When the dudes at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog aren’t wistfully looking forward to the days in which sexbots and artificial wombs make mere flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete, they’re pondering the crucial spiritual questions of our age, like how to pick up hot sluts at church. Any church, really, so long as it’s full of hot sluts. The blogger there – who doesn’t give his name, so let’s just call him Anti – recently highlighted this observation, from commenter The Fifth Horseman:
[C]hurch would be a great place for a PUA to run Game …
1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.
Jesus wept.
But Anti didn’t, and added his two cents to the discussion:
All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women. Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them. Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20. … I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. …
When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”. These women will put out for you. You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues). The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.
Absolutely. All you need to do, fellas, is to approach them calmly and confidently, look quickly down at your crotch, then directly into their eyes, and ask them: “Would you like to meet … Little Jesus”
Verily, I say unto you, it works every time.
Tofu – what are your original series recommendations?
City of Death
Genesis of the Daleks
Curse of Fenric
The Green Death
Inferno
Tomb of the Cybermen
The Caves of Androzani
Bit late, but @NWO:
“Yesterday clear proof of brain differences.
Discounted, didn’t fit liberal agenda.”
No one discounted that link, actually. The ‘liberal agenda’ may just require a bit more evidence than a slight brain difference to accept men are all fantastic superior hunters/natural rapists/from mars.
What conclusions did you draw from the evidence about brain differences? I’d love to know.
Laura Bladen: I think it goes like this.
NWO: Men and women are inherently different… Men are all about x,y,z, women are all about a,b,c (where the distinctions are nonsense, often contradictory from one comment to the next).
Man Boobz commenters: Dude, that’s nuts; where is your evidence?
NWO (after much bobbing and weaving, ducking and dodging): Look at this study it says men and women have some differences in rates of development.
Man Boobz commenters: Yes, NWO, it does, it also says there is no evidence that it makes any substantive difference in abilities attitudes, and more study is needed.
NWO: YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT THE STUDY SAYS THERE ARE DIFFERENCES… It says there are differences, so I must be correct, you just refuse to read SCIENCE, because you have been indoctrinated by the feminists (ROTHCHILDS) and have to pretend I’m wrong, or admit that the UN (feminist lackies) hates men.
Eeep! Pecunium is Slaver?
Zombie: No… No….. A thousand times no….!
I was trying to put into words what his mumblings about the “proof” he offered meant.
I’ve read everything he’s written on several threads; and getting into people’s heads is what I did for the Army. I hope his “thinking” hasn’t rubbed off on me.
Atheist rapper Greydon Square!
“If your god DOES love you, I hope you make him wear a condom.”
@SallyStrange
Okay, that was awesome!
NWO (after much bobbing and weaving, ducking and dodging):
You mean after much desperate googling behind the scenes xD
Ami: Do you think he follows the links when he hits, “Search”? I think he just assumes the page counts means something.
Ami — You really think Slavey looks things up? I think you’re giving him way too much credit. He gets everything he says straight from the Rectum Foundation for Made-up Bullshit.
Rectum? Damn near killed ’em!
@Sally Strange I think he looks things up AFTER he comes up w/ his conclusions and somebody asks him for proof. Then he desperately searches for information that might back it up. That’s how he got that holocaust denial site that time xD I do believe he never normally read that site… but he needed something to back up what he was saying, he found that, gave it to us, and it turned out to be a holocaust denial site xD
Oh, I see what you mean. I’d forgotten about that holocaust denial episode. XP
I’ve lurked for months now. Huge fan; love you guys. However, I finally had to delurk to address this:
>>All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women. Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them. Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20. … I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. …<<
I'm an Orthodox Christian, and while I'm grateful to no end that, for some reason, PUAs shouldn't go near us, I'd like to know why exactly? Especially considering the odious interest these people have with women from societies where we supposedly "know our place" [aren't US citizens and don't know enough English to tell the cops what's going on]
Pecunium :
I did not know that! That makes for a much more interesting story, and suggests a rather more nuanced picture of god than the version I was taught growing up. If I believed in any gods, I would rather they be more like that than the tyrant I was ordered to worship as a kid…
VoiP: Here’s his explanation for that:
I don’t know if it’s that much better. Either way, it’s still a pretty fucked up test, and it’s still the same OT god who expects rebellious sons to be stoned to death by the elders of the city.
Tabby: Jewish teaching has a lot to say about Man being the final arbiter of what is right and good. Judaism (apart from some extreme sects) doesn’t want to see the Temple rebuilt,because that would mean having to engage in sacrifice, as well as putting some of the more horrific aspects of Deut. 18 into question (e.g. destroy the entirety of any city which harbors an apostate).
