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.
I have been told about some porno sites (I'll list one of them,but I don't know how Wikipedia reacts to having sites like THAT here. I'm referring to the fact that Bigfoot is featured on something like that, no more, no less.) refer to the creature having sex with people. Can this be placed in the "Cultural section" regarding Bigfoot ?
One site some guy told ME is literotica(dot)com, under the catagory of Non-Human and Sci-Fi. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make head or tail of your question. But if you're asking whether the "fact" that "Bigfoot" is "featured" (shown?) on this or that porn website can be placed in such-and-such an article here, you might ask in the talk page of that article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule 34. In fact, I'd like to propose an extended version - if you can imagine it, (a) there is porn of it, and (b) it's been referenced on at least one of The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park. And given how many people want to get rid of all the trivial "in pop culture" references to (b), I'd suggest not including (a) unless you have some kind of source talking about the existence of Bigfoot porn (e.g. a magazine article on wacky porn sites, or something). Oh, and as for "how Wikipedia reacts to having sites like THAT", Wikipedia is not censored. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better placed on the article of the most relevent paraphilia. --Masamage♫ 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kryptobestiality? Steewi (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Better - kryptozoophilia Steewi (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might still better be omitted as blatant silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there is a very famous pornographic cartoon by Robert Crumb dealing with a sexual relationship between a male human and a female sasquatch called "Sassy". Grutness...wha? 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to do my best to describe the song. It starts and ends with a high pitched, fast-tempoed arpeggio. I think the lyrics are something about believing in yourself. I think it was a song from the 80's and it could be considered "arena rock." Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a great deal of searching, I've found out the answer. It's "fooling yourself" by Styx. None the less I appreciate the suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am facing this severe psychological complex in which I find myself preoccupied with research on this question 'WHAT DOES A GIRL DO WHEN SHE SEES A HANDSOME GUY?'.I think the only way out is to find an accurate solution to this query.Please save me,I am becoming mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is clearly, "It depends on the girl." If you have a specific girl that you are wondering about, go ask her. If she is unavailable, ask her closest friends (although there is no guarantee that the answer for the peer group will match the subject's). If you are wondering about the set containing all girls, just randomly ask girls with widely different characteristics (such as age, class, marital status, and sexual orientation) as you encounter them, and build data systematically. You could also interview handsome guys and see if they have observed patterns. Use the scientific method whenever possible; it will never lead you astray. Also, treat the world with a relaxed sense of whimsy; it's a lot more comfortable than obsessing over the ways other people regard you. Good luck. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside of my area of expertise, but I think that most girls are less preoccupied with guys' looks than guys are with girls' looks. For a girl, personality is often more important than looks. So, she may think to herself, hmm, he's handsome, I wonder what he's like? Then she is likely to try to observe him without seeming to observe him to see what he is like. If his personality is appealing, she may try to catch his attention. Of course, different personalities appeal to different girls. Some like guys who are funny, some like the strong silent type, others like guys who are hip or stylish, and so on. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention the fact that some girls don't care when they see a handsome guy because some girls prefer other girls. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I buy stuff online if I'm under 18? What websites will accept a Maestro debit card? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, most decent, reputable websites accept Maestro debit cards. The days when only credit cards were acceptable for online purchases have passed. This advice is based on the UK. Skittle (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with credit cards is that people who are not yet old enough to enter into legally binding contracts cannot have them since using the card constitutes entering into a contract in which you promise to pay for something in the future. There should be no problem with an 18 year old using a debit card since the money is removed from your account when you make the transaction. The question is only whether the Maestro system is acceptable to the online store - and that's going to vary from a place to place. Here in the USA, I have a debit card with a VISA logo on it - so you can use it in places where VISA is accepted (which is to say: everywhere) - and yet it acts like a debit card. If you had one of those - you'd be able to handle anything. SteveBaker (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching on the internet and I can't find the answer to my question anywhere: What is the length of the modern E-Tool used by the US military (specifically Marine Corps)? I want to know the length of TODAY'S E-tool, not the M1943 E-tool. Thanks in advance. --MKnight9989 13:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that others don't have to look it up like I just did, an E-Tool is an Entrenching tool. Basically a folding shovel. 