Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 May 31

Humanities desk
< May 30	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	June 1 >

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.

May 31

Date references

I noticed on some articles the dates were being given as 1200 A.D.( anno domini) as opposed to 1200 C.E. ( common era) which is the accepted academic standard. Reference of date listed as like 1200 B.C. should be given as 1200 B.C.E. ( before the common era).This way no religious group appears to be favoured.

Let me know what you think. I'm sure this could be auto corrected with some effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maimonides 03 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a hotly debated topic and there is no consensus on changing AD to CE sitewide. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Year numbering systems and, for more debate on this subject than anyone could possibly wish for, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. --Viennese Waltz 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You could change wikipedia to the ab urbe condita system if that is the date system you prefer most, although there is stronger evidence that Milan rather than Roma would be a better choice of oppidum. We might as well add extra controversy if we can. Gx872op (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply confused by the Milanese reference. Or is that a joke? Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Milan was declared capital of the Roman Empire in AD 293, although modern historians continue to use the founding of Rome when talking about dates in the Roman Empire. This is despite the fall of Rome as capital and the prowess of their respective modern football teams. While academically, dates concerning Roman events are given using A.U.C., such is not the case on wikipedia. Using the academic system of dates on wikipedia would only lead to confusion. This is why adopting the academic system of dating would not be prudent for Roman articles. Just because something is used academically does not automatically support a conclusion that it should be used. We must take into account other considerations to avoid an argumentum ad populum. Being an academic, especially a Latin academic, does not necessarily make one correct. Gx872op (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My first thought was Milan's capital status during the later portion of the Western Empire, but all that was dashed to the ground when I found that you'd linked a football club instead of the city itself :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Do historians use AUC? Wow. I've often wondered why they don't. —Tamfang (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The CE / BCE notation is not widely used (or I suspect understood) in the UK. The BBC, which is often considered to be one of the guardians of our fair English tongue, is still unabashed at using AD / BC - see BBC History: Boudicca (died c.AD 60). One of our most popular historians, Professor Simon Schama, has recently published a book called A History of Britain: 3000 BC - AD 1603. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to demur, Alansplodge. I'd agree that the LCD-pandering media may think it would confuse the audience (forgetting that unless you're somewhat interested in history and have therefore probably encountered the concept, you likely wouldn't be watching/listening/reading their offering in the first place), but back in the 60s/70s the secondary-level textbooks (for ages 11-16) used in my school (and necessarily quite widely elsewhere in the UK), which was founded and administered by a Christian group (the Methodist Foundation for what it's worth) used CE/BCE without the least confusion or controversy.

To address Arwell Parry's point below, It seems to me perfectly sensible (and to this non-Christian preferable) to comply with the most widely used system (as entrenched in its way as the QWERTY keyboard layout) without using a religiously specific label of disputable historicity (there being an intellectually respectable – though in my opinion probably incorrect — argument for the "Christ" in question having not actually existed, and a rather strong one for his not being born in the year "1 AD". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can only say that MY 1970s A-Level history text-books used AD/BC as I didn't come across the CE/BCE until (I believe) the 1990s. A few minutes spent on Google Books found these serious British history books (not popular pulp-history) using AD/BC: The Cambridge Urban History of Britain: 600-1540 (2000), The End of Roman Britain (1998), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (2008), The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and Invaders (2004), The Archaeology of Celtic Britain and Ireland, C. AD 400-1200 (2006), Scotland After the Ice Age: Environment, Archaeology and History, 8000 BC - AD 1000 (2003), and The Archaeology of Britain: An Introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution (1999). I couldn't find any British history book using CE/BCE. Alansplodge (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it's certainly disputable that using CE / BCE instead of AD / BC is "not favouring a particular religious group" - since the base point is the same year is the difference not meaningless? Call it "religiously correct", perhaps. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that no one came up with a non-specific alternative abbreviation for BC. AD and BC have kind of a symmetry. CE and BCE don't. But if you're worried about shunning Christianity, just read them as "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era", and that works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Shunning Christianity"? If you're using a dating system explicitly based on the life of Jesus, I'd think it would be less offensive to non-Christians to refer to it as such, rather than pretend it is some neutral "common" dating system. If you're talking about the life of Muhammed, and a Muslim gives a date under their system, it is surely polite when you give your equivalent date to refer to it as being under the "Christian" system, rather than the "Common" system, given they are not using the system themselves. If you renamed the Bible, "the Common Book", would that automatically make it culturally sensitive and suitable for use in every classroom? 86.167.12.64 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I first came across the usage of CE/BCE in a Jehovah's Witness book (Watchtower, probably), and so I would personally question the assertion that such usage does not favour a particular religion. If I saw it, I would automatically think I was reading a Jehovah's Witness publication. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that a religious organisation uses a system has nothing to do with whether that system 'favours' that religion. I'm sure even Islamic organisations use names like 'Thursday', even though this clearly refers to a pagan god. - Lindert (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal vacation/vacating