There are lots of talmudic stories, and modern jokes, about God not getting the final say. If I were (as a non-jew) to try and explain it, I would say the history of the religion is moving from moral childhood to adulthood. The test of Abraham was (as I expound from my own theology) a measure. In much the same way one gives a child a goldfish before they get a hamster, or a dog.
God needed to see if Abraham could be trusted to look after himself. Would he let an authority figure tell him to do things like sacrifice his own son?
Also… and this is harder for us to recall, because we live in a world which is largely monocultural when it comes to religion; there were other religions in the area which were, actually sacrificing their firstborn sons. This was God telling Abraham (and thus the Jews) not to pay attention to those sorts of gods (recall also that the mono-theistic aspects of Judaism weren’t solidified until well after the time of the patriarchs, and some of the vestigal aspects of it can still be found. The word, “Elohim as a name of God is both feminine, and plural. It’s still in use.)
So yes, from here the lesson (in a culture where blood sacrifice is seen as bizarre [see the ways in which practitioners of Santeria are persecuted for it]) is strange and cruel and fucked up. From there it was saying… “That thing everyone else sees as normal, and fitting and proper…? Don’t do that.”
[NOTE FROM DF: VoiP posted something here with some quotes from other people, but the formatting got mangled and it looked like it was from him. As you’ll notice, some people have responded to it as if it were by him. He’s made another post with the formatting corrected, so I’m deleting the original but leaving this here so that it will be clear why people responded as they did.]
I was trying to post something with quotes in it, and it came out gibberish instead. What did I do wrong?
VoiP, you need to put [blockquote] at the start and [/blockquote] at the end, but with angle brackets instead of square brackets. I would have just edited your comment but I couldn’t quite tell what was supposed to be quotes and what wasn’t.
Uh…VoiP, let’s not confuse Witchcraft too much with Wicca. The two are related and similar in many ways, but not the same…
Original Series recommendations:
All 2nd Doctor episodes (there aren’t many, and he’s a hoot), although The Krotons is pretty silly and The War Games is really long
Spearhead from Space
Mind of Evil
An Unearthly Child (just the first part – the cavepeople bit is really bad)
The Romans
Planet of the Giants
The Three Doctors
Edge of Destruction
The Time Warrior
Ark in Space
The Sontaran Experiment
Seeds of Doom (first one I remember watching)
The Sunmakers
The Deadly Assassin
The whole Key to Time season
Meglos – not because it’s great, but because the baddie is a sentient cactus
Warrior’s Gate
Black Orchid
Vengeance on Varos
The Two Doctors
The Happiness Patrol
Battlefield
And all of Spearhoc’s recommendations as well. I tend to like episodes that I find interesting, hilarious (intentionally and unintentionally), or both.
So… Orthodox Judaism isn’t a Masculine Religion (it has no Hell).
The same is true of Hinduism. I suppose we can call Confucianism a philosophy, not a religion… though it’s got all the trappings of your definition of “Masculine”, save no thought to any afterlife; that’s left to other schools of thought.
Quakers, by your definition are “feminine” though Quakerism (esp. unprogrammed) demands a lot of it’s practitioners. It has quiet (though I can’t say somber) services, but no elaborate dogma. It has ritual, but the ritual is democratic (no member of the Meeting is more privileged than any other, and anyone who speaks will be listened to; all voiced opinions must be considered). Active testimony; through deeds, is pretty much required (though how each person performs that testimony is for them to decide).
I don’t even know what to make of your use of “withcraft’ as a dismissive sort of claim. There are as many varieties of, “witchcraft” as there are sorts of Christianity. Even if I limit it to purely Christo-relative practice (and so leaving out the skinwalkers of the Navajo, and the various forms of sorcery/witchcraft in West Africa (just to limit the range to something manageable; though West African practice has become a large part of popular witchcraft lore in the American culture, because of how it affected the African American slave population), the variety of rules are vast, and while the level of disputational argument over doctrine may appear to be small (though this is in part because, as with any other religion, non-adherents tend to not see the internal arguments. This is why the views of the Roman Catholic Church are seen as monolithic, and in intractable, but I digress), but they are extant. Following the rules is essential to being a good witch, just as following the rules is essential to being a good member of the Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish (in all it’s varieties) Mennonite, etc. faiths.
I’d have to say, having spent time in Quaker meetings (and Orthodox services) and being something of a Roman Catholic, and possessed of a wide variety of religious friends, this thumbnail sketch, and handy rubric of, “masculine/feminine” and the hint that one is better than the other, fails to persuade me.