Miscellaneous desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

September 10

Legal age for getting a tattoo??

I swear I see kids that are like 13 with tattoos?!? Isn't there a legal age that you have to be to get a tattoo? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just out of the ordinary.Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 00:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list of United States tattoo laws, by state. If you're not in my country, I'll let someone else take theirs. Most states do require you to be 18 to get tattooed, or at least to have parents' permission. But (a) it isn't hard to find a shady acquaintance with a tattoo tool who will give a poor-quality tattoo even if you're underage, and (b) I've personally known 13-year-olds whose parents gave them permission. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 in the UK, too. 128.232.131.58 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been a stick-on fake tattoo? Astronaut (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My friend got a tattoo at age 12, because her family owned a tattoo shop. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I know gave themselves a (small) tattoo using a compass needle and fountain pen ink when they were about 15. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 20:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Workmen and traffic

(Legal question not legal advice)

Today, while walking in Bristol, UK, I noticed workmen working on the road. The road was closed to one lane and one of the workmen was controlling the traffic, stopping one direction with the "stop" hand gesture (hand risen, fingers closed and pointing skyward), while allowing the other direction to use the one lane by beckoning them on with the other hand.

Strictly speaking, would a driver be committing an offence if s/he disregarded the workman's hand gesture to stop and drove through the open lane? As far as I know, surey only police officers, traffic wardens and lollipop men/ladies are allowed to direct traffic.

nb. I'm aware workmen can control traffic using Stop/Go revolving signs, and temporary traffic lights, but surely workmen can't just use hand gestures. At least, not in a legally binding way on motorists. Sam 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

If you were driving you would probably see and understand just WHY the traffic was being stopped, almost certainly because it was dangerous for the workmen to have moving vehicles nearby at that point in time.--85.211.231.161 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you decided not to heed the indications of the workman I think you would be, at minimum, guilty of careless driving and failing to show due consideration to other road users. Depending on the actual conditions you could be guilty of dangerous driving. I can't understand why you think an indicating hand is any different from a 'proper' sign. If you came upon an accident where a member of the public was directing traffic by hand to prevent further damage presumably you would be equally annoyed. It is not necessarily legally binding but is an understanding between the workman and reasonable drivers. Richard Avery (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you misunderstand. I wasn't annoyed, I was just wondering from a legal standpoint. The Highway Code mentions that police officer, traffic officers, and lollipop ladies/men have the power to control traffic, while temporary road signs and traffic lights can do the same. I was wondering if workmen without those things still have a power to control traffic or whether it was just an understanding between motorist and workman, and thus whether a driver who flouted the workman would be liable to as severe punishment as someone who ran a red light, ignored a police-man's orders etc. I imagine there is no specific offense 'ignoring a workman', but that one could be prosecuted under a more general offense, such as 'driving without due care and attention'. Sam 11:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I can't speak for the U.K., (or even all of the U.S., for that matter), but the law in Pennsylvania is that road construction crews authorized by the state Department of Transportation — whether they are state employees or contractors hired by the state — have the authority to control traffic as needed, and you can be charged with "violating a work zone" if you do not heed them. Also, if you commit any other offenses in a work zone, the fines are double what they normally are. — Michael J 13:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of gender equality, is there a gender neutral term for "workmen". Work-person perhaps? Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worker, as in construction worker. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my part of the world, the road construction job formerly known as "Flagman" -- which appeared on orange signs as FLAGMAN AHEAD -- was renamed Flagger, and the signs changed accordingly.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Conscription during World War 2

Were American men subject to the draft during World War 2 if they had already served in and been unconditionally discharged fron the U.S. military prior to the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.38.65 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Conscription in the United States, ALL men age 18 to 64 were compelled to register for the draft as World War II approached, and that men up to age 45 were actually drafted. If that's literally true, without qualification, then the answer to your question is YES. As a practical matter, someone serving in WWI would likely have been in their 40s by the time WWII was gearing up, and I would think it unlikely that guys of that age were put into the front lines, but anything's possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In WWII in Britain all men up to 60 (I think) had to register. Those not in exempt occupations (miners, police, etc.) were then liable to be 'called up'. As more and more men were needed so older men were called. My father, born 1901, just managed to stay ahead of the call-up; but he was a part-time Air Raid Warden instead. He stood watches several nights each week in addition to his day job as a butcher. Very tiring! And dangerous.Froggie34 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "The National Service (Armed Forces) Act made all able men between the ages of 18 and 41 liable for conscription; as part of the legislation it was decided that single men would be called to war before married men. Men aged 20 to 23 were required to register on 21 October 1939 - the start of a long and drawn-out process of registration by age group, which only saw 40-year-olds registering in June 1941." Older men could volunteer for the Home Service Battalions and many over-40s had obligations as reservists. In 1942, older civilian men could also be obliged to do part-time work in Civil Defence or the Home Guard [1]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor Entry

