Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 April 7

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.

April 7

Friend zone

I just read about friend zone but is there such thing as acquaintance zone, whereby if someone doesn't try to turn an acquaintance into a friendships within a certain period of time, then they're stuck as acquaintances? 90.198.252.17 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's a certain amount of inertia. If a coworker only expects to nod to you when passing, and never goes out to lunch with you, then nothing is likely to change unless you make a definite effort, and even then they might be suspicious that you want something. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How does somebody 'ork' a cow? Shouldn't 'orking a cow' be somehow a criminal offence? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is. That's why they're expected to go out to lunch with you so they, otherwise yourself, may confess.--Askedonty (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's better than muffin' the mule. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Orking a cow is also hard on the knees of the people doing the orking, such that regions where cow orking is common are referred to as "The Ork Knees islands". StuRat (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "acquaintance zone". "Friend zone" is the term used to describe the concept that an individual marks another individual as a friend, not a lover. This is one aspect of life, where cultures may differ. In some cultures, men and women are allowed to become merely friends or "friends with benefits". In other cultures, such relationships are almost always likened to courtship, and social norms may guide people how to behave around members of the opposite sex. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that there's no such thing (there is), it's just that the friend zone is the one currently enjoying popularity as a meme at the moment. The underlying principle seems to be that all heterosexual men are always looking to "advance" their relationship with women to the point of sexual relations; ones that are "merely" very good friends with a woman are said to be in the "friend zone". It's often played for laughs online, but it highlights the frictions that can arise when two people have differing ideas on what their relationship is and where it's going. See also When Harry Met Sally.... Matt Deres (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Central Asia and Eastern Europe

why dont we hear much about central asia and eastern europe in india( west bengal)People and media not interested and no mention if not rarely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.163.126 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Send a letter or email with your question to the TV news stations or the newspapers in West Bengal. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a forum. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You may also find the Media bias article interesting. (And Media bias in South Asia, although that's not very detailed.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What percentage of the total male population have been convicted of a crime? Is the number lower for women?

What percentage of the total male population have been convicted of a crime? Is the number lower for women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.218.107.66 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide, or for a particular country? --Jayron32 13:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) In the entire world, ever, throughout history, or are we just talking about one country and within a certain time frame? You need to be a bit more specific in order for such a question to be answered. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP geolocates to China. He or she may be interested in the total male population in China that have been convicted of crime and the total female population in China that have been convicted of crime. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have an article Sex differences in crime. For the USA, you want the BJS, here is there report on women offenders [1]. This book [2], titled "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" may also be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

An answer for China on the sex ratio issue (the OP's second question) is in our article Incarceration of women (if you take incarceration rates as a gauge for conviction rates). According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, as of August 2014, the Chinese women prison population ...[comprises] 84,600 female prisoners or 5.1% of the overall Chinese prison population. The article also gives figures for Russia and the USA. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Animals live in a hell of which mankind are the devils."

In The Great Code, Northrop Frye attributes this remark to Arthur Schopenhauer (I say "remark" rather than "quotation" since Frye seems to be paraphrasing). Since I don't have a copy of Frye's book in front of me, I'm having trouble finding a citation, though I suspect Frye gives a citation of some sort in an endnote. If anyone has the book, the passage in question is on page 94 of the Google Books edition (looks like the newest one), in the "Metaphor I" chapter. Alternatively, if anyone happens to know the Schopenhauer source directly, that's even better. Thanks in advance. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Die Menschen sind die Teufel der Erde und die Tiere die geplagten Seelen". It's in Parerga and Paralipomena. There's an English version here which translates the full sentence as "One might say with truth, Mankind are the devils of the earth, and the animals the souls they torment.". 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you very, very much. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your average gazelle might take issue with that notion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Because lions? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Consider that only humans have the capacity for mercy. Look up bot fly and parasitic wasp. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You've obviously never seen a cat feed its lunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually thought that this objection might come up, but that's not "mercy" (the relief of unnecessary suffering, compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender or an enemy), it's caregiving as a response to cuteness, which is found in many mammals. It's most common with mothers who've just born (and sometimes lost) young and are hormonally primed, and of pets kept inside and not allowed to learn how to hunt. Humans may indeed be devils to themselves and animals, just as cats that play with their prey. The statement has literary or propaganda value, but it's certainly not any sort of categorical truth. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

More of an exception than an objection. But it's totally mercy. I know a lot of cats, and their general rule is "inflict unnecessary suffering on small cute things". Sometimes they eat them after slowly killing them, sometimes not. But when they choose to not only let them off the hook, but give them milk, that's mercy and generosity. Good cat!

