Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 1

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< October 31 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 2 >
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.


November 1

edit

unattractive women

edit

I know some young women who are nice and have attractive qualities but who aren't much to look at. One of them, for example, has (her words) "terribly unattractive breasts". They are single and have found a certain logic that keeps them that way: they say, "If I loved a man enough to want to be with him long term/marry him, then I would love him enough to not want him to be stuck with someone as unattractive as I am."

The difficulty for me is that I found this hard to argue with. What advice should I give them, when it seems that perhaps more people should be self-aware/selfless like that? Are they so wrong that they need correcting? 24.101.18.83 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that they are selfless, but that they don't love themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same thing. See The Virtue of Selfishness. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's very similar to the logic: "I'd never want to join a club with such low standards as to let somebody like me in". And how can a young woman's breasts be unattractive ? Varicose veins ? Different sizes ? StuRat (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the questions that passed through my mind as well, Stu. I know one woman who is completely flat chested. Which in today's society is generally not something that is lauded or desired. She is very happily married to what I would guess is a very attractive man who is successful and is very attentive to her. She's also, IMO, very pretty. So there's that also to consider but my point is, breasts aren't everything. As for the OP, I can't remember where I saw it. Some documentary I found on Netflix one night, that much I know. Anyway, the documentary was about people's attractiveness. And in it there was a study where people were asked to rate those that they would date and those that they thought were "out of their league" and such. Time and again people were matching each other up with someone who was of similar relative attractiveness. I know that probably won't go a long way to console some unattractive woman, as the OP refers to them, but it's worth keeping in mind. Dismas|(talk) 01:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small breasts are not universally considered unattractive. And they are also easy to "fix", between push-up bras, falsies, and implants. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I believe that she used to be very overweight (well into the obese category) and lost it all to now be considered thin/slim. While that is very laudable, it's left her 'droopy', I believe considerably so. She is very distressed that almost all young women have nice breasts apart from her, and that even her post-menopausal mother has more conventionally attractive breasts. She sees her breasts (and other 'unattractive' features) as deal-breakers, and as there is such a culture of attractiveness, I don't see how I can dissuade her, as it is something that men actually do care about. I tried to tell her that not all men care about such things, and she said that it would mean being with someone who therefore wasn't interested in sex, and that she'd rather be single (with the possibility of having one-night stands) than in a passion-less relationship. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Physical infatuation lasts for the first 30 days of a sexual relationship. After that, if you are two mature people with shared values an adult relationship is possible, assuming you have been brought up to value respect and affection. See oxytocin. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "friend" has a very sad view of herself and of others that I think is well beyond the capability of the respondents on the Ref Desk to address. How she gets from "don't care" about conventional measures of attractiveness to "uninterested in sex", I don't know. I am having difficulty in seeing this as a serious question. (And I am curious as to where Medeis's "30 days" comes from. My own experience says it can be longer or shorter, and by quite a large margin.) Bielle (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Men are not traditionally known for their ability to look past physical appearances. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a young and inexperienced woman to think that either a man cares about physical appearances and therefore about sex, or he doesn't care about either. Is there much evidence out there to the contrary? Not really. And why does she have such a sad view of herself? Isn't she . . . well, kind of right? Put a nude picture of her on the web, for example, and she'll be harshly criticised in the crudest of terms by any man passing by. Is she supposed to delude herself into thinking she's okay? 24.101.18.83 (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
la nuit, tous les chats sont gris. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure men can look past physical appearances:
"By then her once smooth skin was wrinkled and her former auburn hair had turned grey, but fortunately I was able to look past all that ... and see her pretty daughter standing behind her." - Montgomery Burns. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your own response, Bielle, indicates that you see it as an a average, which is obviously what I meant. On the close mean order of a month. μηδείς (talk)
If we were all looking for the same things in our partners, there would be one very long line up, and almost all of us would be doing without. Take a look around at the real world. We don't live in advertisements or magazines or TV ads. Bielle (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but men wish that they did. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my world. I think yours must be very young and inexperienced. Bielle (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bielle -- "Almost all of us would be doing without" only if no-one was willing to "settle". See Assortative mating, Matching hypothesis... