Miscellaneous desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

November 28

Christian Existentialist Churches in Sydney

Are there any churches or congregations in Sydney that believe in, agree with, or teach Christian existentialism and the beliefs and ideas of Soren Kierkegaard on it? If so, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Christian existentialism#Notable thinkers and Soren Kierkegaard#Influence and reception make me wonder if there's any church anywhere based on these ideas/beliefs in which case the answer is obviously no Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write to the person running [1]? If anyone knows they will. Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why do they make you think that there aren't any? I don't see why.

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles suggest to me that it isn't a concept that particularly lends itself to organised religion (although some may say that about some of the Religious Society of Friends I guess) nor does it seem a church is necessarily important to those who do 'believe' in the concept. Also while it seems to have been of interest to a number of theologians the primary interest appears to have been in the academic/theology side (for example the Søren Kierkegaard Research Center) & our articles don't mention anything about any churches based on it, yet is seems likely there would have had some influence on the concept. In addition, you need a concentration of 'believers' for a church yet interest appears to have been wide without any real concentration in any area (and since the greatest interest may be from theologians I'm not sure if they would even be interested in forming a church.) There may be some churches which share some common ideas and who knows there could be some church out there somewhere that is based on Christian Existentialism but personally I think you'd be lucky to find one specifically in Sydney. In any case, as Dmcq has suggested, the people more likely to know would be people with a keen interest in the concept so you should try asking them Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my point above, beyond contacting people interested in Christian Existentialism, you may also want to try contacting the Emerging Church movement. For example I found this Emerging Church.info issue dedicated to down under which is rather old (2004) but may still provide some useful info. There's also this blog post which mentions Small Boat Big Sea in Manly. Someone in the comments mentioned "Anything Goes" in Western Sydney which I couldn't find anything about but the post came from Matt Stone who has a blog here where you can get in contact with him (he appears to be a Baptist Minister). I also found he linked to this Google Map which has a tag for theHarbour in Ryde. I also stumbled across the Christian Outreach Centre which mentions an Emerging Church Planters workshop ('school') that's going to be held in Sydney next year which may not be of direct interest to you unless you're planning to start a church yourself but may be a way to get in touch with people who have founded/planted a church that would interest you. Finally I found Cafechurch in Melbourne, which I appreciate is quite far away from Sydney, but perhaps people from there can offer some help. I still somewhat doubt you'd find any church specifically dedicated to Christian Existentialism, but many Emerging Churches are likely to welcome people with such philosphies and you'd like find people who you can discuss your beliefs/philosphies with (for example, the Cafechurch in Melbourne mentions they discussed Existentialism including Kierkegaard last semester) and perhaps even find like minded people. These are likely to be quite different from traditional churches, and are most likely going to be small groups of people getting together but I presume you appreciate that's all you're likely to find IMHO from what I said above. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

escort

I'm thinking of seeking companionship with an escort, and by companionship I mean sex.

I'm slightly overweight, with long messy hair, but I wash and don't do drugs.

Will an escort refuse to see me based on this, or are they willing to be with weird looking overweight people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.203.183.79 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak from experience (I have experience of being slightly overweight with long messy hair, but that's it!), but I don't think prostitutes care what their clients look like. As long as you have the cash and aren't abusive (physically or verbally) and you should be fine. If you want to be sure, just ask when you call the escort agency. --Tango (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Tango has no experience of washing!? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is their job. Doctors, massage therapists, and professional fighters don't refuse because their patient/client/opponent is ugly - they'd soon be out of a job. And to be honest, it sounds to me like you're just describing their typical clientele...^{[citation needed]} Vimescarrot (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. I can imagine the overweight bit since in many Western countries (although the OP's IP looks up to HK) quite a significant percentage of the population maybe even a majority is technically overweight. I'm not sure about hair length though. In many countries men with long hair are still a small minority and while it may be cliche to think of them as being more likely to visit prostitutes even if that were true it would have to be a large difference I expect. Of course, these sort of things are likely to be difficult to source. An interesting thing is the age and maritial status of clients. According to (married and 31-50 years are the most common, as seperate categories, also some other details that may be of interest although nothing about hair or weight, Estonian, based on interviews with prostitutes), (says middle age is the most common, Swedish interviews with people on sexual matters) (says single and 25-34 is the most common, UK, way data was obtained isn't mentioned) Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read an account by a prostitute on the SomethingAwful forums who was with a client similar to your description. She said she felt she was doing a public service by having sex with him. Vranak (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet legend Fred Cherry [2] comes to mind. Cherry considered himself sufficiently "handicapped" that he could never get a sex partner in the normal course of affairs, so could satisfy himself only through professional help. He made quite a legal deal of this, enlisting the help of such notables as Margo St. James. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure and go to a clinic for STD testing at some point after this proposed encounter. Call the clinic and ask them what the incubation period would be so you'll know exactly when to get the tests for syphilis, gonorrhea, clamidia, herpes, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or save yourself further anxiety and wear a condom. I'd be surprised if any escort working from an agency would allow otherwise on the first encounter. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "or" I hope you mean "and". Wearing a condom is not a guarantee that you won't catch an STD. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not allowed to give medical advice, especially when that advice is "don't worry, be happy." Furthermore, if the writer is from the U.S., this "escort service" is probably engaging in illegal activity. It would be best to excise this section from the ref. desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP didn't ask for medical advice, and the only person in this thread even coming close to giving medial advice is you, so excise your own posts from the ref. desk. SKYFUDREAMCLOUDS - TALK // CONTRIBUTIONS 10:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs in effect said "Ask a doctor". That "advice to seek qualified advice" is the one medical advice that we do allow, as shown at the top of this page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No experience in the matter but, as a gesture of respect, do make yourself as presentable as possible. You're also buying her company. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 12:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that only females and never males may be respectable prostitutes is a grossly sexist canard. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who implied that? --Tango (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EA Swyer, who referred to the hypothetical prostitute as female when there's no reason to believe that's what the OP's after. Algebraist 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I suppose the respondents did by assuming the questioner was a male, which was never mentioned. So far as that goes, I'd have to say it was the safest assumption I've ever seen anyone take on the RD. Everyone knows women take lots of drugs and don't wash. Matt Deres (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big different between assuming the OP is male and assuming that only females may be respectable prostitutes (I'm not really sure what "respectable" is supposed to mean in this context - whether or not you respect a particular person is subjective, particularly in the case of prostitutes). The first certainly does not imply the second. --Tango (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, assuming that the questioner is male does not require that the escort be female. Algebraist 17:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)c[reply]

