Monday, October 21, 2019

Vikings Weren't S*xually Progressive

You don't tell me! TV shows are full of lies and propaganda??? Who would have thought...


  1. I don't know where off-hand I'd find this again, but years ago I found a story about how some Scandinavians (mostly Finns, some Swedes) have limited resistance to HIV.

    It's almost as if a wave of the stuff ripped through their communities centuries ago and that the survivors decided they'd had quite enough of promiscuity and so forth.

    That's why it may be possible that "Vikings" were promiscuous but that the people who followed after them weren't interested.

    But as far as propaganda goes: yes, by all means, go on, pretend you're neo-Vikings, you'll likely fade away into "history" the same way they did by means of a miserable disease.

    I don't know about you, but I try not to build bridges just so I can dare people I'm not inclined to like to not cross the last one I've built. :-)

  2. Or it could be because of their superior genes, you know:)
    There was a European tribe known for its loose morals, but they were Celts, not Germanics...

  3. I have read we finns have more neanderthal DNA than other europians. That may explain a lot. :)

    I think this guy was right. I have read some inuit tribes that live on Aleut Islands had the practice to let visitors have sex with their wifes. That made sense: they were really isolated, so new genes were needed. But I have never, ever heard that happen in Scandinavia/Finland. As this guy said, they had slaves for that! Even in medieval times, a visitor could pick one of maids to sleep with, but it was obvious that women of the family were for their husband's only. They were, after all, valuable possessions. Mammalian males also tend to be rather possessive for obvious reasons.

    I also like how this guy explains shield maidens did not exist, but women might have defended their children and home if situations was desperate enough.

    Anyone with half a brain should understand it is impossible for women to develop the strength and stamina viking warriors needed. Sometimes I think people do not really realize how strong men are -and they used to be even stronger. Thanks to testosterone, like this guy said.

  4. These progressives also have little understanding about life without modern anti-conception when every sexual act could lead to pregnancy (what do you think happens when you throw a young fertile woman into close proximity with men bursting from high t), combined with very little medical help available if things went wrong which they most certainly would if a pregnant woman would have to undergo the strain of combat or even military exercise. Even now I've known women who nearly died in child birth and were only saved by the miracle of modern medicine ( I personally know 3 ladies who had pre-eclampsia and 1 who got a nearly fatal bleeding after she gave birth). A miscarriage could very well lead to her bleeding to death in the field...

  5. Amen to that. I know similar cases, too. Giving birth is really risky business even nowadays.

    I have read about military studies which prove military units with both male and female soldiers do not perform as well as those with men only. Reason: men do not perform well when their unit has female soldiers, too. Because their instinct to protect women is so high. It is very sweet, but not very convenient...

  6. They can't perform as well, because women are simply much weaker on average (a 20 year old woman has lung capacity of a 50 year old man). It also destroys the unit cohesion with all the relationship drama which necessarily follows.
    In some situations a weakened military could be a blessing in disguise tho (depending on which country it is:)