68.142.52.212 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are referring to the M-1967 tri-fold entrenching tool. I'm trying to remember if I still have my old one– someone left it in a fire and it seized up. The best spec I can find is 23" open length. [1] --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the one the USMC is using now?--MKnight9989 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could it then be argued that "Calling a shovel an E-tool" is an antonym of "Calling a spade a spade" :) Or does that belong to the language desk ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust the military to haggle about the words. Nothing like callin' a spade a manually operated soil relocation device! --Mdwyer (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article shovel differentiates a spade and an entrenching tool. An e-tool is a type of shovel, but not all shovels are e-tools, and an e-tool is not a spade. And, to my knowledge, all the U.S. Armed Forces use the M-1967 entrenching tool, but I don't have a reference. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks gadget. --MKnight9989 13:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best way to clean a cheese grater? Mine is the type very handily pictured at Grater.Apart from ripping my teatowel to shreds,the design means that you can't get a cloth right up to the top bit because it's too narrow and there's a handle in the way.This means that the bits of cheese are stuck there with no way to remove them...
Boiling water, and lots of it. Neıl☎ 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just stick mine in the dishwasher. You can also use a scrub brush. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, a dishwasher is able to get the water hot enough to basically melt the cheese off or at least get it hot enough that the spray gets it clean. Dismas|(talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use a washing-up brush, rinse it afterwards with clean water and let it dry. No more ripped teatowels. Lova Falk (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dishwasher, or brush with hot water. SaundersW (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a toothbrush by the sink for this and similar purposes. DuncanHill may have had good results with a sponge scourer, but I find that the cheese grater shreds the scouring material and that scouring fibers get caught on the blades of the grater. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being slow, but why don't you just wipe in the direction it doesn't grate? If you wipe down or scrub, then yes is will grate the scourer, but if you wipe up this isn't a problem surely? Combined with hot soapy water, this works for me. Skittle (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine on the parts of the grater where the blades all face in one direction. I was assuming that the asker was asking about the part of the grater (if it is like my grater) where there are little raised perforations with blades facing in at least four different directions. That's the part that is hard to clean without a fine brush. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you be using that side for grating cheese? Skittle (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the other sides are dirty? --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For wiping, you can let it drip-dry. Assuming your kitchen doesn't have toxic air, it might even be more hygienic. Shake off most of the drips and leave it on a drying rack, or even on the bench for half an hour. It should be dry then. Washing it is probably best with a brush rather than a scourer or dishcloth. Steewi (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is "kickout pass" in basketball.81.89.88.106 (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pass from a player who is close to the basket (in the post, usually) to an open player outside. The player close to the basket will generally attract more defensive attention, giving the outside player an open shot. Recury (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of somebody suddenly disappearing without tr...edit
There are several stories of people disappearing into thin air-David Lang,Oliver Larch,Benjamin Bathurst but these are all believed to be hoaxes as even though there were allegedly witnesses,there was no actual physical evidence.
If it was caught on camera that for instance a runner in a race or footballer in a match suddenly vanished into thin air,with thousands of witnesses around,what effect would that have?
Would it increase belief in the paranormal?Would it just be dismissed as a stunt or some sort of illusion? Lemon martini (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't really speculate on something that has never happened. The Ref desk is more for factual questions than speculation. Whatever we come up with will most likely just be our opinion. Dismas|(talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the "we don't speculate" response because in fact we do speculate! We speculate, we imagine, we give opinions, we talk about hypotheticals, all the time, every day! In my experience the "we don't speculate" answer almost always means "I don't really know, I don't really care, and I don't think anyone else has an answer either," none of which are great reasons to answer or not answer. (Whenever I feel myself wanting to write down one of those sorts of things as a response, I just stop myself.)