There seem to be several issues here. Several respondents including me did assume the OP was male. While I usually go to lengths to avoid such assumptions in this case given that a large percentage of people who visit prostitutes are male (I'm pretty sure one or more of the sources I provided said that) and the comment about long messy hair I felt it was a fair assumption (and my commentonly worked if I made that assumption so...). As has been stated, assuming the OP is male says nothing about the intended prostitute. EA Swyer perhaps assumed the prostitute would be female, but made no assumptions about the OPs sex nor in any way suggested that only females make respectable prostitutes. Again while this is an assumption, as the majority of prostitutes are female it's not an unresonable assumption. As the OP may be from HK, it wouldn't surprise me if the ratios or female to male prostitutes is even greater then say the US or here in NZ (whatever they are). The OP also did not specify any further details which they may have if they felt their case was unusual to further clarify the situation. Indeed it seems to me assuming the prostitute is likely to be female is a safer assumption then assuming a poster is male which many respondents regularly do usually without being challenged. Besides that, you could argue that EA Swyer did not in fact assume the prostitute is female. While some people like me, use a variety of means to ensure gender neutral language, some people don't and prefer to use gender specific pronouns when they regard them as the vernacular (there's even a userbox about it). Nothing in EA Swyer's wouldn't apply if you substitute her for him, therefore this could simply be regarded as one of those cases where the person chose what they regarded as the best gender specific pronoun for the case at hand, fully intending it to apply whatever the sex of the person involved and without intending to imply anything about male or female prostitutes. (The first part of the argument doesn't apply to a number of the answers like mine.) Ironically enough, I seem to recall Cuddylable3 saying something once suggesting they didn't like too much 'political correctness' in language. And interesting enough, EA Swyer's page say he's? gay so I see even less reason to presume there was any intention to imply only females make respectable prostitutes. Nil Einne (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

While people may have assumed the OP is male, I don't think that assumption in any way affected the answers. They all apply just as well to all 4 possible gender combinations. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well 'In many countries men with long hair are still a small minority' doesn't really apply to females, although it wasn't really an answer to the question. Make sure a condom is used does apply to any combination involving a male but it may or may not apply to combinations involving only females, although you should still use protection whenever possible (for example, if no sex toys are used but oral sex is performed, you probably want a dental dam in preference to a condom). Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in most places, particularly where prostitution is legal, a prostitute has a right of veto, and can refuse business should s/he want to. I suspect that this would not be on the basis of weight, but rather on the basis of previous experience with the customer or hygiene. If s/he has no right of veto, there are ethical issues involved. Steewi (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what you write about yourself, I wonder if you've got a bit of a self-esteem problem. I'm afraid having sex with a prostitute really isn't going to help that any. Seriously, paid sex is not all it's cracked up to be. I strongly suggest taking another road entirely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that conclusion your OR or sourced? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craps

Why is craps so-called? What does it have to do with crap? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source suggests it has nothing to do with excrement, but evolved via Louisiana French from the English term crabs, which was slang for a low-scoring throw in the game of Hazard. Ka renjc 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to SOED:

craps: [ORIGIN App. alt. of crabs: cf. crab noun 5.]
crab noun 5: In pl. The lowest throw in the game of hazard, two ones.

Mitch Ames (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]