Humanities desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13

Term for extending spoken sounds in acting/ singing?

I've been paying attention to old school British actors speaking: they seem to drag out some of the vowels or intonate them for effect. It's especially noticeable in say, in the BBC's Sherlock Holmes cases with Jeremy Brett. It was sent up in Fawlty Towers when Manuel says: "Ay lee-yawn Ing-lee-urshh. ..." It's more obvious in singing.

What is the term for this? I looked up Vibrato but that seems to be for singing and I'm not sure if it's the same thing. Thanks in advance, Manytexts (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enunciation is saying everything clearly, but, if you overdo it, it can sound like what you describe. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prosody, diction, and elocution all have relevance here (as does the link Stu provided above), but I gather that you are rather looking for a term for the specific process you site, rather than the general nature or study on pacing and emphasis. If there's a specific formal term for this kind of exaggerated emphasis, I'm drawing a blank on it, but the above links and Stress (linguistics) may help you to understand the underlying mechanics. There's also the influence, particularly noteworthy in the case of classically trained and stage actors, of training in "projection"; that is, the ability to make the voice well understood at significant distances - which of course is particularly important in live performances but which could easily affect the speaking style of performers when they act in other mediums. Snow (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help - have plenty to chase up. Yes, it's definitely a theatrical thing. It's sometimes close to what actors do to outshine each other, or steal time etc Manytexts (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago the late actor and record collector Richard Bebb wrote a few articles in which this subject was discussed. "Sustained tone" was the term he used for this elongation of vowel sounds, giving them more of a quality of definite pitch. The result is speech that leans in the direction of singing and away from conversational style. The effect has been called "chanting" by critics who don't like it. I don't recall if Bebb used other terms, but I do remember those. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sustained tone description comes closest - thanks for bringing it to this discussion. It's closest to what I was looking for. Manytexts (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic/Latino Population for All U.S. States in 1950-1960 and before 1940

Does anyone have Hispanic population data for all U.S. states in 1950-1960 and before 1940. In 1950 and 1960, I only found state-level data for the Southwestern U.S. states and in 1910-1930 I only found state-level data on the Mexican (not total Hispanic) population. Before 1910 I could not find any state-level Hispanic/Latino population data at all. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The census categories have been changed several times, and may not be strictly comparable between various censuses. From perusing Race and ethnicity in the United States Census it seems that any kind of indication of Hispanic identity on census forms was optional write-in information before 1930. Before 1912, some of them were territories, not actually states... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyah Data By Year for Various Countries

Does anyone have aliyah data BY YEAR for various specific countries?

http://jppi.org.il/uploads/Jewish_Demographic_Policies.pdf

This report (pages 135-136) lists figures for some countries for which I have not seen individual year data. Can anyone find the source of all of these country-level figures on pages 135-136 in this report? Also, I do not want data for groups/sets of year, but rather for EACH, INDIVIDUAL year. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting Professor Sergio DellaPergola at the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem? --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the likely large number of readers who don't know: aliyah, literally 'going up', means migration (of Jews) to Israel. Or so I am given to understand. —Tamfang (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do I contact Professor DellaPergola and what makes you think that he would be willing or able to respond to an ordinary person like me who doesn't even live in Israel? Futurist110 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contact them via the Hebrew U. Why wouldn't they? It costs the same to send an email to anywhere in the world. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would they have the time to send a (non-generic) response to anyone who sends them an e-mail? Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of asking us, why don't you try? --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About local economy

What is the Local Economy Contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.107 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award in China, although I suspect that's not what you meant. You might need to give us a bit more context, because it's ambiguous as to which of the two obvious answers is right: either what a person or company contributes to the economy or what a local economy contributes to a national or pan-national one. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start with our articles Local economy, Local economic development, or even Local Economy (journal). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn to Liberty as the anthem of Greece and Cyprus

Just a quick question: exactly what was the reason why Cyprus decided to adopt Greece's anthem as their own anthem? The article doesn't mention exactly why. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same reason why you'll see the Greek flag flying next to the Flag of Cyprus, or why the Cypriot National Guard uses pretty much the same insignia as the Greek armed forces: the Cypriot government was controlled by (and since 1974, is exclusively comprised of) the Greek Cypriot majority, and the national ideology and symbols were taken over wholesale from Greece. Furthermore, before 1974, the expectation among Greek Cypriots was that eventually, there would be enosis with Greece, and post that, well, de facto the Republic of Cyprus = Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots don't have any say in the matter (actually, that was the case since 1963/1964 at least, when they began boycotting participation in the government, cf. Cyprus intercommunal violence). Constantine ✍ 12:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern pretenders to the Byzantine throne

