Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 January 4

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.

January 4

Least painful age of womanhood

At what age is a human female's losing her virginity least painful? 83.137.1.204 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well... first we have to establish whether age has anything to do with the level of pain experienced (or not). Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If she never uses tampons, exercises strongly enough to affect the hymen or otherwise stretches it (i.e. beforehand to try to make it hurt less) then logically probably before feminine dryness sets in, after the guy's done it enough to do it very slowly without becoming too horny and speeding up and assuming similar ages possibly young womanhood when human tissue is most elastic (unless the average penis width to hymen opening width falls behind the adult ratio at some point which I don't really want to know but seems possible as boys have puberty later and girls are taller than boys temporarily. Of course she should wait till she's 100% ready) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but I was hoping for a number of years. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Geeze trying to figure this out. I don't even! "A colposcope initially equipped with an Olympus camera, but now with a video camera attached has been used since 1994. Since 1994 the department has performed more than 100 examinations of children...." -- PMID 10641926. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As SMW is trying to tell you, it's got more to do with your specific physical condition, along with your being willing and ready, than it has to do with any particular age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I note that all the respondents here are male. They know best about these things, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

At least, you think they are. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Woof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

200 years old should do it in the absence of major medical breakthroughs on aging and longevity. I guess you could extend it to 10000 to cover that. You got to figure that after that, the difference between 10k and 1 billion years old is probably very small. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this didn't get clued in, the idea that a woman's "first time" always hurts is a myth. The myth generally holds that a woman's hymen is supposed to be intact until being penetrated. This is wrong for several reasons, as the article should make clear. Here's a reputable source discussing the topic. Persistent pain with sex is abnormal, and if one experiences it, one should consult a medical professional. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

On rare occasions a bride will beg her husband not to do it. He acquiesces and tries again on another occasion with the same result. This generally leads to the frustrated husband filing for an annulment. 2A00:23C0:7C00:B401:6D6A:7B2D:525E:9079 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's more about your personal life than we needed to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fifty-state strategy equivalent in other nations

In U.S., they have this strategy called Fifty-state strategy where a political party like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are known to plan to win votes from all fifty states during the presidential election. Are there any equivalents to this strategy in other nations? Donmust90 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Link: Fifty-state strategy. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The USA Electoral College is atypical of democratic states - most of the others do not consider it democratic to allow the second placed candidate to win the presidency, even though someone else had more votes. In any country with a proportional representation system of elections, where the total number of votes for each party is significant in determining the number of seats won, all parties (except specifically regional ones) are likely to put up candidates everywhere. Even in a first pas the post system like the UK, the main parties all try to have candidates in every constituency. They may not expect to win, but the total vote share can be significant - for example in determining the right to put party political broadcasts on TV. Wymspen (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the others are not collections of sovereign states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wymspen -- The electoral college did make some sense in the context of the late 18th and early 19th century, when voting qualifications differed widely from state to state, and the nascent federal government didn't have the desire or the institutional capacity to get involved in managing elections inside the various states. The authors of the Constitution weren't too sure that most voters in any one state would even be able to have informed opinions about politicians from other states. Basically, they thought that elections like that of 1824 would be somewhat typical. It wasn't until the rise of "Jacksonian Democracy" in the late 1820s that it even started to become meaningful to talk about a national popular vote (though Rhode Island and South Carolina continued to diverge from the other states for quite some time after that...) AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Donmust90 -- those who pursue a "50-state strategy" in the U.S. do not realistically expect to get electoral college votes from all 50 states (nobody has come remotely close to that since 1984). Instead, they're basically encouraging turnout for down-ballot candidates in the states where they're unlikely to win the presidential electoral college... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's about ,more than just the Presidency. (Many of my fellow Americans seem to forget that there are elections for things other than the Presidency.) The broader idea is to contest every race instead of conceding races as "unwinnable" and not even bothering to nominate a candidate. Proponents of the strategy believe it may facilitate "upset victories", as the outcome of the recent Alabama U.S. Senate election has often been deemed in the press. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) While few other nations may have close equivalents to the U.S. Electoral College, very similar effects can happen when the Prime Minister is chosen by an unweighted parliamentary system which is composed strictly of members chosen by a straight plurality (or "first past the post") vote in each individual geographic district, constituency, riding or electorate (without "add-on" members reflecting a national party vote). The examples I can think of (perhaps inaccurately) are Canada and the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland which uses proportional representation to elect nearly all other officials). I don't know enough about the systems (based partly on a preferential vote) in Australia and New Zealand, but I think that similar effects could still occur there, too.