And while one might be eager to say that we'd have no basis to speculate here, we can, of course, appeal to past examples of "paranormal" things being announced (whether we agree with their ultimate paranormality or not). I think the boring answer here is that people inclined to believe in the paranormal are going to see it as a justification for their own beliefs, and people (like me) who are very skeptical of something violating the laws of physics are going to place their bets on a naturalistic explanation even if we don't have a ready one at hand. "Caught on camera" is not actually very good evidence at all—cameras have been known to be easy to fool since they were invented—and just because people wouldn't necessarily know what the good answer was doesn't mean there isn't one (I don't know what all UFOs are reported to be, but I doubt they are extraterrestrials). And we know that there are people who will believe to be supernatural even things which are announced by the performers as flim flam, much less things which appeal to their sense of how the world might be arranged. In any case, the ultimate answer of "what would happen" depends on who you are talking about. It is fairly easy to predict the responses of scientists as a group, for example, and also fairly easy to predict the responses of dedicated paranormalists. Everyone in between, though, would probably go one way or the other. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - in this case I agree with Dismas. This is an impossible question. "If something utterly impossible happens - what will happen next?" - you can't answer that in any meaningful manner. Just about the only thing I would say is that as soon as something is provably real, it tends to move from the realms of the paranormal into the mainstream and everyone accepts it. This doesn't happen much - but one example I could think of would be Giant Sea Monsters...which turned out to be...well, giant, sea monsters! Colossal Squid...fifty feet long and strong enough to take on and kill a whale! We've managed to prove that they actually do exist, but only seriously, convincingly in the last 5 year. But now nobody bothers that the occasional fisherman will come back with "tall tales" of massive tentacled monsters - and not many paranormal people talk about them anymore because they've become "normal". It's become mundane - but 50 years ago, nobody would have believed you.
When this happens, the remainder of things that are paranormal remain in the paranormal and continue to be widely (and reasonably) disbelieved.
One assumes that enough evidence would remain here for science to figure out what happened - maybe it's explainable by the normal laws of science - maybe it needs new laws of science. But you can bet that the paranormal nut-jobs would just move on to something else. But people who have "just vanished" are very likely to be falling foul of deaths that mean their bodies are never found - or they are people who intended to vanish and leave "to start a new life"...who knows? SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that epistemologically you'd never be able to establish for sure that it was "impossible" anyway. To claim you know a priori that they did, indeed, "just vanish" (i.e. violate the laws of conservation of mass/energy), posits a sure knowledge that no individual is going to have. If we instead go with the phenomenological approach—"what did people see? what is the evidence?"—then it's not hard to guess how people would, in a very general sense, interpret it. We don't have to care whether or not it violates the laws of physics for that to be the case. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case of John Darwin, which is one of the biggest and most interesting ongoing news stories in Britain at the moment, has some relevance here. The article I have linked contains some interesting relevant material on this subject. I have to say that even at this early stage in the "story", it looks like it may well become one of those fascinating "once-in-a-generation" cases that will be remembered and talked about for a long time. Hassocks5489 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the John Darwin story will really be talked about for very long. Look at the list of similar cases at Pseudocide - some of them MUCH more notorious than this one. Are we still talking about John Stonehouse? He was a major politician who did something rather similar - winding up in Australia with "the other woman". The person most renowned for this has to be Lord Lucan - although it's never been proved conclusively that he actually faked his death, there are many more tantalising signs and a much 'juicier' story involving murder and boatloads of money - a story that he had hidden in a zoo and died after being mauled by a Tiger - or that he had taken up a career as a hunter in India and was now nicknamed "Jungle Barry"!...you just can't make that stuff up - THAT one goes into the history books. SteveBaker (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk is for giving references to questions. The OP should note he is asking for an opinion for which no reference can really be given. Strictly speaking I think if there were any references we could give