I vaguely remember reading the term "vacate" in legal or semi-legal contexts: for example, a person has sold a piece of property, and the sales agreement requires him to vacate the property by a certain date. Do we have an article on this concept? Vacate redirects to Vacated judgment, which is unrelated to property questions, and none of the other pages listed at Vacation (disambiguation) are relevant either. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find is abandonment. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To "surrender" or "vacate" possession of real property is covered briefly in Leasehold estate. When someone refuses to surrender possession when an operation of law terminates the right of possession, this is called a "holdover." Holdover tenancy redirects to leasehold estate. Leasehold estate is the proper place for this topic as leaseholds are temporary in nature (at least theoretically because the US military presence in Cuba is technically a leasehold estate although Cuba lacks the ability to evict). Eviction could be developed a little bit more. The eviction process requires notice, which is often served upon the tenant in possession in the form of a "Notice to Vacate" or "Notice to Quit." Gx872op (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, but this isn't what I mean. It's not a matter of being kicked out — I'm meaning a situation in which someone says "I'll vacate the property by ____", simply in the sense of "I'll be moved out of the property by that date". Perhaps I was using the wrong language, because I wasn't talking about a date on which legal ownership of the property officially changes. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

First definition in the Wiktionary entry for vacate says "To move out of a dwelling, either by choice or by eviction". I don't think there is much more to be said about the term. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To vacate real property means to terminate a leasehold estate. You may vacate either unwillingly in the case of an eviction or willingly as in your example. Both are terminations of leasehold estates. Gx872op (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds to me as if it's related to Vacant Possession. Not a long article, but at least in English law, the vendor is said to offer up "Vacant Possession" of the property as the seller's part of conveying the property. You might also find Conveyancing a useful source. TrohannyEoin (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the tune?

Hello all. I was wasting time on Youtube and I found this p'ti trésor along with others by the same user. I was wondering what the tune behind it is (ignoring the paroles grossières) - it seems to classical and almost operatic to have been written solely for the ... purpose to which it is put in the song, if you follow. At first I thought it was Bizet, perhaps Au fond du temple saint from Pecheurs but apparently not. It seems something French Romantic period, if that helps - it must be a very famous song, which I've undoubtedly heard, but I can't quite put my finger on it... Thanks, merci d'avance. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not Bizet? That was my immediate thought upon hearing it. I have heard this sung on Italian television so it's obviously well-known. Have you gone through the Bizet compositions on YouTube?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fwiw, it didn't sound remotely like Bizet to me. Most certainly not "Au fond du temple saint". If I was told this was based on something from the French Romantic period, I'd maybe suggest Offenbach. But exactly what - search me. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The song does appear to have been composed for the occasion after all, by tunesmith Paul Glaeser (also the singer on this recording). He's churned out 2800 songs and also seems to regularly compose humoristic songs for Radio France. Here's his entry at Discogs (listing several albums of the chansons cochonnes, though unfortunately not the one containing "Mes bijoux de famille". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Signing of federal laws in the U.S.

Dear everyone; I wanted to ask the following question: Is the Vice President of the U.S. in title to sign a bill into law when the President is out of the country? He's only Acting President when to president is decleared to be unable to fulfill is office at the time, but what happens when the president only out of the country? For example, the Lieutenant Governor of ha state does often have the power sign state bills when the governor is outside his state. Thanks in advance --Jerchel (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he cannot. Only the President may sign a bill into law. Being busy or out of town is not "unable to fulfill his office". The Vice President's only actual roles, according to the Constitution, are to a) break tie votes in the U.S. Senate and b) wait for the President to become incapacitated, dead, or resign. There are no other enumerated powers for the VP. That's why John Nance Garner said that the job wasn't "worth a pitcher of warm piss." --Jayron32 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand. But there is a deadline of ten days or so to sign it into law (if the Congress ends the session, if not, the bill becomes automaticly a law). If he isn't signing the bill, it would be pocket veto. What are they doing in such a case? --92.226.210.32 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the president has to be in the country in order to sign bills. I don't see any such requirement in the relevant constitutional clause. It just says bills are to be presented to the president for his signature; doesn't say where. But I would be interested to learn of any statute or case law that addresses the question. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama signed an extension to the Patriot Act in May, 2011 from Europe using a Robo-Pen [1]. I thought that he was the first President to do this - I don't remember if it was the Patriot Act or an earlier thing that he signed, but I remember several news articles about it when he used the technology for the first time. Buddy431 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This then begs the question: What did presidents do before the invention of the Robo-Pen? I can imagine the president receiving the bill by telegraph, and physically signing the telegraph slip, but what did he do before such technological advances? What happened if he travelled further than 10 days away from Washington, D.C.? V85 (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the 20th century, they simply didn't travel that far. I believe that Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. President to leave the country while in office, indeed the job of President has changed greatly in the past century. I would not be surprised if most Presidents just stayed in Washington while Congress was in session. If his job is to sign or veto bills, most Presidents wouldn't have thought of skipping town just to avoid doing so. Even their other duties, such as presiding over cabinet meetings and conferring with advisors and the like, would have required them to actually be in the capital for most of their term of office. --Jayron32 19:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Back when the Constitution was written, 10 days was enough to get from any corner of the US to Washington, D.C. Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite, [2] (travel time to NYC, which was the capital until 1800 anyway). The US included everything to the Mississippi River after all. Presidents didn't travel out to the frontier of course. Although I recall reading something about how difficult it was for Andrew Jackson to travel from his Tennessee home to Washington DC back in the day (I don't think he did while president though). Pfly (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Causes of homosexuality

What are the causes of homosexuality according to current research? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Try Homosexuality, and then try googling "causes of homosexuality". There'll be plenty there to be getting on with.

