Humanities desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 2[edit]

A 1967 gay wedding in the Netherlands[edit]

During the debate on the Sexual Offences Act 1967, one the Lords, Lord Auckland, says: "In one of the more popular Sunday newspapers last week there appeared an account, which some of your Lordships may have seen, of a homosexual wedding in a Continental country." Clearly this isn't referring to a legally recognized wedding, but I'm curious about the background here. It looks like it's referring to an event in the Netherlands where two men were married in a chapel, but the only reference I can find is an offhand mention in a Gay Star News article about the Sexual Offences Act. Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands#Religious denominations says "The Dutch Remonstrants were the world's first Christian denomination to perform same-sex unions and marriages in 1986", but if these men married in a chapel in 1967 that must surely be incorrect. Smurrayinchester 07:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mention of this wedding in "Touch -- And Go: A Magazine For Deaf-Blind Readers", August 1967, p. 18, in which it's said that Harry Rietra and Jean Knockhart exchanged rings in a marriage Mass in a Roman Catholic chapel in Rotterdam. A few more details are given here, including a correction of the names to Henryk Rietra and Jean Knockhaert. As you say, the marriage could have been recognized neither by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy (of course) nor by Netherlands law. --Antiquary (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some further details and images here, from the September 21 1967 issue of Jet Magazine. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good find! Smurrayinchester 12:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent riddle! Let's focus on the principals: Harry Rietra was age 26 in 1967, i.e. born 1941. This site indexes a Harry Rietra born to parents who were born in 1919 and 1913, but I don't want to sign up for a 14-day trial. But if someone does, please cc the details... (to be continued) Wnt (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is preferred room tempersture considered a culturally acquired or innate biological trait?[edit]

I searched Google for the above question and did not find much. Does someone who grew up in a very warm African climate consider it "normal" in the sense they would also set a thermostat high, or is preferred room temperature pretty universal and people in warmer climates simply are uncomfortable and consider it annoying? (Even if it's the temperature all the time.) Thank you. 193.224.49.51 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a bit of both, and also other factors, like basal metabolic rate, current activity level, psychological stress level, and body mass index will affect it. Humidity, of course, also plays a role (and there's an accustomization to that, as well). Also note that the range which is considered acceptable will vary by culture. (For many in developed nations, if they sweat or shiver, they consider that uncomfortable, while in a developing nation, that's normal.) StuRat (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inuits complain about temperatures below room temperature and sweat in them. Their body shapes retain heat better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's quite a variation in willingness to do other things to compensate for high temps by drinking iced tea, turning on a fan, closing the curtains or shades, and stripping down to underwear or a swimsuit, or to compensate for low temps by wearing a sweater, sitting by the fireplace or in a sunny spot, or drinking hot cocoa. For people willing to do these things, a much wider range of room temperatures are acceptable. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See nature vs. nurture. The notion that some trait or behavior is strictly "biological" or strictly "learned" is a false dichotomy; the reality is that behavior is caused by a complex interplay of environment and genetics, and it's not possible, nor useful, to ignore the influence of the one over the other, or pretend as the two exist in isolation or even can be considered as distinct and isolatable causes (as though we could say "75% of one and 25% of the other). Some aspects of temperature comfort are biological (else concepts like frostbite, hypothermia, heat stroke, etc. wouldn't make sense) while others are probably learned or acquired through acclimatization and adaptation. --Jayron 32 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