the OP it would be found on either the Humanities or Science desk - by asking them how people would react to a seemingly paranormal occurence, that possibly an illusion. Here's your first reference, see IllusionRfwoolf (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing about "sea monsters" is that before they were proven to be real, the nobody in Steve's "nobody would have believed you" would have included scientists (not quite grammatically sound, but I hope you know what I mean). They'd have said that not only was there no evidence for them, it was physiologically impossible they could exist anyway. Now we know this isn't true. Many other things were proclaimed as "scientifically impossible" before they were actually demonstrated. So, what is and isn't possible is not necessarily something that science has the last word on. But this gets me into the area of how we know for sure what "science" says about any particular non-core question. One scientist will say X, another will say Y, and both will back up their belief with "science". They can't both be right. Maybe neither is right. Many scientists believe that whatever's in Loch Ness, it's 100% certainly no monster - or even a community of them - so there'd be no point even looking because whatever you find, it wouldn't be evidence of a monster. Others are sufficiently curious to go and spend very long periods searching for evidence. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite fair. I doubt anyone would have claimed they were physiologically impossible - we have whales - sea animals can get pretty big - there was no problem with THAT. I think the problem would have been entirely in the "Well, if they exist, where is the evidence?"...and, eventually, there was evidence. There aren't too many things that scientists say is impossible that turn out to be possible after all...at least not in the last 100 years or so. You often hear things like "Scientists claim that bees can't possibly fly but the bees don't know that! Hahaha! Stoopid Scientists!"...but careful checking reveals that these are typically urban legends - or at least a gross mis-reading of a statement like: "We don't currently understand how bees fly."
You're ill-informed about Loch Ness - it's been studied extremely carefully - lots of sonar sweeps, mini-submarine surveys, automatically triggered cameras - you name it. But you really don't need all of that - it's clear that there cannot be such a creature in there is the basic math: In order for genetic diversity to prevail - there would need to be a regular population of at least 50 animals. Given the size people claim they are, and how active they must need to be to do what is claimed - they must consume such-and-such amount of food per day. Growth rate of plants in the loch is terrible because it's very turbid and no sunlight reaches plants - the only other food source is fish - but there aren't many fish in the loch and you can show that 50 top predators would empty the lake of fish in a matter of months and then starve to death. The ceatures can't get into our out of the loch without being seen because the inlet and outlets of the lake are shallow. Ergo - there are no monsters in Loch Ness. QED. SteveBaker (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely hope for your sake that that analysis doesn't come back to haunt you some day, Steve. :) I'm intrigued as to why scientists would have bothered to expend the time and energy they have in looking for signs of life there, if what you say is true. If they know there's nothing to look for, just what is it they're ... looking for? This seems to confirm what I said above: you and others are convinced there's no monster there because it's mathematically impossible; others obviously don't agree (and didn't Sir Peter Scott go out on a limb and actually give the supposed Nessie a scientific name, Nessiteras rhombopoteryx? I know some say this was a hoax because of the anagram, but that may have just been a post-hoc realisation.) So just what is the scientific position? The answer really does seem to depend on which scientist you talk to. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been told about a drug called DMT which can be synthesized, but is found naturally in the human brain and is released just before death to produce a hallucinogenic state. How can such a thing have evolved? Something to ease your passing can not be a trait which is passed on from generation to generation, there is no 'survival of the fittest' reaso for such a mechanism to exist, so why does it? RobertsZ (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion of that theory in the Dimethyltryptamine article. Note that it is in the section titled 'Speculation. Specifically, it mentions first that "Dr. Rick Strassman, [...] advanced the theory that a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland prior to death or near death was the cause of the near death experience (NDE) phenomenon", and then goes on to include "Strassman speculated that DMT is made in the pineal gland,[...] However, no one has looked for DMT in the pineal yet." Without any proof that DMT does indeed act as suggested, it is premature to question how such a mechanism would have evolved. --LarryMac | Talk 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it hasn't been determined that DMT is actually released just before death, it has just been found within the body and its hallucinogenic affect has been noted? RobertsZ (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took some dmt a few years ago, pretty good stuff, you can watch yourself walk into the next room, and then BAMB! your back with yourself, but just as soon as that happens, you are walking away again, or sitting down, one always seems to be a few second behind ones self. Freaky, very Hunter S Thompson. Adrenalin is pretty good too, but doesnt last for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your getting at Atlant, but your list still made me smile, looks like a list of my typical wikipedia browsing, end up totaly off topic, from DMT you got to shoe polish, amazing. RobertsZ (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to guess, Atlant is pointing out that there are tons of ways our brains react to minute doses of chemicals that produce euphoric effects, and that you don't have to have the brain specifically evolve towards any one of them for the possibility to be there. Our brains did not "evolve" to recognize LSD; LSD happens to be a chemical which plays games with our neurons based just on how they are. (Also note, re: another comment I made earlier, let's not always assume that we are talking about specifically human evolution here—it could be an issue with primates, with mammals in general, etc. Don't assume any given trait a human has was uniquely evolved for human beings.) --23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.86.187 (talk)
The answer to what I was getting at was contained in the last Wikilink I provided ;-). It's the first thing I flash to whenever I hear "DMT".
(squeeze): Toluene (C7H8 (C6H5CH3) is a component of inhalants, such as glue, nail polish remover, paint thinner and shoe cream. It produces a high of sorts for sniffers of normal household chemicals. Sadly, some people have died from inhaling such aerosols. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that there could be an evolutionary basis for this (although I personally doubt it). We are social animals who live in groups with our offspring. Suppose someone who has a gene for an "easy death" - which is passed onto their kids - dies in the presence of all of their children. The fact that their death was "easy" and seemingly painless might reduce the incidence of depression and anxiety in their children and thereby improve their chances of having children of their own and passing on the gene. Someone who thrashes around, yelling and screaming in pain and terror might very well cause their children to be grieving for much longer - and therefore unwilling or unable to procreate for a long time after. SteveBaker (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense, a very logical attempt at explaining how DMT may have evolved, although even you say you doubt your theory, it is by far the most sensible answer so far, thanks Steve. Any more answers or ideas are welcome, RobertsZ (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit doubtful to me. The effect on an overall population would be pretty small, I imagine, and concerns with "easy deaths" and "good deaths" are historically contingent, not culturally universal (there is a rich literature on the history of death for those who are interested, though we don't have a Wikipedia article on the subject, amazingly!). Personally if there was such an effect, I would expect it to be related to something else, not a specialized "death drug" but rather a scaled up version of a standard response to shock or something like that, or the inadvertant result of the brain hemorrhaging, etc. It seems unlikely to me that there would be enough selective pressure to evolve a specific death response of this sort. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given enough time, evolution can optimise some pretty subtle things. Think about (my favorite evolution example) Adult Lactose tolerance. That confers a benefit only when:
You're a farmer who keeps milk-producing animals (cows, sheep, goats)...and...
There is some kind of a severe food shortage during your lifetime...and...
The food shortage somehow doesn't affect your animals enough to prevent them from lactating but is severe enough to affect humans really badly...and...
Your cultural taboos don't prevent you from milking animals and drinking their milk. Bear in mind that you are the only sick weirdo who does this! Everyone else who ever tried it got ill because they were lactose intolerant - so tribal lore stretching back generations says that adults don't drink milk!...and...
The shortage goes on long enough that your competitors are forced to slaughter their animals and eat them while you sit back and drink milk...and...
You can survive to reproduce on that diet while your competitors either died or failed to reproduce as a result.
That's a pretty contorted set of conditions! Yet most of us have that gene. If evolution favored an advantage as small and specialised as that one, it's perhaps not such a stretch to imagine that an 'easy death' gene could confer a similar amount of overall advantage.