Do any surviving royalty have a plausible claim by descent to the crown of the Eastern Roman Empire? Or is it just too far back to disentangle? 163.1.25.35 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the House of Gonzaga, the heirs of the Palaiologoi, who were the ruling house until the death of Constantine XI Palaiologos in 1453. With the final end of the Roman Empire, some of the family found their way to Italy and married into the Gonzaga family line, according to our article, but because I've never heard of them before, I have no clue what happened to the family after the last member mentioned in our article, although there's a source saying that the line is yet unbroken. As former sovereigns of the Duchy of Mantua, they seemingly qualified as royalty, as if I'm reading it rightly, Mantua had what the Germans called "Reichsunmittelbarkeit". Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians partially based a claim to be the spiritual heirs and successor civilization of the Byzantine empire on marriages such as those of Sophia Palaiologina, though they weren't necessarily "pretenders" in the sense you have in mind (see Third Rome). AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten about her; most Russian "Third Rome" stuff that I've read concentrates on it being the succeeding Orthodox empire, and the main Roman connexion that I remember seeing surrounds relics like the Cap of Monomakh and the story of its connexion to Constantine IX Monomachos. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.R.H. Prince Henri de Vigo Aleramico Paleologo Constantine III, Heir to the throne of Byzantium, head of the Paleologue Dynasty, Grand Master of Order of St. John, Order of St. Jorge, Order of the Cross of Constantinople, Order of The Star of Asia of Imperial Byzantium - he might be the man you're after. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the guy, but unfortunately his particular style of pretentions gives rise to the suspicion that he's yet one more of the "holy grail blood" type of disreputable phoneys... AnonMoos (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some Byzantine descent from a matrilineal line in almost every European royal line, but the imperial line of the Palaiologoi and its various branches through male descent have become extinct since the 17th century, I think. There may of course be descendants from earlier offshoots of the dynasty, but they cannot really be traced. Plus the fact that Andreas Palaiologos sold his rights to the throne to the Catholic Monarchs. Then, of course, there are the wacko pretenders who have set the whole scheme up for their egos and for making money out of people who fancy belonging to "Byzantine" orders and have high-sounding titles, like the Italian guy above or the rather better known Eugenio Lascorz ([1]). Constantine ✍ 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name for a piece of clothing

If you look in some children's picture books about the first American settlers, the Indian men are sometimes depicted wearing nothing except a string around their waists with a flap of cloth in front and in back to hide the pubic region. What do we call such a piece of clothing? I know I've heard the term time and time again, but I'm completely blank on the name, and we don't have any images of it at Clothing. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breechcloth. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I knew it was a simple and common term...Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also loincloth.190.148.134.243 (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some societies (ancient Egypt) also used loincloths which might be about 10 inches wide by perhaps 10 feet long, with the part going between the legs supported by a part wrapped around the waist. No string or rope, just the one piece of fabric. Edison (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

single transferable vote

under STV, does the quota increase each round as the number of empty seats goes down?? for example, if an election is for 5 seats with 500 votes, the droop quota would be (500/5+1)+1 = 84.3 BUT then once somebody's been elected there would then only be 4 seats so would the quota change to (500/4+1)+1 = 101? Or does the quote stay the same for the whole elction? thanks. Amisom (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Single transferable vote? I tried to find the answer there but got algebra brain freeze. Edison (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Droop quota. The number of seats doesn't change (it wouldn't work if the number of votes required kept increasing - you wouldn't be able to fill the seats). --Tango (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick'n'dirty answer: No, because each seat filled "consumes" one quota of the vote pool. —Tamfang (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote stays the same for each round. If you want to see an example of counting in an STV election for each round, try Dublin_South_East#2011_general_election. (Almost random constituency example, and not my constituency :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quota does not change as the seats are filled, but there are some variants of STV where the quota is recalculated at each stage to take account of non-transferable ballots. That's the only way the quota changes during the count process. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US military in WWII

