No one should be turning to the neo-Nazi online tabloid The Daily Stormer for dating advice, but on the off chance that you are, I have to warn you that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I mean, they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to pretty much everything, but in this case their ignorance involves what actually went on in the supposed 1950s cultural paradise they want to return us to, forcibly if necessary.
In a post with the sarcastic title “Dating Advice: The Key to Good Relationships is Cheating on Your Boyfriends,” regular Daily Stormer contributor “Zeiger” takes aim at a “fat Paki skag” dating expert who has the temerity to argue that women searching for “the One” should date a bunch of guys casually before committing to one of them.
I know, shocking.
Well, it is to Zeiger.
Not so long ago, women didn’t feel like they needed dating advice. After all, they just had to stand around somewhere until a man came to them and took care of everything for them.
All they had to worry about was serving him beer and cooking his food right so he didn’t dump their ungrateful asses.
Zeiger illustrates this point with a magazine illustration from the 1950s depicting happy teenage girls learning to bake a cake, so it’s pretty clear what romanticized past Zeiger is harking back to.
Alas, we have fallen so far from this imaginary paradise!
But in the era of NUMALE faggots and Jew feminism, women are confused. They think it’s somehow their job to understand relationships. This is already a completely insane concept.
But it gets worse.
These days, they’re getting their relationship advice from insane Paki sluts.
The “Paki slut” in question is a “relationship coach” named Sami Wunder who was recently featured in the British tabloid The Express. Despite Zeiger’s headline, Wunder does not actually suggest that women cheat on their boyfriends. Rather, she recommends that women looking for a husband date multiple men, non-exclusively, holding off on serious committment until one of them pops the question.
Whatever you think of this advice, it’s hardly “cheating” to date more than one person when you’re not in an exclusive relationship, presuming everyone is on the up and up on this.
Zeiger is outraged by the very idea.
I guarantee that no real man would “put a ring” on the finger of some hoe who cheated on him with a bunch of other guys. A “man” so pussy-whipped would more appropriately be called a “humanoid slug.” …
What this shows is the urgent need women have for stable, healthy relationships. And that is something that can only be provided by WHITE SHARIA – not fat Paki whore dating advice.
Zeiger’s anger here seems to stem from the same mix of entitlement and insecurity that drives the alt-right obsession with “cucks” and “cucking.” These are men who, on some level, feel entitled to any attractive woman who wanders into their field of vision, and feel betrayed — even “cucked” — when any of these women date or marry or just have sex with some guy other than them.
But we’re not just entitlement we’re dealing with here. More than a few alt-rightist dudes — and manosphere dudes generally — fetishize nubile young virgins, not just because they’re creepy dudes who are way too into women and girls far too young for them, but because virgins have no way to compare their sexual prowess with other men. Many manosphere dudes are quite open about this anxiety, complaining that women who’ve been with more than one guy will endlessly compare them with their earlier partners.
These are the same guys who go around boasting about what “alphas” they are.
But there’s another giant irony in Zeiger’s piece: dating in the 1950s, at least at the start of the decade, looked a lot more like Wunder’s world than Zeigers in some crucial respects.
In the 40s and early 50s, teenagers were encouraged to “play the field,” casually dating an assortment of not-quite-steady partners rather than committing to a single person.
It wasn’t until later in the decade that teens began to shift en masse to the more familiar (to us, that is) strategy of “going steady.” And far from welcoming this new monogamy, many parents were horrified. Magazines at the time were filled with alarming articles on the supposedly grave dangers of going steady.
Here’s one from 1960 warning teens that going steady might be “too dangerous” for them.
Here’s one from 1957 examining the potential “immorality” of going steady.
And here’s a graphic from a pamphlet or magazine article from the era wondering when it was “too early” for teens to go steady.
And parents actually had some legitimate reasons to worry. On the one hand, they worried that teens who “went steady” without dating around first would settle down with the first person of the opposite sex who was nice to them, not realizing they could have done better.
On the other hand, they worried that teens who “went steady” would also end up going further sexually — which could lead, as sex often does, to pregnancy and too-early marriage. Indeed, the age of first marriage dropped precipitously in the 1950s as more teens married, helping to contribute to the spiraling divorce rates of the 1960s and 1970s as these too-hasty marriages fell apart.
It was kind of a screwed-up decade; happily, the sexual revolution of the 1960s convinced a hefty chunk of Americans young and old that 1) sex isn’t the end of the world and 2) it isn’t always such a great idea for teens to settle down forever with the very first person they have sex with.
The weird thing is that the 1950s parents, for all their faults, were more interested in girls and young women having choices than are the alt-rightists of today.
Parents in the 1950s worried that their daughters would end up getting too seriously involved with the wrong guys because they had no good basis for comparison.
Alt-rightists and manosphere dudes today are apparently afraid that no women will settle for them if they realize there are other men out there who aren’t, you know, reactionary racists who think women shouldn’t really be allowed to make their own decisions about anything.
I’m thinking they’re probably right to worry about this. And I’m glad.