You really must at least do some basic research before coming here to ask questions. This is not the place for a pub chat. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, asking for a "cause" of homosexuality implies that it is different from the normal course of events. Why does homosexuality need causes while heterosexuality just happens? --Jayron32 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is your knee jerking a little, Jayron? You don't have to think there's anything wrong with homosexuality for the question to make sense. The obvious cause of heterosexuality is that it perpetuates the species. Explanations for homosexuality are less obvious. "Less obviously explained" doesn't equal "wrong", and there's no need to assume it does. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, regardless of ones moral stance, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, so it is reasonable to ask what causes it (it is also reasonable to ask what causes the norm - see evolution of sexual reproduction for that). Unfortunately, genuine scientific attempts to answer that question tend to get drowned out by the moral debate over it, as evidenced by Jayron's reaction. The evidence is that sexual orientation is already determined by a very young age (possibly even by birth), although what actually determines it is still unknown. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What causes someone to like mushrooms on their pizza, and another person to like peppers? What is wrong with someone's biology to cause them to wear a stocking cap in summer? What biological cause could there be for someone to root for a particular sports team? There are any of a near infinite number of inconsequential preferences and behaviors that people have which don't have any need for a "cause". If most people like pepperoni on their pizza, does that make people who like anchovies need to have some cause which needs specific explanation by science? The fact that a smaller number of people have some inconsequential trait doesn't mean that it has a cause or is not normal. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are part of the normal human sexual continuum, and neither one requires special consideration as abnormal. If the question had been phrased, "WHat are the connections between human sexuality and social and biological factors" then that's an answerable question, as it lacks the subtext which implies that homosexuality is deviant or outside of the normal range of behaviors. --Jayron32 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You inferred that subtext. Doesn't mean it was really there.

The comparison with pizza trivializes the issue. There may be some adaptive pressures that influence choice of pizza topping, but they're not a big issue. For sexual orientation they're obvious and overwhelming; it's silly to ignore them. Homosexuality greatly reduces the chance of reproducing, and thereby of passing on any genes that contribute to it. So it's reasonable to ask how that happens. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course sexual orientation is as trivial as pizza prefference. The only reason it isn't is that people aren't being killed and marginalized and tortured and treated like shit over their pizza preference, but that is about societies response to a trivial issue, not about the normalness of it. If homosexuality were not part of the normal gamut of sexual response, then it would not appear in other species, which it clearly does. Indeed, same-sex sexual relations are more prevalent, if anything, in other close relatives to humans, which would imply that something about human society's treatment of this trivial difference is the major problem. A much more interesting question is why homosexuals are treated like shit, when the difference is purely trivial. --Jayron32 21:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here you're letting political considerations cloud your scientific objectivity. You can oppose treating people badly because of their sexual orientation, and still acknowledge that there is in fact something to be explained. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Human sexual behavior is something to be explained. The difference is in how we approach the question, and to do so in a way that does not reinforce hatred and bigotry. There are lots of really important things to ask about sexual behavior in humans, but if we assume that same-sex behaviors are outside of the norm, it doesn't lead to productive scientific inquiry. Instead, it leads to the sort of inquiry that reinforces our preconceived notions about normalality and abnormality. Instead, we need to approach the question from the view that same-sex sexual behavior is not distinct or outside of the biological norm. It may be out of the societal norm, but that is a symptom of the systemic bigotry in the system, and not because of any biological defect in people. --Jayron32 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Heterosexuality has a clear and obvious explanation at a very executive-summary level. Homosexuality does not. This disparity can be acknowledged and addressed without having to call anything a "defect". --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? Let's see that explanation then, and evidence that it is correct. Have a go at it... --Jayron32 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I never implied that I have the explanation. I said only that there is in fact something to be explained. --Trovatore (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, you mean of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is explained by the fact that heterosexuals pass on their genes, and therefore genes that predispose to heterosexuality are adaptive. Evidence should not be hard to find. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So far, every existing human has been a result of heterosexual reproduction. So there's obvious more to it than just genetics. There's upbringing and there's circumstances and random events that also figure into it. And, oddly enough, choice figures into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying that heterosexuality makes reproduction more likely is nowhere near enough to 'explain' it. It is easy to think of advantageous adaptations to our bodies that have not occurred (see argument from poor design for examples of this - perhaps the silliest is the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which is about 15 feet longer than it needs to be). It is also not clear that heterosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous. We have very little understanding of how our brain (and other organs) picks suitable sexual partners, but there is presumably a cost associated with this. If this were higher than the cost of sometimes mating with people (or other animals or objects...) we can't reproduce with, then there would be no reason for us to be reliably attracted to members of the opposite sex of our own species. In gregarious species, sex also facilitates bonding, and kin selection means that an individual can help to pass on their genes without reproducing themselves. So I don't really see why homosexuality needs explaining any more than heterosexuality does - presumably, once we understand one, we will understand the other. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If there were no heterosexual behavior, there would be no human species. This is not enough to explain it in detail, but it's plenty for an executive summary. There is no such quick explanation for homosexual behavior. Yes, there are lots and lots of other things that come into the picture, but it's ludicrous to ignore this one big point, the first and most obvious one. People who weasel around it are letting their politics influence their scientific descriptions. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's only insofar as you define heterosexuality and homosexuality as somehow mutually exclusive, or more to the point that the only purpose of sexual acts is to pass on genes, AND that the only purpose of pair-bonding is to pass on genes. That's a rather narrow view of both orgasms and relationships. I have been in a committed relationship with my partner (who is of a different sex) for 17 years at this point, and we only have 2 children, far less than the number of orgasms I have had. Indeed, if we measure the purpose of the orgasm is to have an offspring, the ratio of my lifetime number of children to my number of orgasms is assymptotically approaching zero as to be insignificantly close to it. Seems like a wasteful thing if the sole "purpose" is to have children. There are any number of biological purposes for sex, and humans are not alone in having social and emotional purposes for sex. If I, as an exclusively heterosexual male, has purposes for sex that extend beyond having offspring, why should those purposes be denied to people who seek those ends from other sexual partnerings? Or more to the point: if I have sex with my wife as a way to strengthen our relationship, to enhance our closeness, and for fun, why should these purposes be somehow invalid or less important or less significant among sexual events that occur between members of the same sex? --Jayron32 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all; I haven't said anything about heterosexuality and homosexuality being mutually exclusive, or about the only purpose of anything, whether pair-bonding or orgasms. I've made a very simple point: There's a very clear explanation for the existence of (not necessarily exclusive) heterosexuality, and not so much for homosexuality. (If you look at the exclusive versions, it's a cost argument rather than a benefit one; exclusive homosexuality has an obvious and high cost to reproductive success, whereas exclusive heterosexuality has no obvious reproductive cost, though there could be less obvious ones.)