Might just be the hormones talking, or a mother's "weakness", but emotions drive most rational decisions. Same reason we humans show mercy, and why in tight spots, we'll often pull the "I have a family!" card and make puppy dog eyes. Smart squirrel! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is unessential, and I am sure what I have said was understood, but the temptation to pick nits here is one we all enjoy. In any case, until cats start canceling debts they are legally owed, building charity hospitals, or until cat judges start lowering cat criminal sentences when their cat victims ask the cat judge to show the cat felon mercy, I'll maintain the distinction. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.

For another unessential, overly general point, we're more likely to feel compassion for those who pick our nits. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't the United States part of the Commonwealth of Nations?

The United States was originally the 13 colonies. Although it declared independence from Great Britain, why isn't it part of the Commonwealth of Nations? Do Australia and Canada still recognize the English monarch as their figurehead ruler, even though they are independent from Great Britain? How is Canada's independence different from America's independence? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The answer is long and complicated, and has to do with the fact that the independence of America predated the foundational event of the Commonwealth by over a century. The Commonwealth of Nations traces its lineage to the First Colonial Conference, which took place in 1887. In some ways, the American independence led directly to the foundation of the Commonwealth of Nations, as the long, painful war caused Britain to rethink it's relationship with its colonies. In many ways, the failure of Britain to hold on to what would become the United States caused them to form the doctrine of responsible government for its colonies, and led to the entire Dominion process which was vital to the evolution of the various British Colonies ultimately to independent states. The process of colony-->dominion-->independence was developed in the middle 19th century, first with Canada (see British North America Act, 1867) and later with the other British colonies. The Commonwealth of Nations consists essentially of those countries which achieved their independence through some form of this process, rather than the U.S., which a) achieved its independence long before this process, and b) achieved its independence via violent revolution rather than via gradual evolution. And gradual it was; Canada only achieved full legal independence in 1982 (see Canada Act 1982), a process that took over 100 years from full colonial status to fully independent state. So THAT is why the U.S. is not, has never been, and won't be part of the Commonwealth of Nations. As far as members of the Commonwealth, the UK has no say over which form of government it takes; some have chosen Constitutional Monarchy, and others have chosen Republican forms of government. Canada and Australia are still Monarchies (officially, they have their own monarch entirely independent of the UK, it is just that the person holding the position is the same person. See Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of Australia for more details). Other than those two, there are actually a total of 16 members of the Commonwealth of Nations which have constitutional monarchies (all independently so) with Queen Elizabeth as their monarch. The other 37 members of the Commonwealth of Nations are divided into 32 republics (with no monarch) and 5 states which are also constitutional monarchs OTHER than Elizabeth. --Jayron32 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well answered. One minor correction: for "Other than those two", read "Including those two (and the UK itself)". --65.95.176.148 (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Commonwealth_of_Nations_membership_criteria#Eligible_states there are 34 nations who could claim membership, if they had the political will to do so. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The 16 states with Elizabeth as monarch are not entirely "independently so": they have a convention that all must agree to any changes in the succession (e.g. Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was fully approved only two weeks ago). — I was curious enough to look up the other five monarchies: Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland and Tonga. —Tamfang (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the UK has no say over what form of government these nations take; they're quite allowed to become full republics without the permission of the other 15. Also, they're quite allowed to abolish their monarchy and immediately re-establish a new one with a different person as Monarch. The law only covers legal succession within the framework of the existing situation, not a requirement that such nations maintain the current situation in perpetuity. The abolition of the Monarchy has occurred in other Commonwealth states (Republic of South Africa for example), and is a real political question which bubbles up in others as well (see Republicanism in Australia.) --Jayron32 12:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland seems to have been the first republic in the Commonwealth (1937) but she left in 1949. There has recently been some suggestion of her rejoining.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the place to canvass changes to a country's constitutional arrangements. Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not all Canadians choose to recognize the Monarchy. Personally, I don't and believe Canada would be much better off not being involved with England in the current capacity. I do not believe it is in Canada's best interests to have to get Royal Consent (or is it Assent?) for things that are clearly within Canada. To me, Canada remaining part of the Commonwealth and thus, "answerable" to Britain, is no more than a hold over of Colonialism. Better to be a Republic than a Constitutional Monarchy. We have more in common with our neighbors to the south right now than we do to Britain (not that we should be part of the USA either!). Now sure what the feelings are in Australia; I seem to remember that there was a push a while back re: leaving the Commonwealth. 216.223.72.182 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) A few issues with your post. Canada is not involved (whatever that means) with "England". Canada and the United Kingdom are two of the Commonwealth realms, of which there are 16 in total. These 16 countries are equal partners in a shared monarchy. The Crown of Canada is a different thing, legally, from the Crown of the UK or the Crown of Australia or anywhere else. The person who wears those crowns just happens to be the same person, Elizabeth II at the moment. Assent to Canadian laws is given by the Queen of Canada or her representative, the Governor-General of Canada, and nobody else. The Queen of Canada and the Governor-General of Canada are advised by their Canadian Prime Minister or other Canadian ministers, and nobody else. Advice as to who should be appointed as Governor-General of Canada is given by the Prime Minister of Canada, and nobody else, to the Queen of Canada, and nobody else. Canada is no sense "answerable" to Britain. The Commonwealth of Nations (which includes the above 16 nations with the shared monarchy, as well as 37 other nations that do not recognise that monarch) obviously had its genesis in Britain, but it is no longer British, not even in name. There was even a period during Margaret Thatcher's premiership when she got the other Commonwealth members so badly off-side (on the issue of sanctions against then-Apartheid South Africa, from memory) that there was serious talk of expelling the UK from the Commonwealth. This prospect was officially and publicly raised at a CHOGM (in Vancouver, Canada, from memory). So much for "British". The Commonwealth is just as much Papua New Guinean or Mozambican as it is British. Australia has never sought to leave the Commonwealth, and I can't imagine that ever being the case. What we did seriously consider, though, was becoming a republic within the Commonwealth, just like India, i.e. having an elected or appointed President rather than a hereditary Monarch as our Head of State. See Australian republic referendum, 1999. While that particular campaign was lost, it is common ground that such a change will eventually happen; it's now a question of when, not whether. In any event, this is not the place to discuss whether Canada should or should not change its constitutional arrangements, and I'm therefore hatting your post and my response. I just couldn't let it pass without some comments on your misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the christian bible give any advice on the issue of cohabiting but not marrying?