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in either of your links, AnonMoos, speaks to "settling"; quite the opposite, in fact. They speak rather to individuals being attracted to (not "settling for", whatever that may mean) others at their same level of attractiveness. (I am still not certain how those levels are determined or by whom.) We aren't all attracted to the same characteristics no matter what advertisers (and inexperienced young men and women say) say and do and not all of attractiveness is about physical appearance. Bielle (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shallow people can quickly size up how "hot" someone was, as in Hot or Not. I once encountered 3 girls walking down a sidewalk at a college, and each would utter a number from 1 to 10 as they passed a guy walking the other way, as if they were judges at a diving competition. I resented their "negative" comments. Edison (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP: why do you think your friend's view is a problem? Is she obviously unhappy about herself, and does she obviously want to marry? In any case, your friend's logic is fallacious because men do not all fall into the cookie-cutter stereotype she seems to have in her mind. I'm only slightly older than the average age of a first date, and people of my age are stereotypically portrayed as much shallower than adults. Even so, I know boys who prefer flat chests. I know boys who prefer droopy breasts, or disgustingly gigantic breasts (for my taste), or the type of breasts you see in magazines. I also know boys who like nerdy girls, almost regardless of her looks. Even more oddly, I know boys who like tomboys, in the sense of physically and emotionally tough girls. My point is that human sexuality, just like most other human preferences, is bizarre, diverse, deviant, and abnormal in countless ways, and none of those words is a judgement. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that you know this. Young men who sit around discussing sex don't talk about how they like droopy boobs! Most guys would be ashamed of that. And they wouldn't say they like 'em flat, either. It's cool to like the perfect ones in magazines, or the fake ones in porn. That's why a lot of girls are in a hopeless situation, because men are being fed a warped perception of female beauty that exists in not so many girls. I think you're guessing. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of guessing, yet your entire post is one enormous guess about what young men I know, what young men do, and what young men are ashamed of. You also use the phrase "most guys" numerous times, whereas the entire point of my post is that not all guys act in the same way that "most guys" do. Your claim is similar to saying "most guys aren't smart enough to invent relativity. Therefore, everyone who says Einstein invented relativity is guessing." --140.180.252.244 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking solely and exclusively for myself, I like well-proportioned breasts -- and I really do not find breasts grotesquely disproportionate to the body to be attractive. There are also changing cultural ideals -- the 1920s favored a somewhat small-breasted ideal, while 1950s media depictions played up large breasts. Many 1950s sex-symbol models and actresses would be considered "fat" today... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, what makes a woman beautiful is primarily her face (and I know I speak for a lot of guys saying that). Sure, men like breasts, but they are of lesser importance, especially when it comes to long-term relationships. (see e.g. [1] and [2]) - Lindert (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would tell them that in the long term, character is much more important for a happy relationship than looks. I would be far less afraid to be 'stuck' with a less attractive wife, than with a gorgeous but nasty wife. As Solomon said: "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9) - Lindert (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. The unfortunate looking girls might be nice and easy to get along with, but they know that there are plenty of nice, easy to get along with girls who are also good-looking. That leaves them at the end of the queue, and probably better off single. And even then, men feel entitled (by virtue of their biology) to stray. A happy home and a mistress in a hotel, I guess that's what men want. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'plenty' part is simply inaccurate. There are just as many, sometimes even more men than there are women. You may be right when it comes to men who are rich, successful, handsome etc, but just like with women, there are plenty of guys that fall short in one category or the other. For them, choices are much more limited. What it comes down to is that women who are not 'perfect' in every way will just have to settle for a guy who is also less than perfect. It works both ways. And about men being unfaithful, maybe you are being too pessimistic. There are decent guys left and I know plenty of them. (And it's not like there aren't any women who cheat either.) Try to view each person individually and don't judge them before you know them. - Lindert (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that. We all know very successful and intelligent men who have married airhead wives, or successful and attractive women with apparent fat scumbag husbands.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty between the ears trumps most everything else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone once wrote a song about that... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And a few years later, Flip Wilson made this to-the-point comment: "You marry a beautiful woman, after a while she turns ugly. Marry an ugly woman, get a few drinks in you, and she starts lookin' good!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Body Dysmorphic Disorder. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24.101.18.83, you seem to forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not all men consider a Gisele Bundchen or an Angelina Jolie to be the pinnacle of beauty, and may find their plainer girlfriends/wives to be much more attractive. Society may try to establish a standard of beauty, but not everyone abides by it. Ultimately, you can't dictate taste, and personality is the deciding factor for what makes one attractive enough to be worthy of love for many people. I mean, not even disabled or disfigured people are perpetually single, so it tells you that much. 70.55.109.152 (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the opinion of men is important to a woman's sense of self-worth is what I'd like to know and should be explored at length. Most women sadly believe that having guys look at you with a hard-on in their eyes is the pinnacle of achievement. Sad pathetic creatures and most don't even exploit it financially.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One does not simply walk into Mordor!