193.224.49.51 -- It's not exactly the same thing as preferred room temperature, but it's well-known that how much you sweat in response to a given temperature is almost entirely determined by the temperatures you were exposed to as a baby. Here's what I was able to find with a quick search: [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Karjalainen, Sami. (2012). "Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review." Gender is one item that matters. There are other interesting articles that show different temperature reactions by country by gender. For example, Indraganti & Rao (2010) show that Indian women were more sensitive to temperature differences than men but were less likely to report discomfort, while a study by Karjalainen in 2007 found that Finnish women were more likely to report discomfort than men. This seems to point to a culture explanation in reaction. Other research finds that nutrition may matter at extremes, those with depression have difficulty regulating temperature, and that people can train their bodies to have a reduced automatic temperature response (see Wim Hof). What I have found in looking at temperature setting data is that demographics such as gender and race are very small determinants of temperature preference. Most of the variation is idiosyncratic by personal preference. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is room temperature? We usually keep our living room about 18–19 °C (64–66 °F). On the other hand most Inuit (no s at the end) seem to prefer their living room anywhere up to 25 °C (77 °F). Only ever seen an one Inuk sweat indoors. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Room temperature, oddly enough, does have a definition. In colloquial terms, its the temperature range by which the inhabitants of a room feel comfortable, and while it isn't a single, exact, infinitely precise number, it does have an expected range of values, which altogether, is not that wide. There is also the scientific Standard state temperature, at 25 degrees C, so chosen because most science is done, well, in a room, and that's about room temperature, thus lab conditions would not usually deviate much from standard state conditions. --Jayron 32 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you/they mean gender, or do you mean sex? Because the latter is an objective biological fact, while the former is... something. Iapetus (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The former is no less a fact than the latter, or do you mean to say that people frequently lie or deceive others about their gender? --Jayron 32 11:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Iapetus said it was not a fact, I think he said it was not a biological fact. If you consider psychology to be a branch of biology, then I think you can contradict Iapetus and say "given that it is a psychological fact, it is also a biological one", but if you consider those 2 branches to be separate, then Iapetus can claim that psychological facts cannot be categorised as biological facts and his last statement stands. I myself make no claim on the classification of psychology. --Lgriot (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's clear subtext in the exact phrasing he chose. If he said "gender is psychological and sex is biological" that's pretty straightforward and doesn't carry any pejorative sense. By choosing the exact words he did, and the exact phrasing he did, he's clearly expressing doubt about the validity of non-standard gender identities. By using two clarifying adjectives (including the word "objective") to classify one, and then classifying the other with a "...something", he's clearly drawing a distinction in validity between the two concepts. If he meant what you're saying, he'd have said what you're saying. He said something entirely different. --Jayron 32 14:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not everyone is able to express themselves clearly all the time. I would be very surprised to meet someone that seriously believes that gender is not a question of psychology. What will they claim it is then, a social construct? But then will they claim that social constructs exist without some underlying human psychology? I see no logical line of reasoning, so I assume good faith until proven guilty. Iapetus, want to chip in about what you meant? --Lgriot (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that I frequently have no idea what people are referring to when they talk about gender, because sometimes it is used as a synonym for sex; sometimes it is used where it would make more sense if they were referring to sex but it isn't clear if that is what they are actually doing; sometimes it is used to mean identity; sometimes it even seems to be used to mean personality; and sometimes possibly something else altogether. Iapetus (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must talk to strange people, if indeed people around you use gender as "personality". I only ever hear it meaning sex (which I agree with you is very sloppy) or gender identity, or in linguistics where its meaning is quite different. --Lgriot (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different strokes for different folks. I recall one time I was playing blackjack at a charity casino. It was about 30+ degrees C; I was sweating like a pig, while my female dealer was wearing a sweater! Women really are from Venus. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've never heard of this precise association, so maybe it's only me -- but I personally find that going on a low calorie diet can make eighty feel like seventy, and so in fact I've been doing that the past few weeks. I mean, I'm aware of criticisms that dieting causes "starvation response" and lower basal metabolic rate, but I haven't heard of people timing reducing diets to compensate for hot temperatures. (Since starvation response otherwise seems to involve improved insulin sensitivity, I'm otherwise all for it) Wnt (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Role of a Senior Watch Officer in a shore establishment?[edit]

I'm fairly sure I understand what the Senior Watch Officer of a US Navy vessel does (see [2], section 303.18, and Wikipedia's watchstanding article). However, I'm not clear how that applies to a shore establishment. Could someone explain it to me? Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "watch officer" is used in the U.S. navy for what in other branches is called a Duty officer and the roles of a senior watch officer on shore post would not differ significantly from that of a duty officer in other branches; of course watch officers on ships have a different list of specific tasks than one on shore, but the basic job description, an officer who is consider "in charge" in the absence of the commanding officer, is the same. The watch officer of a ship is the person who gives orders on the bridge in the ship's captain's stead (when he isn't present on the bridge), and would have the same role in a shore establishment (acting as the commander when the commander is not present.) --Jayron 32 01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]