘out of touch with my emotions.’ But I think the truth is exactly the other way around. I am deeply in touch with my emotions, and I don’t think the spiritual life should necessarily exclude emotion… but there is a difference between a profound, grounded emotion that is a worthy offering to God, and a superficial set of tingles that is only an offering to the ego. I get sick of the people running Mass, asking me to worship myself, rather than God.
          It hasn’t shaken my faith – I think a man soldiers through, when his principles are on the line – but it does make me all the more driven to tap into the riches of the Catholic religion whenever and wherever I can find them in their fulness and purity.

        2. “and the conclusion I reached from reading the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, is that the Catholic Church actually has the best claim to be the original Christian Church.”
          I was agreeing with you up until i read this.
          The catholic Church does not represent the true fundamental message of the bible. If you are as acquainted with it as i think you are, you already know about how the pope is practically apotheosized by most catholics and how the catechism is put on equal spiritual footing with biblical scripture.
          The Vatican for it’s part operates more like a cabal complete with its own cadre of leaders who operate more like shadow figures rather than the open and public representation of faith that Jesus brought.
          Catholicism fuses faith with business with the end result being a religion that they attempt to pass of as God’s inviolable Word. I’m sure you will disagree but i can cite scriptural references that call into question the entire pomp and pageantry involved in the catholic church.
          “People say women are “more emotional.” I don’t think that’s true. I think women are superficial and less disciplined, and so their lives are more victimized by their fickle relationship with their emotions.”
          No my friend, they are more emotional. There is scientific evidence to prove this. Take a look at this link which speaks of a scientific result that demonstrates just that.