Therefore homosexuality needs explanation at a level that heterosexuality does not. That's the whole thing; I haven't said anything of the other stuff that you seem to want to read into the argument. In particular I have not said that homosexuality is "a defect" or "outside the norm", and you don't need to believe that to ask the original question. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't, why does the fact that someone seeks or accepts having sex with a member of the same sex require additional explanation than someone who seeks or accepts having sex from a member of the opposite sex? Most people, regardless of gender or orientation, by a vast majority, don't base their sexual activity around passing genes. Most sexual events have little to nothing to do with having children, regardless of sexual orientation. So why is there a need for extra explanation in a specific subset of those pairings? Indeed, if we measure by the actual statistical numbers, it is highly unusual in humans to have a child from a sexual act. Most sexual acts don't produce children, indeed most sexual acts are undertaken actively trying to avoid having children. So, if the normal state of affairs is sex seperated from having children, why is there a need to explain those childless sex acts among members of the same sex as somehow distinct from childless sex acts between members of the opposite sex. In short: if most sex is intentionally done without trying to have children, why are only some of those acts "normal" while others need additional causes? --Jayron32 03:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about what's normal. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The question was "what are the causes of homosexuality". You objected to the question on political grounds, but it's not a political question; it's a perfectly reasonable question, because homosexuality appears on its face to be a less successful reproductive strategy. (This has nothing to do with what the people concerned intend; I'm talking about strategies for genes, not for individuals.) --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, we're clearly talking past each other, so lets try to simplify this: When I want to have sex with my wife, why does it require additional explanation if I would have wanted to have sex with a husband instead? You have not really answered that, except to say some indistinct "to pass on genes" connection; without even establishing that people have sex to do that. If that were the purpose of human sexual behavior than human sexual behavior would reflect that purpose, would it not? You can't just state, without any evidence, that the purpose of sex is a strategy to pass on genes, when very little sex involves passing on genes. That's my whole point: there's no need to explain same-sex sexual behavior because, in almost every way, it works exactly the same as opposite-sex sexual behavior. There's lots of complex things going on here, and it isn't a simple matter of "passing on genes". If you want to understand why same-sex sexual behavior occurs, it would be best to study all non-procreative sexual behavior, without consequence of the genders of the participants, as that would be a LOT more informative about the purposes of sex in humans, especially since so little sex passes on genes. --Jayron32 03:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