Is anal intercourse a real life phenomenon or does it only exist in imagination of second rate porno writers. Is it even possible ? I say that because human anus, unlike vagina which is designed to accommodate an external object, is vastly different anatomically, is clearly not meant for inserting objects, and a thing as large as human penis is especially painful experience for the taker. Of course gays have no other option, but how they are able to do it ? Thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend "Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women" (my emphasis), by Jack Morin, PhD (no relation), published by Down There Press, San Francisco. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down There Press? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and Joani Blank suggest the name was probably intentional. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search would turn up a great deal of photographic and videographic evidence that answers your question, as well as numerous sites with detailed advice on how people go about the act. Do the numerous (108) references in the article not convince you that it is possible? On a side note, for someone who appears to be totally naive about anal intercourse, why do you make the assumption that it is an especially painful experience? Brammers (talk/c) 07:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of immense literature available about the subject. But how many of these authors have actually been through this ?

""Been through" it? You make it sound like having cancer or something. It's not like it's compulsory, even for gay men. They only do it regularly if it's pleasurable for them. It may take a little practice; some never learn to like it and never or hardly ever do it; some can hardly live without it; some are receptive only, some are penetrative only, some like it both ways. The gay world is like a Mandelbrot set of diversities within diversities. As for literature, who would choose to write about anal intercourse if they didn't have significant personal experience of it; or significant professional interest and knowledge about it; or both? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, when Farrah Fawcett died, it was from anal cancer, which most of us don't hear about every day; and some news reports, while trying to avoid getting too far into TMI territory, reported that this cancer is often correlated with anal intercourse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love the title for this question. BTW, I would assume that lubrication cuts pain out of the equation, no? And Bugs, wouldn't most gay dudes die from anal cancer? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I'm just reporting what the news sources said at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What news sources would that be, hopefully not any that we accept as RS on Wikipedia? The claim of a connection sounds completely ridiculous. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is not the act per se, but rather the potential for infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). The anal cancer article suggests that HPV is strongly implicated. Of course the act can't transmit the virus unless one partner is already infected. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck newspaper do you read that speculates on what kind of sex acts might have contributing to someone's death? APL (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the specific source, but there are many google hits. This page include's a doctor's blog on the general subject, not drawing inferences about Farrah directly:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Cuts out'? Doubt it. Our article has plenty of discussions of pain, none of them suggest lubrication is always going to completely eliminate the pain. Of course it's likely to reduce it. I saw a anecdotal discussion once, I thought it was in our article talk page but can't find it where it was suggested for many even when both partners are experienced and careful the initial penetration is usually at least somewhat painful. (Generally speaking most discussions I've read suggest what is realisticly common sense, use lubrication, go carefully and slowly, communicate and if it gets to painful, stop.) BTW, it's obviously not true that 'gays have no other option'. As our various articles I'm quite sure mention, there are gay men who don't enjoy anal sex either as the receiving or penetrating partner and they do clearly find other options which work for them. On the other hand, there are surely some heterosexual men who do enjoy being pegged. Talking in absolutes when it comes to anything involving humans rarely works. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Jon pointing out that assholes aren't meant to have objects inserted inside of them, that also brings to mind another thing... I've heard a lot about how the elasticity can be worn out due to being repeatedly entered, even in some extreme cases requiring some to wear diapers due to anal leakage. Is this true or urban myth? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a section on it. Anal_sex#Physical_damage. Brammers (talk/c) 09:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for 'gays have no other option' (presumably meaning gay men), there are certainly other options. For example, intercrural sex, oral sex and frot, not to mention many other activities that people often classify under 'foreplay', although they can be fun in themselves too. Anal sex isn't the only option for gay men, and penetrative sex is not, in general, the only way to have a fun sexy time. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still loathe being a gay dude, since I would not like having things go up my ass, and vice-versa. I'd be miserable in being limited to the kinds of sex I could have. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be miserable being limited to sex you enjoy, rather than having sex you didn't enjoy and found unpleasant? Are you also miserable being limited in the food you can have, if you choose not to eat things you find unpleasant? Okay! 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, I wouldn't enjoy the other kinds of sex as much to make up for what I can't have. I enjoy enough foods to make up for what I don't like, I'm not unpleasantly picky (unless I'm stuck in a country where I don't have many options to suit my taste buds). 24.189.87.160 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay men don't sit around thinking "If only my partner had a vagina". They like other men for what they have to offer, not what they lack. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true dat. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem awfully close to "I'm glad I wasn't born French: I can't speak the language." 86.164.78.91 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I don't understand how you can ask if it is "even possible" when you acknowledge that gays "are able to do it" and then link to a thoroughly referenced article on the topic, while still expressing doubts as to the possibility of existence. This isn't like ghosts or little green men... we have pictures... and movies. Matt Deres (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you'd do when there is such a big difference between what the writers want us to believe and what actually is. I think people just think it is "in" thing and hence response with a positive nod when the stats people come. When they say they have "done it" what they actually mean is that they are liberal mind and open to sexual innovations, it's fashionable to be on right side of sexual revolution, it's politically correct.