But as I said before, I'm only saying that it COULD happen - I very much doubt that it actually did. That gland and the chemical it secretes must be there for another reason. The cost to humans to grow and maintain an organ throughout their entire lives whose only purpose is something this rare and subtle would surely exceed it's benefit. In the lactose tolerance case, all that happened is that there was a failure in the switch that normally turns off a mammal's ability to digest milk once it is weaned. No new burden is placed on the creature because of that.
If this effect is real (which it may not be), then I think it must be a side-effect of something else. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's not even been proof that DMT is secreted by the pineal gland, which does have known functions.--LarryMac | Talk 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One annoying thing about winter is having to switch underwear at least once every day. Outdoors, it's too cold to wear short underwear. Indoors, it's too hot to wear long underwear. During work, I can manage wearing long underwear the whole time, but when I get back home, I have to immediately switch to short underwear.
Is this any easier for women? Women's stockings cover the whole leg but seem to be made of thinner cloth. My father told me he once met a British man who admitted to wearing women's stockings at winter, to keep warm. Should I also investigate to the issue? JIP | Talk 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could turn the heating down at home so it is comfortable to wear long underwear all the time, and save on fuel bills? I don't recommend ladies stockings: they are likely to be too short for you, and you will either have to negotiate the lumpiness of garter belts or the sweatiness of tights. SaundersW (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many moons ago me and some archaeologist friends were excavating the graveyard of a medieval church in Yorkshire, UK - knackering cold winter with snow and ice, and we were digging the skeletons which involved lying on the ground to get to them. Quite a few of the men started wearing women's tights (I guess that's pantyhose in American) under their long johns, under their Army surplus combat trousers, under their ex-German Army tank suits. They swore by them, said they really helped keep their legs warm. (Some I suspect might have enjoyed wearing them just a little too much). I always wondered what the hospital staff would have made of it if one of these rufty tufty burly muddy men was brought in after and accident and had to have his clothes cut off him....86.158.131.45 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about less heating at home, if it's an option. You might also consider wearing easily removable layers for outdoors. A second pair of trousers over the top of your work trousers might keep you warm, but you don't have to change when you get to work, rather just removing a layer like you take off a coat. This is something many motorcycle riders use every day. A long, good quality, ankle length coat might also have a similar effect. Steewi (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived most of my life in very cold places (Alaska, Finland, Michigan, Chicago, etc) I can sympathize with your plight. However, there's a solution! I would suggest investing in some silk underwear! Not only is silk fantastically comfortable, it is also the premier fabric to have next to your skin during the winter. It insulates you when you need to stay warm, and it keeps you cool when you need to stay cool. It does a great job of wicking away perspiration, and it is lightweight so it doesn't weigh you down like thick cotton long johns do. I don't want to push any particular company, but if you google the words "winter", "silk", and "underwear", you'll find some good sources online to select from. Some companies will even send you a catalog with photos of pretty ladies wearing silk underwear, which might also (depending on your inclination) keep you warm in the winter, too. Just kidding! Saukkomies 04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a photo from a silk underwear online catalog of what I'm talking about. These long underwear are incredibly lightweight, but I can guarantee you that they work! Saukkomies 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by this question. Maybe I'm missing the point but don't most people wear an overcoat, hat, scarf, whatever outdoors, and take them off indoors? Changing overwear is simpler than changing underwear.--Shantavira|feed me 10:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it's cold enough, overcoat+scarf+mittens+hat+winter boots are not enough to keep you warm, you need two layers of trousers. --NorwegianBluetalk 11:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I wear an overcoat, hat, scarf and gloves outdoors in winter. They're necessary but not sufficient. If all I had covering my legs were my trousers they'd freeze. So yes, I do need two layers of trousers. In some exceptional conditions, such as ski trips over 20 km long, I wear three layers of trousers. JIP | Talk 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