From the point of view of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology, we normally expect to find people doing things that lead in some way to reproductive success. It doesn't matter why they think they're doing it. So with homosexuality, there is something to be explained. Does it lead to increased reproductive success for your close relatives, for example? That's probably the most popular explanation; whether it's correct or not I have no real opinion, not being an expert. But in any case there's something to be explained. --Trovatore (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In some species rather closely related to humans (including gorillas and orangutans), a high percentage of all sex results in pregnancies... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet, in Bonobos, very little sexual acts result in pregnancy. Indeed, since (per my point above) very little human sex results in pregnancy, trying to explain sexual behavior in humans by its relationship to the ability to have children doesn't seem to get one far. Sex in people very rarely results in a child; indeed if there is any explanation for the existance of same-sex sexual relations in humans is that there is very little connection between sex and procreation in humans. If most sex doesn't result in a pregnancy anyways, what does it matter who it is with? --Jayron32 04:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Much of what you say has some degree of validity, but it does nothing to change the fact that you seem to be taking refuge with the "reality is a relative social construct" pure subjectivist types when science points toward a conclusion which you find personally uncomfortable. AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what conclusion was science pointing to again? Because reality is not a social construct, as you seem to want it to be. Reality is real, and exist outside of what you personally want. --Jayron32 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- Humans have a range of interests outside of reproduction, but reproduction is still central to evolution (in fact, one capsule definition of evolution is "differential success in reproduction), and so will often be part of the explanation of things affected by evolution, especially in the area of sexuality. So in this case I'm attached to factual, objective (or at least falsifiable) reality, while you're off in some post-modernist deconstructionist never-never land of socially-constructed pure subjectivities -- and no glib shallow word games on your part will change this... AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have merely asked, repeatedly, people to present evidence that same-sex sexual behavior has a different cause than opposite sex sexual behavior. I am fully grounded in the real reality. Reality is absolutely not subjective, no matter how many times you try to dismiss my arguments it doesn't actually answer the fundemental question, and the fundemental reality is that human sexual behavior has real biological antecedants. If you are uncomfortable with that simple fact, I am not sure what I can do to convince you of it otherwise. It doesn't make any sense to discount that point; that biology has a real effect on sexuality, by dismissing my arguments with big-sounding philosophical words that actually don't apply. It would be nice if you confronted the real issue: the reality of it, instead of trying to dismiss someone you don't agree with by simply inventing reasons to not like their questions, by claiming they hold some philosophical stance they do not. If that is too complex for you, let me make it simple: You are absolutely, 100% wrong when you claim that I am in "post-modernist deconstructionist never-never land of socially-constructed pure subjectivities". You're just making shit up to make yourself sound important. Stop it. --Jayron32 18:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you've had it amply explained to you above, and you choose to resort to rhetoric functionally equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la, I can't hear you!" to avoid dealing with with what might threaten your personal opinions. I really was not too impressed by your puerile "I know you are, what am I! I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" nonsense in your message of "19:00, 1 June 2012", but it's not inconsistent with some of your other antics... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, what the fuck are you talking about, really? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What I am talking about is that homosexuality is not, of itself, a distinct state of being that necessarily has a cause. Human sexual behavior is a continuum of behaviors, and there is not anything distinct or special about same-sex sexual behavior per se that has a unique and distinct "cause". How we treat the issue, and the language we use when asking questions like this, matters, because the way we think about the issue colors how we treat people. When homosexuality is treated as the sort of thing that needs special explanation, as something which is not a trivial matter, that leads to the path of treating homosexuals poorly. That doesn't mean that human sexual behaviors and preferences don't have antecedants, but it is still important not to make normative judgements on which behaviors are treated as different. --Jayron32 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for not looking at homosexuality is that the article is massively long, and the table of content doesn't seem to have any headers leading to the sought explanation. It seems to focus on society's view of and reaction to homosexuality in a historic perspective instead. I would recommend starting by looking at Sexual orientation#Biology and the following sections and linked main articles. V85 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The table of contents does have such a header - "Etiology". Unfortunately, I hadn't heard of that word before 5 minutes ago (it means the study of causes, apparently), and I expect the OP had the same problem. I'm going to change that header to "Cause". Any assistance defending myself against the inevitable accusations that I'm making some sort of moral judgement by using a word that people have actually heard of would be greatly appreciated! --Tango (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Haven't ever heard of Etiological myths? -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if that obscure term "etiology" was chosen precisely because it's obscure. "Cause" looks to be a "loaded" term. "Etiology", even if it's a fancy-schmancy way of saying "cause", doesn't carry the same political impact, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone had any doubts regarding what I said earlier about attempts to answer the question getting drowned out, I hope they are now resolved! --Tango (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 14#what makes someone gay? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in this question too. If anyone has any insight that's not in the homosexuality article, please speak up!

