Humanities desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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.

March 2

What are all the steps to follow to shrink back the hippie counterculture?

Is it too late to eliminate the hippie counterculture? What are all the steps to follow to shrink it back? I am trying to eliminate the growth of depictions of sex and nudity that has been occuring in films since 1963 and am also pushing for the creation of more organizations that emphasize the benefits of traditional family values. DarthPalpatineSidious (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing else you can do, because not all people share the same beliefs. Escapism lover (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex in film and nudity in film go back way before 1963 and bear very little relation to hippie counterculture.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex in film and nudity in film were extremely uncommon before the 1960s, but with many people (including the hippie counterculture) becoming perverted in the 1960s, this changed. Me the blue lover (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, free love (sex) and "freedom of expression" were two of the tenets of the hippie movement, so they certainly would not have supported censoring sexual images from the media. What the OP wants sounds more like reinstatement of the production code. For a generation (or 3) that publicly embraced such values, see Victorian morality. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP is referring to when sexual intercourse began. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Note that the OP has been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the driving schools in and near Manhattan train n00bs?

Empty parking lots would be very hard to find. When I learned pedicab driving I drove the thing on an empty industrial sidewalk in the West Side of Manhattan before training in the street but they couldn't do that with a car. Do they all have simulators? Then where'd they train people who'd never touched a gas pedal in their life in the era before simulators were invented? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On streets. Manhattan has streets, you know. See Category:Streets in Manhattan for more about this. --Jayron 32 23:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be irresponsible to take somebody onto the streets until they've had some practice in a safe environment. Empty parking lots may be hard to find during business hours, but how about outside business hours, such as in the evening or weekends at a 9-to-5, M-F business ? StuRat (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even those who are bad at finesse and angles for a 16 year old? Is their collision insurance through the roof? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York City has the highest car insurance rates in the state of New York, by a factor of 2x teh state average. --Jayron 32 01:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For info, in the UK driving schools usually let the new driver onto public streets during their first lesson. The cars have dual controls. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The dual controls would allow it to be done (relatively) safely. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here`s a reference to driving on the street in the very first lesson: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/drivers-seat 184.147.120.176 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned to drive in the U.S. back in the 1990s, and we practiced on city streets in a car with dual controls. It was also painted bright yellow and had the words "Driver Trainee" emblazoned all over it. I actually haven't seen one of those cars on the streets in years, but I occasionally see a semi or larger truck that is clearly marked as a training vehicle. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What era hairstyle does Disney's Sleeping Beauty have?

It seems pretty 1940s to me but the movie was released 1959. Is that a late 50s hairstyle also? -- 23:55, 2 March 2017 Sagittarian Milky Way

We`ve got Hairstyles in the 1950s but not Hairstyles in the 1940s. The article we do have says there were a variety of popular styles and gives the impression that there was less uniformity than in previous decades. For external sources, look at [1] and [2]. Note that Disney began developing the look of the film in 1951, per our article. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rich ladies' 1930s hairstyle. Popular in the 1930s amongst those with the leisure to afford its treatment and with the opportunity to spend their days without it being in the way. In the 1940s, Veronica Lake famously cut hers short as an encouragement to those engaged in war factory work. So by the 1940s this is even more so an affectation of Hollywood, and the aspirational (and propaganda-wise inspiring) actresses of the inspiring pinups and nose art: the 'princesses' of the age.

By the 1950s it's an anachronism, but still aspirational. 'Novel' hairstyles of the 1950s (especially the leisured movie stars) are making use of new technology, such as volumising setting sprays, rather than the 'glued flat' permanent waves of the 1930s. But Disney has always been anachronistic, as a means to appear timeless. So 'princesses' are dressed and coiffured into a remembered past. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British legal texts with change of monarch

In UK law that refers directly to the Monarch (as opposed to referring to the Crown or to other institutions related to the sovereign's person), how does the text handle the possibility of one monarch being succeeded by a new monarch of the opposite sex? Does the text of the law automatically get switched from "Queen" to "King" by some Crown office (perhaps the British analogue of the US government's Government Publishing Office), or does Parliament just always enact laws using the appropriate term for the current monarch and such texts always get interpreted as a reference to the reigning monarch (regardless of sex), or is there another route? Imagine a 1950 law that added to a legal code a piece of text mentioning the King; would some office have updated the code to say "Queen" in 1952, or does it still say "King" and everyone treats it as if it says "Queen"? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, it doesn't get rewritten, but I can't give you a citation. What you can do is look through Legislation.gov.uk, where you can see Acts both as originally enacted and as they are in force today. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! I can give you a citation, the Interpretation Act 1978 online here, says "In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being." I rather think this was a statutory restatement of a principle in common law. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan seems to have hit the nail on the head, but I also thought of the Oath of Allegiance in which one swears to "...be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God". This covers any eventually. Alansplodge (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simiarly in Canada, the Interpretation Act specifies in subsection 35(1) that "In every enactment...Her Majesty, His Majesty, the Queen, the King or the Crown means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her or His other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth", and, of course, that "Sa Majesté, la Reine, le Roi ou la Couronne is defined as "Le souverain du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de Ses autres royaumes et territoires, et chef du Commonwealth." Incidentally, the inclusion of "Head of the Commonwealth" is potentially problematic given that seemingly reliable sources disagree as to whether or not that title will be inherited automatically by the present Queen's successors. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the case that criminal prosecutions are between Rex v XYZ (male sovereign), and Regina v XYZ ( female sovereign)?82.1.129.106 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the federal Acts Interpretations Act 1901 says: "In any Act references to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of such Act, or to the Crown, shall be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time being." Evidently Australians aren't as hung up about their Sovereign remaining British as the Canadians are. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or they didn't think it needed to be stated. If it was enacted in 1901, that was long before the concept that the sovereign in the different Commonwealth realms is the same person only because of a personal union. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]