Humanities desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 18

Older/Fat mothers

this is either a question to invite debate or speculation, for which it had attracted much, or it is outright trolling, for which it has been well fed. Either way, we've had enough here. Move along--Jayron 32 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How would non-pretty older or overweight women get pregnant or have young children? 31.48.57.254 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse is the traditional approach. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like 196.192.183.14 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate, concise and to the point. Well played. General Ization ^Talk 05:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Define "pretty", "older" and "overweight". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP has a false assumption that human pregnancy and marriage are based on personal sexual attractiveness. For most humans in the world (most humans in the world live in Asia), arranged marriage is the norm. Even if the marriage is not fully arranged, older relatives (especially parents) tend to have a lot of influence over the choice of spouse. Most humans exhibit bilateral symmetry, which really helps in improving beauty. But what counts as "beautiful" is very subjective. Older women may re-marry to older men. Both of them are old, so youthful beauty is not a priority. Overweight women may actually be favored or appear more attractive, because the appearance of chubbiness is a sign of wealth and that her family can feed her. So, overweight women may be more attractive, not less, than thin women. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting topic with broad implications. The question is, how are people being programmed to distinguish sexual attractiveness, and what makes that change? Traditionally, the ideal is that a young couple marries and continues to find one another attractive into old age, which suggests a gradual change of optimum perceptions is routine. (And subjectively, I know for example that when I was just past puberty, a girl in seventh grade who first started growing breasts was exceedingly attractive, while women in their twenties seemed matronly; now women several decades older seem perfectly fine) One possible explanation is that pheromones cause positive reinforcement of a particular appearance, and average appearances are considered the most beautiful (perhaps by averaging of many pheromone reinforcements?) and that the age of those to whom one is exposed tends to shape expectations, but I'm really winging it with that explanation. Pheromones remain controversial and the rest uncertain. Whatever the reason, it seems very important because so much damage results when people retain a youthful preference or even "regress" to prefer younger children over adults, and yet, there is the bizarre perception that such a thing is an unchangeable sexual orientation, even though nearly all of us go through changes in what ages seem attractive! My feeling is that the idealization of senior citizens drooling after 18-year-olds is nearly as diseased as pedophilia itself; it is a failure of some natural process. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typical misogynistic question and we already have a answers that are calling for debate. So while were at it let's answer the questions "how do non-handsome, older or overweight men get women to let them impregnate them?" and "has anyone seen the birth of older children?" Sheesh. MarnetteD|Talk 04:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger's brother has had about enough of his zygotic shenanigans. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The query implies that only slim, young, pretty women become pregnant because these are the only ones with whom any fertile male could achieve arousal to the point of ejaculation leading to impregnation. To which I suggest to the OP: change the channel on whatever mass media gave you this idea (above-called "misogyistic"), and learn about the real world and real people (men and women). -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are various factors which can reduce a woman's fertility. Age is clearly one of them: it is more difficult to get pregnant when older. Weight is also a factor - though both obesity and being underweight can cause problems. I know of nothing which has indicated that being ugly, or just plain, makes any difference to fertility. Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not feed the trolls. Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom can come from the mouth of babes, and in a world ruled by madmen, who can call anything too crazy? From a scientific perspective, troll questions are entirely legitimate. Modern quantum mechanics started by people asking why electrons didn't spiral into nuclei, even though they obviously don't. And it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of inductive logic to say that if one boy doesn't want to have sex with an older woman, why does anyone? (Of course, this sauce would work even better on the gander than the goose, since a population does not need every male to inseminate something for maximal reproduction). I would urge people to put aside the tendency to see a question as a position or to resent why someone asks it, and simply think about what, as I went into above, I think can be a productive topic in the social and biological sciences that could, if better understood, save many children from terrible crimes. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be a babe, but there's no wisdom in his question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this happen in real life? Is it common? 31.48.57.254 (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "common". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Indian Christians eat beef?