To answer Jayron's question of why heterosexuality doesn't need a cause, I think it does; I just believe I know it already. To answer his question of why preferring pepperoni over anchovies doesn't need a cause, I think it does. I'm just not interested in it, but a pizza maker might be. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I posted in a previous discussion, this study may indicate a connection between suffering sexual abuse in childhood and homosexuality: 46% of male homosexuals experienced homosexual molestation as a child, as opposed to 7% of heterosexual males, for females the numbers are 22% and 1% respectively. Of course, this would not be the only cause, but maybe sexual abuse is a relevant factor. - Lindert (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If the points made in this article and this skeptics.stackexchange thread are correct, it looks like there are some pretty serious problems with that Tomeo dissertation (just one example - the gay participants were recruited at a gay pride event, and the straight ones were college students). The first guy claims that other studies have shown that molestation in childhood is linked to sexual behaviour, but not to sexual orientation. Unfortunately, I suppose just about everybody who comments on this issue is going to be heavily biased - if you search for 'homosexuality molestation', most of the results seem to be from anti-gay hate groups and LGBT rights groups. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The abstract of that study (which is all you can see without a subscription) says "Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation". A possible explanation is that homosexual men and women are more comfortable and open when discussing their childhood sexual experiences with researchers. It would be interesting to know whether and how the study controlled for that factor. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously we're talking about reported abuse, as it is impossible to investigate non-reported abuse. - Lindert (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously my point is that from its abstract this study appears to use anecdotal reports by the interviewees themselves years after the events happened, rather than being based on, say, contemporaneous and corroborated reports to authorities. Statistics based on anecdotal reports are open to a variety of interpretations. But perhaps the study itself says something different about its methodology - have you actually read it ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Child victims of sexual abuse usually dare not speak out about it. The abuse that is actually investigated and corroborated is a tiny fraction of the actual occurrence. Therefore, to have statistical significant results, a very large sample of the population would need to be investigated. Such studies are on a practical level not feasible with the amount of funding available. Furthermore, children that do immediately speak out about abuse are probably not a representative sample of all abused children. And besides, I see no motive for the participants to make up 'anecdotes' about being abused as a child. - Lindert (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lindert - you are going off on a tangent. Again. No one mentioned making things up. From the comments below, the boundaries that the study places on "molestation" and "child" are very broad, and seem to include sexual experimentation between a teenager and a slightly older partner. But I agree with you that this study's sample is so small and its methodology is so flawed that it is obviously a very weak foundation on which to base any conclusions whatsoever. So really not sure why you keep mentioning it. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the study has flaws (as any study has), I just wanted to point out that "statistics based on anecdotal reports" is standard practice in all sociological research. If this was the only study that found this correlation, one might be justified to dismiss it, but many studies, before and since, have found the same correlation. Consider e.g. this study with a much larger sample (N = 12992) that notes "Rape before age 16 and sexual assault before age 16 were more strongly associated with belonging to any of the non-exclusively heterosexual groups". Another confirms that "prior research has established that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people experience higher rates of childhood abuse than heterosexuals."; this one states "Gay and bisexual (...) have high rates of childhood sexual abuse". Of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it is a possibility that should be considered. - Lindert (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, your usual random list of misunderstood and misrepresented studies. In two of those you seem to have only read the first sentence of the abstract, which mentions unspecific prior research. How do we know that "Gay and bisexual (...) have high rates of childhood sexual abuse" ? We are not told. Perhaps the author just assumes this is true. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"misunderstood and misrepresented studies" Don't just throw out stuff without any substantiation.

"We are not told. Perhaps the author just assumes this is true." Actually, the author cites three prior studies for this assertion (Jinich & Slap, 1998; Laumann, Gagnon, Michaels & Michael, 1993; Paul, Catania, Pollack & Stall, 2001). The other study referring to 'prior research' cites the following: "Austin et al., 2008; Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005; Corliss, Cochran, & Mays, 2002; Tjaden, Thoeness, & Allison, 1999". The reason for giving these two quotes is simply to demonstrate that this correlation is widely accepted in academic circles, not to analyze each and every relevant study. - Lindert (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole article, but the study does seem to be seriously flawed:

• they asked people about whether they regard themselves as heterosexual or gay/lesbian, not about who they are attracted to (lots of people experience same-sex attraction without identifying as gay/bi) and bisexuality was not given as an option
• they report the results in a contradictory way - for example, in one place they say 68% of gay males identified as gay before the molestation took place, in another place they say 68% didn't identify as gay until afterwards
• the definition of molestation is a little odd - by their definition, any sexual encounter between a 20-year-old and a 15-year-old would be molestation, but one between a 15-year-old and a 2-year-old could not be (and you might expect big age gaps are more common among gay teens than straight teens as they have fewer potential sexual partners)
• the way they recruited participants seems a bit worrying - some questionnaires were distributed to students, others at a booth at gay pride events - if the booth advertised the purpose of the study, then I imagine those who had been molested would be more likely to respond
• they claim "On the basis of the previous literature, it would appear that gay men and lesbian women have a greater history of molestation than do heterosexual persons". The only evidence they reproduce from previous literature that seems to suggest this is one survey of 458 women, in which "Of the 30 women who had been raped before the age of 14, 26 had an adult homosexual orientation while 9 had an adult heterosexual orientation" (apparently several of these women were both gay and straight). The other studies are either looking at incest, or don't make a comparison between gay and straight people - this seems extremely dishonest

So I think this survey can be safely discounted. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Earliest recorded drunk