Of the 16 million who served in US military in WWII, how many were foreign born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.144.228 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've looked through World War II. Is that not in there? I'm guessing it was around 5%, but that's probably off by up to an order of magnitude. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States home front during World War II#Draft will get you a better estimate. I can't believe Military history of the United States during World War II is behind one of those often-non-printing "[show]" links from the main article. All of the country-specific articles should have direct unobscured-by-javascript links from the main article, if you ask me, but maybe there's too many templates on the main article, because it gets truly huge numbers of hits. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a bit of a surprise, but I'm finding it quite difficult to find sources for the total number, but working from footnotes in a thesis [2] which sources numbers to an article in the Immigration Service's Monthly Review in 1946 - snippets of which I can see through Google. Unfortunately this article only gives the numbers for the US Army alone. The total number of foreign-born personnel who entered the Army between July 1, 1940, and June 30, 1945 was 300,000, of which 109,000 were not US citizens. This figure probably doesn't include foreign-born personnel who were already members of the Army, and doesn't include members of other services. As the thesis points out, as a percentage this was lower than that of World War I, as US immigration policy during the 1920's and 1930s would have introduced a bias that would have lowered the number of those that would satisfy the age restrictions. You could probably extrapolate from these figures to make a guess that would include the branches of the military. I would be surprised if there aren't other sources online somewhere; I just can't find them FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, ~~1/3 is a much better estimate~~. Those who came home were likely granted citizenship, which is why I had trouble remembering. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no.. The total number of personnel in the US Army was in the order of 8 million by the end of WWII, so 300,000 would be about 3.75% of the total.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarifing a bit) Using the figures for the expansion of the Army during the war here, the Army grew from a peacetime figure of 1,685,403 on the day of Pearl Harbour to 8,291,336 at the end of the war, so the figure of 300,000 for foreign-born personnel who enlisted during the war, a figure which would include people who had spent most of the lives in the States, would be about 4.5 % of those who enlisted during the war. (Again, these are just figures for the Army) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 71.212.249.178 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Calling" of a governor of a U.S. State

Dear everyone. In the United States it seems to be usual to call high ranking politicians with the name of their office (Mr. Title...); for example Mr. President, Mr. Vice President or Mr. Secretary (or Miss in the case of a woman). Is a governor also called Mr. Governor (because I never heard)? For example when reporters ask to governor something during a press conference. I think of informal calls, the formal style is The Hornorable for governors as well as the president. --78.51.170.248 (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A woman cabinet minister would normally be addressed as "Madam Secretary". I've never heard "Mr. Governor", just "Governor"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've observed the common mode of address for a U.S. governor is almost always simply "Governor X"; no Mr. involved. Snow (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Honorable may apply, but that's used in formal situations only, and only when announcing their arrival at a function or introducing them to an audience to whom they're aboout to make a speech. It's also used to address written correspondence to them. But if talking face to face with a governor etc, you would never address them as "The Honorable" anything. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen video of Reagan being addressed as Mr. Governor before he was president but after he was governor of California. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's standard U.S. political etiquette -- in a political or public-policy context, someone will be addressed by the highest office that they've held (governor, senator, etc.), even after they've left office... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP's point was Reagan was referred to as Mr. Governor. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, didn't notice... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title inherited from the Thirteen Colonies that's now little used outside of formal contexts (e.g. engraved invitations to ceremonial dinners) is "His Excellency", "Her Excellency" or "Your Excellency". Cf. "His Honor", "Her Honor", or "Your Honor", the Mayor. In at least one state, that honorific does not pass to the Lieutenant Governor:

COMMUNICATION

FROM THE GOVERNOR His Honor, the Lieutenant Governor, presents the following communication from His Excellency, the Governor:

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, PROVIDENCE

Lincoln Almond
Governor

January 27, 1998

To the Honorable, the Senate: I am hereby withdrawing the January 6, 1998 appointment of David R. Jonson to the Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corporation Board of Directors. Sincerely,

LINCOLN ALMOND
Governor

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Journals98/SenateJournals/sjournal1-27.htm

While one can imagine U.S. reporters occasionally addressing an ambassador as "Your Excellency" as well as "Mr. Ambassador" or "Madame Ambassador", it's pretty hard to think of them addressing former Governors Mitt Romney or Bill Clinton, or current Governors Rick Perry or Jerry Brown, as "Your Excellency". —— Shakescene (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Male and female at this year's olympic games