The title is about the relationship between Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism is the indigenous religion of the Indian people. Hindus are known for their vegetarianism and special regard for the cow. Do they carry this over when they convert to Christianity? The concept of dalit in the Hindu-based caste system apparently carries over to Indian Christians. Is there a difference in food/dietary restrictions between the St. Thomas Christians (early Christian converts) and later Christian converts (by European missionaries)? Similarly, do Arab Christians eat pork? (The question in bold is the most important question. Others are similar, but not relevant and can be ignored.) 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will keep their dietary habits after conversion, yes. Also, if in an area where a certain dietary preference is seen as offensive, it might be best to comply with it just to get along. For example, eating dogs in the US would not make you many friends. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Arab Christians eat pork? In Israel, Christian Arabs not only eat pork but are involved in raising swine, slaughtering and marketing. Many years ago when a ban on the Israeli pork industry was considered, it would have impacted the livelihood of 40,000 people. Consumers include non-observant Jews, particularly immigrants from the former USSR, and tourists (and the many restaurants serving them). Otherwise, I've rarely seen pork featured in Arab cuisine of the Levant. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between eating pork in a Muslim or Jewish environment, and eating beef in a Hindu one. Pigs are considered unclean, while cows a considered holy. A Muslim should not be particularly upset by a non-believer eating something unclean, while a Hindu is likely to be very upset by someone eating something they consider to be almost a god. Wymspen (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a reference, I typed "Do Indian Christians eat beef?" into Google and found on the first page of results: More Indians eating beef, buffalo meat, a report in The Hindu of 29 October 2016, which says: " Consumption patterns vary across religions, data show. In 2011-12, 42 per cent of Indian Muslims reported having eaten beef/buffalo meat in the month preceding the survey compared to 26.5 per cent Christians and 1.4 per cent Hindus". So there we have it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deborahjay: The Ethiopia and Eritrea churches of Africa do not eat pork. The mother/sister church of Coptic Egypt does permit it, but many abstain from it there as well (including among the religious hierarchy) but by choice not decree. Furthermore, not all Hindus abstain from eating beef; many South Indians eat beef. South India also tends to be the region with the most Christians in India. DA1 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these sources discuss various aspects of beef consumption in India including geographical and caste differences as well as religious ones [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Note as reflected in those sources, there has been a recent official crackdown with the rise of the BJP including in the federal government on the slaughter, trading and consumption of beef, which has also coincided (many say precipitated) dangerous vigilantism such as 2015 Dadri mob lynching. This has sometimes lead to counter protests of people eating beef.

As also reflected there and Cattle slaughter in India, India has been one of the largest exporters of "beef" for a few years now. As mentioned in our article and sources like [24] [25] [26], it's possible recent legal changes are going to put a significant dent in that, but as also reflected in those sources, not everyone feels that will actually happen and there are already signs a relaxation may be coming [27]. At least one of the earlier sources suggested that the more likely outcome is in a change in the trade probably at the expense of poorer, often Muslim, Indians and to the benefit of the wealthier Indians. (Which is not to suggest this is intentional or that some wealthy people aren't going to lose out.)

A notable point as reflected in the first source I provided and also [28] but not our article, although nominally all beef India exports is supposed to be carabeef/buff from the water buffalo, there is some suggestion a resonable proportion of it is actually beef from cows. Although we should always ve cautious since such claims are often used by vigilantes as an excuse for their behaviour without any real evidence (many others don't even bother to come up with such reasons). More resonable opponents of the trade (as well as competitors) also make the claim but again, I'm not sure how strong the evidence is. In any case, a fair amount if this meat whether legally [29] or illegally imported [30] is simply sold as beef sometimes even if local laws don't allow that. (Competitors clearly have an interest in pushing back against buffalo not correctly labelled but also given the political sensitivities in claiming that it is correctly labelled because it is cow despite coming from India.)

I could actually find any real analyis attempting to determine how much of India's exports were beef from cows. I found a lot of scientific papers developing methods for detecting this [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] but only the first one had very limited results from commercial samples (I think one or two others looked at samples from somewhere). One complexity is that the it's clear it's a fairly murky world with poor labelling practices (and probably legal requirements) so without government sanction I doubt you'll have much success actually analysing it since exporters and importers are unlikely to want to cooperate. I did only look at the abstracts so you're welcome to explore further although I'd caution that while I did try and remove results like [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] which seem to be only looking at identifying buffalo meat (useful if you have a sample you're sure is only from one animal and want to know what it is or if you're trying to detect buffalo meat which wasn't labelled as such, isn't useful if you're trying to determine how much of your buffalo is actually cow).

One final point is that as clear from a number of the sources, besides buffalo raised for slaughter (and perhaps some cows), another source of the meat is from buffalo and cows raised for milk which are no longer sufficiently productive. Several sources suggest about 45% of the milk comes from cows. (I think this may be exclude goats milk etc.) The often poor farmers can't afford to just keep these, and the anti-cow slaughter activists don't seem to be generally interested in taking over these cows so they have to be slaughtered either legally in a state that allows it or illegally in a state that does not, then either sold locally or illegally exported. (As the sources mentions there are also other requirements which may or may not be met which may affect legality.) And a reminder that the politics involved suggests a lot of caution should be placed on statistics.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS: Biography / Place of birth