edit

Is there an original Tolkien quote on which this dictum of Boromir in the movie is based on? If yes, what is the wording? --KnightMove (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. In fact during the Council of Elrond—when Boromir says this in the movie—in the book Aragorn mentions ([3]) walking within sight of the Black Gate and in Morgul Vale, neither of which is technically in Mordor but are close. And a page later Gandalf says Gollum "went to Mordor", although he was caught. I suspect this little speech of Boromir's, which goes on to mention the unsleeping Eye, etc, was put into the movie in order to summarize quickly what takes a lot longer to make clear in the books—not only the "folly" of trying to sneak into Mordor but also Boromir in particular rejecting this plan, or accepting it only grudgingly. This goes with his idea that the Ring should go to Gondor as a weapon of war, and/or his rapid falling prey to the lure of the Ring. In any case, the Council of Elrond chapter was much rewritten for the movie, unsurprisingly. Pfly (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing I could find from Boromir is "The only plan that is proposed to us is that a halfling should walk blindly into Mordor and offer the Enemy every chance of recapturing it for himself. Folly!" (Said shortly before he tries to take the ring from Frodo). Later, Gollum puts it this way: "It's not sense to try and get into Mordor at all." - Lindert (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"One does not simply walk into Mordor." ... "Quite right, but with proper assistance, two should have no trouble at all." StuRat (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
My favorite variation is http://www.ooblick.com/text/tomordor/ (though some of the roads mentioned seem to have been in extreme disrepair at the end of the third age)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. The lengths people will go to to avoid baggage fees for magical items. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satire artwork interpretation

edit

What does the last one mean[4]? (The one with the sandwich covering a calendar.)24.246.85.20 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the general drift of the others: that the single sandwich is the only food for that month, and thus is being served as one small piece per day. It does not work as a stand-alone carton since it lacks context. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also note there is only butter in the weekend, and only cold cuts on Sunday. That could be interpreted in different ways but is certainly different from the expectation in rich countries. I don't know whether there is any significance to the calendar being from March 2005. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location of street address in California and attributes

edit

In Los Alamitos Unified School District I'm trying to determine if "THE BUNGALOWS - LONG BEACH 90815 Claremore Lane 2900 - 2972 (even #’s only)" is within the Long Beach City Limited and/or the Los Angeles County City Limits. Long Beach is supposed to be entirely within Los Angeles County (but I'm trying to see if 2900-2972 Claremore is in Orange County)

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from a topo map that the county line cuts through at least some of the buildings on the south side of Claremore Lane. —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see how the buildings are classified, if they vote in LA County elections but get services from Orange County or if they vote for LBUSD schools but can send kids to Los Alamitos schools... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In some similar cases, cross-boundary buildings pay taxes and receive services from the jurisdiction in which their main entrance is located (have no idea if that would apply here)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One has heard of doorways being moved in Baarle for that reason. —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_November_1&oldid=1073725101"