Do absolutely all modalities have a male/female version? Including artistic gymnastics? (also tha thing with the hula hoping)? What does happen with the male to female transsexual? Can they compete as female if they are officially considered to be a woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have to be biologically male to compete in male sports, and biologically female to compete in female sports. These days, if there is any question, this is verified by genetic testing, which doesn't change during gender reassignment surgery or hormone treatments. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a female to male transsexual, who is taking masculine hormones, could be accused of doping? Or does she (or he) has a right to keep taking hormones and compete? 79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no female ski-jumping, and no male rhythmic gymnastics or synchronized swimming. AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this is up-to-date? I know that in the past it was like that, but I've heard that they wanted to end that. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is still no female ski jumping and no male rhythmic gymnastics or synchronized swimming in London 2012 and Vancouver 2010, as you can easily verify for yourself. In fact, I think there's still one other male-only olympic discipline, but I'm having difficulty finding it based on Wikipedia articles such as Olympic sports... AnonMoos (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: There is also no male ski-jumping this year. This is a summer Olympics after all. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to be allegedly humorous, or relevant to my comment in any way? AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's ski-jumping will be on the list for Sochi 2014, and I think the male-only Olympic discipline you're thinking of is Greco-Roman Wrestling. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And men and women have different sets of exercises in gymnastics. women compete in the events of uneven bars, balance beam, floor exercise, and vault, while men do floor exercise, pommel horse, still rings, vault, parallel bars, and high bar. Rojomoke (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are differences of detail, but I was considering both doing basically the same type of endeavour (heptathlon vs. decathlon etc.) as both competing in the same discipline. In gymnastics, the men's events place much greater emphasis on upper-body strength than do the women's events (though the vault seems to be pretty much equivalent for men and women)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sports, Equestrian at the Summer Olympics is the one I know of, do not make these sorts of discrimination. Thincat (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the general topic of male-female equality - and this would make a great pub quiz question: When was the first time that every national team at the Olympics included both men and women? Answer: London 2012. The IOC bent the rules to ensure the Saudi team included women, as under the normal rules no Saudi woman had qualified to compete, but the IOC would not be deterred from its goal. If individuals don't get there on their merits, why, we just bend the rules to make them get there. Any wonder there's massive drug-taking among athletes if this is the example those at the top are setting of how "it's not about winning". Sure it's not. Sure there's a level playing field. Next goal, insisting that every team include both gay and straight athletes. Well, that may seem like a joke, but it's only one step away. (end of rant-like comment) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

JackofOz -- they "bend the rules" (if you want to call it that) all the time on a regular and above-board basis so that both male and female athletes from nations with less-developed or less-funded programs in Olympic-type sports can get a chance to compete at the games which they might not strictly "deserve" if being in the top rung of international competition performance were to be the only criterion... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, AnonMoos. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't competed in the Olympics, but see Caster Semenya for a female athlete who has often been forced to submit to "gender testing" to prove she is female. For other cases see gender verification in sports. Staecker (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Straight Dope has the answer to the original question (referenced in gender verification in sports). For the olympics: "Athletes who have sex reassignment surgery before puberty are automatically accepted as their new sex, while those who wait until after puberty must have all surgical changes completed, be legally recognized as their new sex in the country they represent, and have had hormone therapy for an extended period of time." Staecker (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the horse's mouth, "Synchronised Swimming began as a sport for men in the 1800s. It is now one of two disciplines on today’s Olympic programme to be contested only by women. The other is Rhythmic Gymnastics." HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia immigration

Do Saudi Arabia allow immigration for people from Muslim-majority nations like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Muslims from Canada and USA and UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.56 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia allows very little "immigration" at all in the classic Ellis-Island sense, but instead imports a number of expats who do paid work, but who do not acquire any citizenship or permanent settlement rights. Up until the late 1970's or early 1980's, the Saudis were very open about having a blatantly crude "no Jews or blacks wanted" policy for such expat workers, but this seems to have been relaxed a bit. As far as I can tell, skilled and educated workers are mainly imported from developed countries, while low-paid unskilled workers are mainly imported from third-world countries in Asia... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is little place for legal migration to Saudi Arabia, even for persecuted Muslims. Illegal immigrants are harshly persecuted and legal immigrants cannot normally stay longer than 6 years. OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Females Facts and Myths

Do females really need to bras (racerbacks, regular, sport, t-shirt and whatever other types of there) in the first place? At the same time do they need to shave their private parts (arm pits, bikini areas, legs and wherever else there's hair)?