Who was the earliest recorded alcoholic? LANTZY^TALK 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone being drunk does not mean the same thing as someone being alcoholic. Which are you asking about? --Dweller (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "drunk" as an adjective (as you used it) and "drunk" as a noun (as Lantzy used it). As a noun, it is roughly synonymous with "alcoholic". I doubt you'll find a useful answer to the question, though. There will inevitably have been alcoholics ever since humans started making alcohol, which goes back to before recorded history. The first specific individual that someone happened to write something down about that happens to have survived to the present day is just a matter of coincidences. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are parts of the Bible discussing drunkenness, which indicates a phenomenon well-established by Biblical times. And W.C. Fields once said, "In the Middle Ages, drunkenness was so common it went unnoticed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There might conceivably have been alcoholics even before humans started making alcohol, if the Drunken monkey hypothesis is correct. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Noah, of course. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In my version of English, as a noun, "drunk" is NOT roughly synonymous with "alcoholic". I still think the question needs clarification. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In that context, "drunk" is usually short for "drunkard", which describes a situation pretty close to being "alcoholic", although it might not be total overlap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think one can reasonably assume that the more specific wording in the question is indeed the clarification. In American English, "a drunk" can be considered a synonym for "an alcoholic." Given that the OP has already clarified it (and is an American), I think we can make some reasonable assumptions about what they are asking. (And chiding the OP for not necessarily knowing that this particular instance of American English is not the same as British/Australian English seems rather unnecessary to me.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of it might be that the term "drunkard" has been around forever, while the term "alcoholic" has probably only recently gained broad usage. The distinction might be that "drunkard" at least partly describes behavior, whereas "alcoholic" describes a medical condition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

EO's research on the subject may be of interest.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if he supposedly got drunk, but wasn't Enkidu "civilized" by being given beer? Pfly (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a nicely referenced article at History of Alcohol and Drinking. It mentions evidence of :

• "intentionally fermented beverages" as early as 10,000 B.C. (it might be difficult to find earlier evidence)
• concern about "excessive drinking" in the historical record of Ancient Egypt ("While Egyptians did not generally appear to define inebriety as a problem, they warned against taverns (which were often houses of prostitution) and excessive drinking.")
• criticism of drunkenness in the historical record of Ancient Babylon (c. 1,750 BC)
• an imperial edict prescribing moderation in alcohol use in Ancient China, 1,116 BC
• criticism of drunkness in the writings of Xenophon and Plato (4th century BC), who described it as a problem
• and the first individual mentioned in the piece: Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), said to have "developed a reputation for inebriety"

184.147.121.151 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

CDN © : company does freelance

If one newspaper takes a photo on behalf of another newspaper, with different owners, does the publishing newspaper own the copyright, or the creating newspaper? This image is from 1946-1952 1951 range, Canada. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What image? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the exact contractual agreements between the newspapers. Why would one newspaper take a photo on behalf of another, anyway? I can imagine them taking a photo for themselves and then licensing it to another newspaper to use as well (in which case, the first newspaper would normally keep the copyright). Can you give us some more details? --Tango (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Typically the originating newspaper retains the copyright, and the receiving newspaper gives credit in print to the source. (That is the way it was done with every newspaper I worked at.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Tango: Small newspapers often contract with others to cover distant stories when they cannot afford to travel to them. For example, a few years ago, my newspaper in Pennsylvania contracted with a publication in Newfoundland when a local person was on trial up there.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Did the local publication research the story only for your paper, rather than covering it themselves and sharing their stories with you? --Tango (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(ECs) Well, photographs strictly are taken by photographers, not newspapers. Speaking very generally (and copyright is a complex subject, where applicable laws differ from place to place and over time) the person who takes a photograph is usually the copyright holder – but they can assign (usually for money) their copyright to another individual or an organisation, who can in turn do the same. However, if an individual is specifically employed by another or by an organisation such as a newspaper, ad agency, photo agency or picture library to take photographs, their contract of employment may specify that the copyright will belong to the employer from the outset. It depends entirely, therefore, on what specific legal contracts or sales were made with regard to the photograph in question. Usually, though not always, a photograph published in a print medium (book, magazine, newspaper) will have its copyright holder indicated, sometimes in tiny print alongside one edge, sometimes in an index elsewhere in the publication. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! The photo was created by a Brampton paper for The Globe and Mail, so that the Globe wouldn't have to send a photographer out to the relatively small town for two negatives. The photo is in the collection of the Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, to whom the Brampton newspaper's owners from that era gave reproduction rights to on donation. The envelope says the date of the photograph, the date of the image appearing in the Globe (yet I can't find it online), but no mention of it appearing in the Brampton paper itself. It might have, I haven't checked the microfilm yet, but it might have only appeared in the Globe. The event definitely would be covered in the Brampton paper, but not necessarily with that photo.