What "big difference"? Why would anyone want people to believe more people engage in anal sex than actually do? What possible benefit is there in that for anyone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to be vulgar here, but I've taken dumps which were far larger than the average human penis. It certainly wasn't painful, so "a thing as large as human penis is especially painful experience for the taker" isn't true. Original research of course. 124.37.178.244 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar ? You've been the most enlightening answerer yet! A real eye-opener. Are you female or male? - that's important

That could probably be promoted to Fundamental Research. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I was going to suggest that we take a poll on how many people here have had hetero anal sex, but I can't decide whether the people who have or the people who haven't would lie more, so I guess that would be a bust. well, maybe 'bust' is a bad choice of words... --Ludwigs2 21:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit it to hetero. It's not as bad as it sounds. Steewi (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sun

When in the next sola ellipse in the uk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesfours (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next full solar eclipse in the UK will be in 2090. There will be partial eclipses before then though. See List of solar eclipses visible from the United Kingdom 1000–2090 AD#The twenty first century (2001 - 2090 AD). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bausch & Lomb Soothe PF

Will Bausch & Lomb's dry eye product 'Soothe PF' be discontinued soon because of their new 'Soothe XH' product? --Endlessdan (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not contact them direct, and ask ?Froggie34 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My doctor says they are, they cannot comment per their 1800 #. Thanks anyway. --Endlessdan (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cadillac seville gas tank and sending unit

WHAT CAR AND YEAR HAS THE SAME GAS TANK AND SENDING UNIT AS THE 1976 CADILLAC SEVILLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.84.31 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not type in capitals; it is considered shouting. Chevy monte carlo 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Cadillac Seville, the 1970's Seville was built on the K-platform. Though it was the only production car built on that platform, it shared some commonalities with the F-platform, the best known example would be Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird. The Seville article also indicates that the car shared some design features with the Chevrolet Nova. Looking into contemporary models of one of those cars may give you some leads. --Jayron32 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a recipe just says "mustard seed," should I use whole or ground?

The recipe is here. Just seeing the phrase "mustard seed" instead of "mustard powder" made me think it meant whole seeds, but this recipe is for a sauce that is smooth so I think they may mean ground mustard seed. Is there a common naming convention to distinguish the two? Thanks. misli h 15:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That recipe isn't going to give a smooth sauce unless you blend it (as it actually says). I would take mustard seed to mean whole seeds -- many Asian recipes call for them. A well-written recipe will specify ground mustard if that's what it means. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seed implies actual seeds. Just mustard would mean paste. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may mean that you should take whole seeds and grind them yourself, thus ensuring maximum freshness of taste. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]