        3. First, I would say that the article you posted confirmed my point: that women are more passive and affected by their emotions. The study looked at the way women rated “emotional imagery” with brain function, focusing on its role in memory. They found that, especially with negative emotions, “the researchers were also able to show that stronger appraisal of
          negative emotional image content by the female participants is linked to
          increased brain activity in motoric regions.” All of which is to say, the study found that women are easily upset, and experience stronger emotional impressions from (socially) emotional images, which helps them to remember them. To me, this is not indicative of a rich, emotional life, but of exactly what I described: “women are more victimized by their fickle relationship with their emotions.” We of the gender that has produced all great art, music and literature, are not out of touch with our emotions; we experience emotions in a truer, deeper, more focused way.
          Well, we’d have to start at the basic level of “Bible” vs. Church, Sola Scriptura, etc., for me to really get into this with you. I used to be a Protestant – a very Evangelical, committed, “Bible only” kinda guy. What I said about concluding that the Catholic Church had the best historical claim, came ten years after I saw the error of “Sola Scriptura,” and was the result of studying a lot of history, the earliest Christian writings, of learning Greek and Latin and studying the breakdown between Rome and Constantinople over the span of about seven centuries. I would suggest you read the information here, if you want to really dig into the “biblical” issue: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
          Long story short, you have to ask yourself a few things: 1) How do you know what belongs in the Bible? If you are like most Protestants, your Bible is missing several books, and would be missing the epistle of James, unless Luther’s friends had successfully convinced him to retain it (he was ready to reject it from the Bible). On what authority do you know which books belong in the Bible? You are using the canon of Scripture first decreed by Popes Ss. Damasus and Innocent, and received by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 414. Why? 2) What use to you is an Infallible Book, if you yourself are fallible? St. Peter admits that St. Paul’s writings are difficult, and are often misunderstood. The fact that there are thousands of competing Protestant traditions, indicates that they the “plains sense” of the Bible is not always plain. But if all individuals are fallible in interpreting the Bible, how does the Church remain in the Truth as per Christ’s promise? 3) How do you explain the fact that the Bible speaks more of the Church as being the Christian’s rule of faith, than “the Bible?” St. Paul commends not just his written words, but his spoken words and the traditions he gave as binding; our Lord gave His representatives the power to forgive sins and then said that “if a brother will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican;” St. Paul said that the Church is the “Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.” 4) How did Christians know what to do before the Bible had been completed? What were they doing for four hundred years without an official canon of Scripture? 5) Doesn’t it seem absurd to you to think that Christianity is a private, personal relationship with God based entirely on the Bible, when for 1500 years it was unthinkable that the average Christian would a) know how to read or b) be wealthy enough to have a hand-copied book written on hundreds of pages of vellum in his own library? The early Christians couldn’t pop down to the store for a New Living Translation Extreme Teen Study Bible with Vibrant Youth Devotions, you know! And even if they could, they probably would have been illiterate!
          If you bother to investigate the matter, you will find that Sola Scriptura is not only anti-biblical, it was not believed by any Christians in history until the Protestant apostasy. What seems more likely to you? That Martin Luther, who almost threw the epistle of James out of the Bible and added words to Scripture (the famous “allein” in his German Bible) on the grounds that he was a university professor and therefore “qualified” to alter Scripture as he saw fit, when inventing a new interpretation of the faith that no Christian had believed before him, somehow “restored” Christianity? And, conveniently, that this happened exactly as the printing press and widespread, middle-class literacy made this new idea possible in the first place? Or, that an unbroken tradition and uniformity of teaching going all the way back to the first Christian writers – Pope St. Clement, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatios of Antioch, who all knew the Apostles and were ordained by them personally – is actually the original Christian Faith and Church, which Christ promised would never be overcome? When I read the writings of the earliest Christians (outside the Bible) I was flabbergasted and immediately knew that I could no longer be a Protestant. Their faith was immediately and recognizbly Catholic.
          I’ll agree with you that, since Vatican I, many imprecisions in the Catholic view of the papacy have emerged, and that this is central to the modern crisis in the Church. I would not agree with you that the pope is “apotheosized,” however. This seems more like the view of someone looking from the outside, in. Popes seem very human and fallible to the people inside the Church. Some more so than others.
          As to the Catholic Church mixing “business” with faith, I would disagree. I have been in Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Far and away, the Catholic Churches bother me less for money. It is convenient for Protestantism that, because nobody can claim to execute any official office in the name of Protestantism, all the venality and corruption of many Protestant ministers can be written off simply as the personal failings of one man, whereas a cleric of the Catholic Church is somehow expected to shoulder the entire reputation of the Church, and his crimes become “the crimes of Catholicism.” The fact is, that the Catholic Church’s official acts and documents are the only thing that represent the Church officially; popes, bishops, priests and monks, as I know too well, can fail quite miserably as individuals.
          I would also say that your view of the Catechism smacks of someone looking from the outside in, or of a very badly catechized Catholic (ironically). I used to work at a Protestant bookstore, and I greeted Catholic converts with glee; now I lament the fact, and realize that all the best-informed men are converting to Catholicism; the ones leaving the Catholic faith are usually those with a lot of zeal, but “not according to knowledge,” having indeed “a form of godliness, but denying its power.” Benedict XVI put out an edited version of the Catechism because, as he said, he found JPII’s Catechism seriously flawed in some ways. JPII’s Catechism of the Catholic Church routinely comes under criticism from faithful Catholics for teaching heresy, and for advocating practices that are contrary to divine law. Nobody would dare to take such an approach to the Bible, which always has the preeminence. There are some documents which are set alongside the Bible as being equally inerrant – the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and the ex cathedra, de fide pronouncements of the Apostolic See – but none can rival the Bible for its place of honour and direct, divine inspiration.
          Sorry for the long reply. Christ is risen!

  13. Perhaps I’m not alone, but I do enjoy reading the Captain’s posts. I just don’t have the patience to listen to the podcasts and watch videos of a talking head.
    It’s a shame he doesn’t publish transcripts or brief text summaries.

    1. His videos are for the young bucks and people like me who strip the video section and shovel the audio on my phone for listening to in the car.

  14. What in the samuel J. fuck is this about? Dude, I love this guy’s work, I bought three of his books. But out of all the things I could use in life, the last thing I need is advice not to date a lady-preacher. I mean bible-thumpers are bad enough, how am I supposed to get quality head when I’m playing second-fucking-fiddle to an invisible friend in a robe and sandles?
    If a dude, ANY dude, is so st-st-stupid that he’d even CONSIDER hooking up with a preacher woman, he’s probably not looking at this site anyway. Might as well spend ten minutes writing on the virtues of not punching yourself in the face or advising against bear wrestling. Fuck man, don’t waste my time, or your time, or my time…

    1. Fucking you out of an extra percentage-point of interest doesn’t count.

  15. So, you will always come second. Meh – that’s always true.
    The problem is the nuclear hamster. Religious folk in general are pretty skilled at doing whatever the hell they want, then deciding that God is cool with it despite what the bible says. Female clergy? Times it by a thousand. You are dealing with someone who is effectively completely amoral. Someone who can read right there in the bible not to “wear broided hair or costly array” or divorce, and go ahead and do it anyway and be completely sure that it’s ok. Someone who can barefaced lie to a judge and 100% believe it *and be believable*. Clergy are *convincing*: it’s their stock-in-trade.
    As for “no sex” – don’t you believe it. The *reason* religious women seek out non-religious men is to get laid.
    Use a burner phone.