The Brampton paper used staff photographers, not freelancers, so they own the rights to all the rest of the photos. It's unlikely that the Globe would have any licensing documents to a 1951 photo, and the Brampton newspaper didn't keep any of them. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"the normal human sexual continuum"

Why do so many people nowadays assume that there's a "normal" human sexual continuum that includes heterosexuality, the supposed different degrees of bisexuality and homosexuality, thereby arbitrarily labeling as abnormal the endless other paraphilias such as zoophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, efebophilia...? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying the 'supposed' different degrees of bisexuality and homosexuality (don't you think they exist?) and 'other paraphilias' (I don't think heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality are usually described as paraphilias)? As paraphilia points out, some kinds of sexuality are considered to be harmful or to cause distress, but I guess what you are alluding to is social norms - all societies have behaviours that are considered 'normal' and others that are viewed with suspicion. I'm not sure there is really a good explanation as to why this is. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Broadside raised the issue of what "causes" sexual orientation, it would be interesting to know what the "cause" might be of these various "paraphilia" as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

16 categories diagram

Because it lends itself to nifty diagrams? AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It says it's a Venn diagram, but it really suggests a tulip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

To flip it back at Broadside Perceptor, what is the insistance on denormalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults? If someone, who is capable of giving consent, consents to touch my genitals, why does it matter who they are? The "normal human sexual continuum" is the continuum of sexual behavior between consenting adults. Behaviors which do not involve consent with the partner, usually because the partner lacks the mental capacity for informed consent (children, animals), and for the reason that one of the participants cannot give informed consent, it is considered outside of acceptable limits. That's generally the dividing line: It is normal and allowable for adults to have sex with other adults, while it is generally not normal, and deviant, for adults to take advantage of power relationships with those who cannot fully understand the implications of the sexual relationship. --Jayron32 03:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Jayron32 here. Paraphilia seems to make clear that calling things Paraphilia is controversial because its pejorative and some have argued for its complete elimination. Even without that, again per the article, the DSM-5 draft says "paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders", and defines a paraphilic disorder as "a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others". In other words, it seems clear this is a move away from treating sexual behaviour as problematic just because some consider it 'abnormal' or 'wrong' (although our article notes that despite the attempts by DSM-5 to avoid that, some fear it will be the result). So I guess the answer is that whoever BP is referring to is behind the times (and it doesn't sound like this applies to Jayron32), perhaps because of social and/or religious conditioning. In terms of comparisons to homosexuality, our article notes 'A 2012 literature study comparing homosexuality with paraphilias confirmed that homosexuality was sufficiently dissimilar from the paraphilias as to be considered an unrelated construct".' Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's funny they would think "paraphilia" is pejorative, given that it's a euphemism for non-PC terms like "perversion", "fetishism", and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the OP seems to suggest that being "abnormal" and being part of a spectrum are mutually exclusive. They're most definitely not. It is an observable fact that homosexuality, just like necrophilia, zoophilia, and coprophilia, spans a spectrum.

Second, the OP answered his own question when he said "arbitrarily labeling as abnormal the endless other paraphilias..." All such labellings are arbitrary, a result of the human instinct to discriminate against, and oppress, people different from themselves. As the world becomes more interconnected, previously alienated groups get a better chance to express themselves and band together to demand equal rights, thus explaining the societal shift towards greater sexual liberty.

Jayron attempted to justify some of the distinctions between "normal" and "deviant" behavior, but his reasons are arbitrary. Why, for example, does sex have to be between two consenting adults? If I have sex with a dead body, it is true that the dead body has not consented, but I fail to see why the consent of a non-living entity is morally relevant. It might make sense to consider zoophilia immoral because the animal has not consented, but lack of consent does not imply the animal will not enjoy the sex. The argument is also invalid for anyone who eats meat, hunts, keeps a pet, or interferes with an animal's life in any way. Sex with children might be considered wrong because the children didn't have the mental capacity to consent, but parents are generally allowed to make a child go to school, do his homework, do chores, and stay in his room, all against his will. It might be wrong because the children will be emotionally scarred, but that scarring only occurs due to society's arbitrary judgement of incest as immoral. In a Brave New World type society, incest would have no negative consequences.

If the OP is really asking why people consider a certain sexual act wrong in the first place if it has no obvious negative consequences, that probably has no meaningful answer. Why do you like apples? Why do I hate oranges? Why is the fella behind the tree disgusted by pasta? Do you want an answer based on evolution, sociology, history, religion, or culture? The average person's preferences probably has to do with all of those factors. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a continuum of normal behaviour which runs to the edge of what's considered rude/out-of-place/offensive. There's a continuum of polite to colloquial language which excludes obscenities. Human behaviour is organised by what's acceptable and what's not, and obviously there's a range of behaviours that are acceptable and a range that are unacceptable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP's question is a not-so-subtle response to Jayron's response a few posts above this one. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He's made that unambiguously clear by the use of inverted commas in the header. (Or, should that be "homosexual commas"?) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The OP's questions have tended to be interesting but provocative ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OOOh I like that turn of phrase Bugs... if I was a literary agent I'd use that for all my clients. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting that he/she is trolling, are you? 86.181.203.150 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No. And don't call me Surely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)