For example, the Labour and Co-operative Parties led in Parliament by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, won more national popular votes in the U.K. in 1951 than the Conservatives and Unionists led by former Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. However the Tories (Conservatives) elected more Members of Parliament (M.P.'s) and Sir Winston replaced Major Attlee as His Majesty's Prime Minister. [See United Kingdom general election, 1951.]

1950 results:

• for 625 members of the House of Commons
• total vote: 28,595,668
• Labour & allies: 48.8% of vote (13.949 million), 295 MP's
• Conservatives & associates: 48.0% (13.718), 321
• Liberals: 2.5% (0.731), 6
• Communists: 0.1% (0.021), 0
• others: 0.6% (0.177), 3

Roughly the reverse happened 23 years later in the General Election of February 1974. The Conservatives, now separate from the Ulster Unionist Party and led by Prime Minister Edward Heath, won slightly more U.K. votes than Labour, led by former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. However, Labour won more seats in Parliament (although not a majority) and Mr Wilson was asked by the Queen (following long-accepted constitutional convention) as leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to try and form a government, which he was able to do with support from the Liberals and other parties. Note that in February 1974, neither Labour nor the Conservatives approached even half of either Parliament or the country, as they had in 1951.

February 1974 results:

• 635 seats total (of which 12 from N. Ireland) *
• total vote: 29,189,178
• Lab: 37.1% (11.639), 301
• Cons: 37.9% (11.869), 297
• Lib: 19.3% (6.063), 14
• Scots & Welsh Nationalists: 2.6% (0.803), 9
• others in England, Wales & Scotland: 0.7% (0.212), 0
• others in Northern Ireland (Unionist, Nationalist & others): 2.3% (0.718), 12

'* [No Northern Ireland votes included in major party totals for this election.]

Source: Postwar Britain: a political history, by Alan Sked and Chris Cook, second edition, Penguin Books, 1984, pages 99 & 288, derived from British Political Facts, 1900-1975, by David Butler and A. Sloman.

(2) The fifty-state strategy, promoted in the Democratic Party while Howard Dean was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and subsequently -- although not necessarily under that name, by Michael Steele as chair of the Republican National Committee, contrasts sharply with the successful presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton in the 1990's, managed by James Carville and Paul Begala. They concentrated almost all of their efforts on the 16, 17 or 18 states where the difference betwee the Democratic and Republican percentages of the state vote was relatively small.

In the 30-odd states (plus the District of Columbia) where either party enjoyed a crushing lead (e.g. Democrats in my state of Rhode Island or Republicans in Wyoming), the Clinton campaign was nearly invisible. The Clinton strategists saw little point in spending great amounts of money or volunteer effort where it was almost impossible to affect the electoral vote. (This of course did not prevent them from raising money and recruiting volunteers in those very blue or very red states to use in the one-and-a-half-dozen "battleground" or "swing" states.)

Partly because of a perpetual shortage of funds and positive enthusiasm, the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 did not pursue anything like a fifty-state strategy. Not only did this leave them vulnerable to the more-alert and agile Donald Trump campaign's successful last-weekend assault —- credited to Kellyanne Conway, the campaign's polling expert — on the supposedly-safe-Democratic states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (which had not voted GOP since 1984 or 1988 and formed part of the so-called Blue Wall). The Clinton strategy may also be partly responsible for the loss of four or five seats, and thus a majority, in the U.S. Senate that the Democrats had hoped to seize from the Republicans in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which counties of the Sun Belt

Which counties of US are part of the Sun Belt? Donmust90 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Link: Sun Belt (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, it's not rigidly defined, as you'd expect with regards to a definition based mostly on climate. The linked article contains a map that gives you a good approximation. I thought the first reference on there might give you what you want as it supposedly backs up a specific population figure, but it simply points here and is therefore original research (and pretty piss-poor at that). Matt Deres (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

When did the name Bavaria arise?