  16. I’ve noticed a general pattern: one sure sign of degeneration in an institution or activity is when when women assume leadership roles (other than in traditional feminine activities like charities.)
    Religion is one, as noted here – only a decadent denomination allows female clergy. Classical music is another – if a symphony has a female conductor, just pass on a concert (soloists are OK though.) Journalism is yet another – the NYT continued to lose readers even with a feminist as editor-in-chief.
    Women clergy are in the wrong field for the wrong reasons. Little wonder they are bad lays.

  17. 1) There are no women in the clergy; there are women who like to dress up and play-act, but there are no women in the clergy. Witches are not clergy. They are the logical consequence of tingles-based spiritualiciousness.
    2) In my personal experience – both regarding how I have been able to act, and how others who try to put God first act – I have found that people with a genuine religious faith (i.e., not just in a Jesus-and-I-go-walking-on-sunny-beaches-and-that-makes-me-feel-like-a-natural-woman-you-godless-schleck kind of way) are far more capable of dealing with you in a human and self-giving way, than godless people. I know it is unpopular to say it, but my experience and right reason have shown me the absolute truth that there are only two options: a) God is first; b) I am first. *You* are NEVER the most important thing in anybody else’ life. Either God is, or the ego is. It is especially true of most women, that even when they like to think they are being “religious,” are in fact serving their ego’s psychic-tingles factory. You are never first in a woman’s life. Only an emotional infant would want to be, anyway. How pathetic would you have to be, to be something that a woman *truly* appreciated? So, don’t bother trying. You can be the voice she obeys; you can be her voice of God on Earth; you can be the force that makes her lady-bits tingle; you can be the fun-time ride she has to have a fun time riding. But even then, you only serve those roles to her because you either tie in to her fidelity to her Maker, or you tie in to her addiction to tingles. You are always the means to an end. Especially when it comes to love from a woman, the idea of being loved for who and what you are, is absurd. That is not how they operate.
    3) The kind of women who think they are “clergy,” at least in any real religion, are the kind of women who don’t give a fig for religion, and who are iconoclasts and narcissists that live at the expense of the faith they ‘espouse.’ That is why every religion with female ‘clergy’ collapses. The women destroy it; they feast off it like a spider on a dessicated bug. They are the opposite of clergy, who shepherd, nourish and sanctify, since, being men, they have the capacity for honour and spiritual fatherhood that is the sine qua non of clerical rank. I would bet my life that female “clergy” are either first-class deviants or frigid ice-queens. But struggling about pre-marital sex with their “religious hamster?” No. If they gave a crap about religion and tradition, they wouldn’t be playing dress-up with sacred things, wearing that rainbow stole and the mitre with the cute little butterflies. They are the type that would probably come to bed wearing them.

  18. Just by reading the headers and not the title…..this can be any woman.

  19. There are no women in the clergy. What are you, some kind of protestant heretic?

  20. I would say that this rules extend beyond just clergy. Any women into, for example, new agey shit is bat shit crazy. In particular, avoid women that are into Kabbalah. They are always bat shit crazy. They will always be talking about “finding the light,” accusing you of being “darkness,” and telling you that you have to fight your ego to have a happy life.

  21. I was in a relationship with a woman involved in some sort of New Age cult. She had pictures of their “prophet” all over her house. I thought initially he was her father. Even in the bedroom she had a picture of the dude; it was weird for me while having sex with her. She claimed she had healing powers given to her by her prophet and she used to bring sick people to her home for consultation. She would do some movements with her hands without touching the patient while saying some strange words. By that time I had seen enough and I broke with her. Sometimes I have a nightmare where I have a son with her.

  22. There is no such thing as female clergy. Giving a woman Holy Orders results in excommunication for you and her.

  23. “NOT ONE real religion, in it’s original form, allowed for women to be pastors, priests, rabbis, or imams. This means if a girl REALLY believed in that religion then she would accept and respect the religion’s rule that women are not allowed to be clergy. ”
    Any Woman who claims a formal title of leadership (pastor bishop) or a title of soothsaying (prophetess) doesn’t actually serve God but the false jezebel god of feminism.
    I see a lot of this so called progressive christianity infecting more churches nowadays.

  24. Learned the hard way that a woman brought up in a church that is led by other women has virtually no respect for a man’s gifts and graces.

Comments are closed.