I am trying to find information about guidelines on birth_place such as that in infoboxes for Biography and BLP articles. Particularly the former. Some people ask questions about replacing historical geographic names (or the closest equivalent we have to them) with modern districts/jurisdictions covering the same area. I can't seem to find anything on the topic. Anyone else have any leads? Edit: All I've found is 'MOS:BIO#Birth date and place' which only covers the issue of date, and not what I referenced above. DA1 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the "official" approach, but check out how they handled the birthplace of Al Jolson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLACE is pretty clear. Use the name that was in use at the time the event occurred. --Jayron 32 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks, that does indirectly answer my question. Its a shame that there's no direct reference to "birth" or "born" there; nor is that page linked anywhere else on that particular matter. DA1 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Rail Pass

Reading the Japan Rail Pass article, I was amazed by how cheap it is for unlimited rail travel. Since it's only available to foreign tourists, I guess it's way to subsidize rail travel in order to promote tourism.

1. Is there any publicly available information on how much the JR Pass program is subsidized by? Either per year or per pass issued is fine.

2. Is the Japan Railways Group compensated in any way for providing this subsidy? Either by the Japanese government or other Japanese tourism associations. Scala Cats (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be too sure that the assumption is correct. The price does not seem particularly cheap to me - it's in line with other tourist rail passes around the world. Compare e.g. the German Rail Pass or the Eurail (current prices) (both only for non-Europeans). This may seem cheap compared to the travel you could do, but like an all you can eat buffet, the railway probably calculates averages. Tourists will not travel all day every day, and they will often follow a path of short segments. They will also have a more flexible schedule, and naturally avoid rush hours and other congested times on their own. Moreover, the competitive situation is different - tourists can chose not only the mode of travel, but usually also the destination. As long as the rail pass covers the marginal cost of the extra seats actually used, the railway company will be fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example: I'm landing in Kansai International Airport and plan on visiting Kyoto. The unsubsidized train fare from the airport to Kyoto is 7000 yen[44].

Since I'm a tourist, I can buy the JR-West 4 day rail pass[45] for 6300 yen. So the price for my tourist 4-day-long all-you-can-ride ticket is cheaper than a single round trip ticket out of the airport. I don't know about JR pass users in general, but in my particular case I'm saving a butt-load of money. Scala Cats (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JR Pass doesn't cover the fastest shinkansen services, and there are often supplements to pay for the more premium services. Obviously some tourists are happy to travel on the slower trains, and equally it is a way for JR to direct tourists towards spare capacity on the less popular services.

If you ar ereferring to the Kansai Area Pass on the website you cited, if you click into "train accommodation" you'll see that a supplement is payable for the Kansai airport express. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Kansai Area Pass page[46], it says: "Valid trains are below; - Non-reserved seats on Kansai-airport Express HARUKA", so the 7000 yen round trip ticket from KIX to Kyoto is covered, with no extra payment needed. Scala Cats (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get 7000 yen from? I'm seeing "The JR Haruka limited express takes about 70 minutes and costs 2850 yen by non-reserved seat or around 3500 yen by reserved seat from Kansai Airport to Kyoto". For a round trip ticket it would be 7000 yen for a reserved seat but since you don't get reserved seats with the Kansai Area Pass ("Ordinary Car,Non-reserved Seating" is the only option without paying more) it makes no sense to compare the two. The 2 way unreserved price would seem to be 5700. Once you consider other services you're likely to save but it doesn't seem to me that it's cheaper than a round trip ticket, and you are locked in to using the service (as a tourist who may not have appreciated the options before). Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A better comparison may be 2 one day passes at 2200 yen since someone staying (or away for) more than 4 days is not going to be able to use the 4 day pass for both legs of the airport journey. (It should be said 4 days is a relatively short stay for leisure by most standards, especially if travelling from far away although a person could be going to different places. At least on the page you linked to there's no longer pass for Kansai only. So plenty of people may need more than one, including Japanese if they were able to buy the pass.) 2200 yen is a resonable discount from 2800 yen but amongst other things, the assumption is likely to be many people aren't using it for the airport. For someone living in Kansai, they're probably not very likely to purchase a pass unless it's cheaper than what they'll spend otherwise and they may have a fair idea of what that'll be. And while price will be a factor, it may not always be that significant in their decision to use the train depending on the precise difference. By comparison, while some tourists do plenty of research, plenty of people do not and their decisions are often a lot more flexible (both in terms of timings, mode of transport, and where they travel to) and factors like travel time may compete with how scenic the route is or options for detours. If they can get a good price on a pass, they may buy it and use but may not have chosen the train otherwise and so could easily have spent less money with JR (or whoever). They may also choose to upgrade etc in some cases. And while I didn't see this mentioned for the Kansai pass, one of your links did suggest a discount for JR hotels for some passes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]