Of course, I did have a look at History of Bavaria, but I coulnd't find any really pertinent information on when actually the Latin term Bavaria provably occurred as a geographical designation for the first time.--Siebi (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Siebi: I found an extremely unreliable source that says: "The tribe that gave the territory its name was the Baiovarii (Bavarians), which settled in the south between 488 and 520 ce.". This information is probably unreliable because I couldn't edit it. https://www.britannica.com/place/Bavaria (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Thanks for answering. To clarify that: I've been familiar with the fact that the name Bavaria is derived from the tribal name, but that is not my question, in fact, which I tried to make clear by the emphasizing term geographical above... I simply wanted to know when the name Bavaria as such is first documented.--Siebi (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. My point was that it was probably at some point in space and time after they settled there (although I admit that doesn't narrow it down by much). I'll try to find more. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Siebi (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Siebi: I found a website that says: "The Lex Baiuvariorum (Bavarian law) is the oldest surviving Latin document of any extent composed in Bavaria and the most important source for the early history of Bavaria." and it links to here. Its from around 820-830. It seems very likely that it does refer to the geographical place, and not the people, but I am not an expert. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking about the specific spelling "Bavaria"? (Instead of other forms that also mean what we call Bavaria, like Baiovarii or Baiuvariorum, etc.) If so, Pope Honorius III corresponded with the "dux Bavariae" several times in 1218. That was the earliest source that sprung to mind immediately, but I'm sure that's not the earliest mention. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In the OP Siebi asked about "the Latin term Bavaria", but in Latin you can change the end of words depending on the context. Grammatical_case#Latin https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/possessive-demonstrative-pronouns/ I am not sure if I should interpret the words "as such" in the comment dated 18:27, 4 January 2018 to mean "with that exact spelling". If so then Bavariae is not the same as Bavaria. If not, then Baiuvariorum and Bavariae are both valid examples. Again, I am not an expert. Back when I was in school they tried to teach me six languages, and I was stoned most of the time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Other inflected forms of Bavaria are fine, too...--Siebi (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then the answer is somewhere between ~488 CE and ~820 CE. Maybe someone can find an even older source that mentions Bavaria. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I still think Siebi is talking about the spelling "Bavaria"...not just mentioning the place, but using the term Bavaria specifically. Paul the Deacon calls it "Baioaria" in the late 8th century (probably c. 785-799), so, "Bavaria" must appear sometime after that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The best place to look would probably be the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which you can search online, although the sheer number of texts makes it a bit difficult to find something specific like this... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop: The oldest text I could find via that website was from 1829. [1] Am I doing something wrong? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh, well that's when the project started. The oldest stuff in there is from the 5th century, I think. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Otto of Freising, writing in the 1150s, also uses "Baoiaria". I suppose this may just be intentionally archaic though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then at least we can establish that it was not yet used under Roman rule, right?--Siebi (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! It is definitely not the Roman name. "Bavaria" is a much later medieval simplification of "Baoiaria". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop: Thank you. But does that in turn mean that the form Baoiaria is Roman, in fact?--Siebi (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, "Baoiaria" is post-Roman. The area of modern Bavaria was never really part of the Roman Empire, although parts of it across the river from the provinces of Rhaetia and Noricum. Noricum seems to be used as a poetic/archaic term for Bavaria, sometimes. "Bavaria" (and "Bohemia") comes from the name of the Boii, or from some other Germanic tribe that adopted their name, but there was no name for the area where they lived. They were nomadic and did not have a "state" (in the Roman sense). But they were a coherent group of people, with laws, etc. As Quixotic Potato mentioned, the laws are called "lex Baiuariorum", "law of the Bavarian people". Later, they did develop into a state, a client kingdom of the Frankish Empire. I mentioned Paul the Deacon called their state "Baioaria" in the early medieval period, in the 8th century. So, the idea that there was a separate Bavarian people (Boii, Baiovarii, etc.), and that they had their own country (Baoiaria, or later Bavaria), post-dates the Romans by a few centuries. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I Am An Angry God?

Where does the phrase "I am an angry God" come from? I've heard it in a few Stuart Ashen videos. Rmaster1200 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

“ I am a god. And to those who do not worship me I am an angry god. Know my name. ” — Onslaught

But it may be older than that. A quote that is quite similar appears in the Bible. http://biblehub.com/nahum/1-2.htm I also found this which says: "This has been translated with: “I am a striving God,” or even “I am an angry God,”" but it is obviously not a reliable source because the writer was bonkers. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Ashen mainly seems to produce Entertainment. I never heard this "phrase" anywhere. I doubt there is more background than just Mr. Ashen trying to entertain us with some impressive religious role model. --Kharon (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that exact phrase appears in the Bible. However, there are several passages in Deuteronomy that are typically translated as "I am a jealous god." Exodus 20:5 is one example, and you can read different translations here (some of which indicate God can certainly become angry). http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-5.htm. OldTimeNESter (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be a reference to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.John Z (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Deuteronomy is more productive:

6¹⁵ (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

9⁸ Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.

9²⁰ And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.94.204 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust Rail Justice Act

What happened to it? Why doesn't one find any pertinent information on the website of the subcommitee responsible?--Siebi (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Status: Died in a previous Congress - This bill was introduced on March 17, 2011, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. Their contact information is on their website. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

[2] seems to have mostly dealt with the concerns for one of the companies involved. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato and Nil Einne: Thank you both, belatedly!--Siebi (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)