Mean I really never had luck with bras and shaving. Been questioning this on and off for some time as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "need" you mean they will die without them, then no. Shaving, in particular, is more likely to cause health problems. Bras, on the other hand, can keep breasts from sagging over the years, so, if that's important to you, I'd recommend finding bras that fit properly, by going to a professional, rather than buying "off the shelf". Sports bras, in particular, may help to prevent injuries. The exception is for women with small breasts, who may be OK without bras (consider than fat men sometimes have larger breasts than thin women). StuRat (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If you plan to burn your bra, I strongly suggest that you take it off first." :-) StuRat (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

No really need for most clothes, indeed, no matter if it's about bras, shoes or whatever. It's a question of comfort and of being able to live whenever you want. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bras do not prevent sagging, see the "Bras don't prevent sagging" section at Ptosis (breasts). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your answers to my questions regarding all of this. Have all of were interesting in their own ways.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fit in, and you don't have the tiniest of breasts, then yes you need to wear bras. Sports bras when playing sports are the most useful, but padded T-shirt bras are also fairly practical in that you don't need to worry about looking inappropriate when wearing a thin T-shirt with nothing on top. Bras that roughly match your skin tone are useful for wearing under thin or pale T-shirts (white ones are no good for this).

Shaving: well, it depends on who's going to see it? If you're going to be baring your legs, then it is typically socially necessary to shave your legs below the knee, but not typically necessary to shave higher than that even if you are showing more leg. For legs, there are alternatives to shaving such as waxing, epilators, depilatory creams, and special devices kind of like a special sanding disk (don't use actual sanding disks! That would require a trip to the hospital!). These alternatives typically give longer lasting effects, and often give a smoother effect, but are also usually more hassle and can be quite painful. The quickest, in my experience, is the special shavers that have replaceable cartridges of razors surrounded by a solid block of soap, but they can be expensive. All of this stuff can be found in chemists and large supermarkets.

For your underarms, shaving is necessary if you want to fit in when going swimming or wearing sleeveless tops. It has to be shaving there, really, because the skin is sensitive. It also makes it easier to keep nice-smelling in hot weather, in my experience.

For your private parts, if you're going swimming it's generally considered normal to carefully shave any pubic hair which would not be covered by your swim suit. If you're doing that, go very carefully and always go along the grain (like you would stroke a cat), not against the grain. If you go against the direction your hair wants to lie, down there, you get ingrowing hairs and nasty pus-filled spots. Do not use anything other than shaving, as the area is very sensitive. You do not need to shave any further than your swim suit. You do not need to shave your thighs.

Many women (possibly most in the UK?) seem to trim their pubic hair, so that it doesn't get so long and messy. A pair of scissors (go slowly and be super careful!) can do this, ideally over the toilet so that you can just flush the hair away. This can make it easier to stay clean, since even the best wiping cannot get all the urine or menstrual fluid out of long pubic hair, and I personally find that unpleasant and distracting. But if it doesn't bother you, there's no need to do that.

I'd say most women wear bras all the time when not wearing night clothes or swim wear, but most women only shave when they know they're going to be showing those parts (although underarms aren't typically allowed to go as long between shave as legs). You don't need to do it all the time. And you only need to do it at all once your pubic and underarm hair starts coming in, and your leg hair starts to thicken: if yours isn't doing that yet, then you don't need to.

Anyway, obviously social norms vary from place to place, so take this only as my experience in the UK. You might find local magazines aimed at women or teenage girls actually cover these topics quite thoroughly (I know teenage girl magazines did in my day). 86.164.62.161 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... like you would stroke a cat ..." I don't know if this was intentional, but I cracked up all the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again for your wonderful insightful answer to my question here.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's this well-worn cartoon t-towel about another cultural style when hair is not an issue [3] Manytexts (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming pubic hair? Really? In the UK? Well you learn something different every day. Nothing wrong with a good daily wash... Anyway, once you get to "a certain age", you don't need to shave so much. It's called being post-menopausal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even Victoria Wood did a riff on it, although she seemed to be trimming in a less efficient manner than I do. The point is that a good daily wash isn't enough, at least for me, when the hair is longer. It gets pretty gross by my personal standards by the end of the day, but of course there are different lengths and textures and curlinesses of hair as well as different standards on what is gross, so it's going to vary. 86.164.62.161 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fashion. Much of it makes no practical sense. Some of it is positively dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except not. Bras are mainly there for comfort - going without for more than a short while can be very uncomfortable, even painful, unless you're lying down. Women with prominent nipples are often harassed, belittled, subjected to all kinds of crap from guys, etc. if they go without. --NellieBly (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]