Does the christian bible give any advice on the issue of cohabiting but not marrying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.137.102 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you mean unmarried, unrelated people of the opposite sex living together, at the time of the Bible that would have been pretty much unthinkable, so they may not have bothered to say so, any more than they would have said "thou shalt not set thy neighbor on fire". Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation" might relate, though. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Context is key in understanding scripture. "And lead us not into temptation" is taken from the Lord's Prayer, which is irrelevant to issue of cohabitation. I would say that the issue of cohabitation is associated with the issue of fornication. SSS (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may want to be specific on the "Christian Bible", because there are many Christian bibles in the world. You may also want to look into the theological tradition, because different Christian theological traditions have different views on cohabitation. Look, I don't want to sound preachy here, but if you are interested in the Roman Catholic opinion, then here it is. In short, the Roman Catholic Church is against cohabitation, but it seems the article does give hints and suggestions how a Catholic may deal with this issue. Of course, if you are not Catholic, then you may just dismiss the webpage. SSS (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This authoritative reference details the official stance on cohabitation, citing from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can't say whether it will be helpful to the OP, because the OP fails to mention a theological tradition. SSS (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Exodus 22:16: "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."

So, if you're a man and you cohabit with a woman (assuming this involves having sex), you must marry the woman after paying her father the bride price. If you're a woman, don't worry about it--as your father's property, he gets to decide who you marry. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to apply to cohabiting with a woman you're engaged to. Actually, it doesn't apply to a women who is engaged to someone else either. Also, it only applies if the women was a virgin before you started cohabiting. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All women are virgins before they start cohabiting with someone. Also, don't be confused by the term "engaged". It's actually the first half of the marriage ceremony that in those days was done in two stages. See erusin. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Think the answer to the OP's questions is no. The Bible records the tradition of noble families who wish to keep their power and influence in their tightly knit circle. Marriage, was a declaration enacted by those influential families coming together to ensuring 'inheritance' is keep within that circle. The sons could (and did give rise to bastards - with slave girls, concubines, etc) but those did not have any inheritable rights on any such estates. So there was no need to record advice about cohabiting -as it had no influence on family power.--Aspro (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Rmhermen (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Bible gives no description of, or instructions for, a marriage ceremony or other action to make marriage "official". Descriptions of a couple becoming married are comparatively few and minimal in scope; a good example is in Genesis 24.67. If I understand rightly, all marriages were what we'd now call common-law marriage, with cohabitation being a major part of that. If I'm right, it really wouldn't be possible to cohabitate before marriage. Judging by our common-law marriage article, the situation I'm describing was apparently the case in ancient Greek and Roman culture, so the New Testament doesn't recognize the concept of unmarried cohabitation. Aside from occasional references to premarital sex between parties who aren't living together (e.g. Deuteronomy 22.13-21, which unambiguously condemns it), biblical prohibitions on sexual relationships generally involve concepts such as forced rape, adultery (in this context, when one or both sexual partners are married, but to other people), or relationships that are outright forbidden, especially incest. Most of this kind of stuff is found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible; the few references in the New Testament typically deal with topics where people are reminded of commands they already knew about, and in some cases are ignoring anyway (e.g. incest in the first part of 1 Corinthians 5, and general "sexual immorality" later in the chapter), or simply commands to remember to heed what they already know, e.g. Hebrews 13.4. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree in part with the above post in so much that marriages as we know them to day were mostly common law. Yet for inheritance to pass on they had to be recognized by the authorities so that upon death of the farther, there was no argument about which male issue (children) inherited the estate. There is a sense of this centuries later when Romeo 'took' a wife by laying with her (common law -wife) and then went to Friar Laurence to have it recognized. Of course, for poor people with no wealth to pass on, there was no need for a recognized marriage (until about 400 years ago in Britain but it might have been a bit later and even then, it would have just have been a blessing with no marriage vows involved.). Which I think the poster just above was trying to point out about common law.--Aspro (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, on this process being the basis for marriage-type relations. The concept of the mamzer appears only a few times in the Hebrew Bible, and it's apparently a reference to children of adultery, not children of a couple who aren't married to anyone. The answer to the original question appears to be concubinage (see discussion in the Jewish Encyclopedia); this is where inheritance stuff comes in, and it's a thoroughly minor component. Bear in mind that there weren't authorities in some of these situations. For example, the Bible portrays the figures of the patriarchal age (e.g. Isaac and Rebecca, in the "Genesis 24.67" link above) as being wealthy nomads, without states or other authorities to recognise anything in most contexts; the only real exceptions are the situations in which both Isaac and his father Abraham pass their wives off as their sisters, fearing that acknowledging them as wives will prompt foreigners to kill them, thus making their wives remarriageable. PS, see 1 Corinthians 7, a New Testament passage accepted in all parts of Christianity; the text clearly says "Celibacy's best, but you need to marry otherwise" Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I agree partly. Yet only partly. Abraham had absolute authority (other than that of the higher being). Maintaining a pure blood line was essential. Once ones wife has born a heir and a spare they didn't care whose issue they produced after. Ones own blood line would go on. It was like passing on a second-hand-car. One careful owner but let the buyer beware.--Aspro (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The first volume of the Hasting Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics is available over at commons at commons:File:Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Volume 1.pdf, and starting on page 177 is an article about "Agapetæ," which might be useful in this context. In a quick review of the article, I don't see any specific mention of what we would today call "Biblical" sources, but it does indicate sources from the apostolic age which were used to support the practice. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ἀγάπη means selfless love. The women were not chattels which were owned by any man. The union was by mutual consent.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about cohabitation (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200271288).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)