Author Topic: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread  (Read 836896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gwywnnydd

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1626
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5730 on: September 14, 2012, 02:07:22 PM »
Thanks for the responses! It sounds like it isn't too far off from what I was guessing.

Onyx_TKD wrote:

"Around what age do kids generally get too big to be carried?"

As previous posters said, it varies with the child and carrier, but few people will balk at reading that a child under three years old got picked up and carried, and most will balk at mention of the same for a four-year-old child or older except under extreme circumstances like an injury or a carrier who's been described as strong.  For the year in the middle it could go either way so mention that the child is small (or large) if you bring it into the story.

Virg

So, it would be fairly plausible for reasonably large, physically fit man to pick up a 4 or 5-year-old without undue difficulty, although he probably wouldn't want to carry him around for too long? Say, if the kid was injured, needed to be boosted over an obstacle, was being abducted by a ferocious cave troll in a game of pretend...

I'd believe that easily.
One thing that just occurred to me, women IME tend to carry children on their hip, whereas men tend to put them on their shoulders or have them ride piggy-back. That would probably affect the size child that someone could carry comfortably (I can still pick up my son, but if I'm going to be carrying him any distance he needs to be on my back, rather than my hip or in a koala-hug).

MrsJWine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8743
  • I have an excessive fondness for parentheses.
    • Wallydraigle
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5731 on: September 14, 2012, 02:33:54 PM »
I remember being carried sometimes until I was 7 or 8. I was the youngest of five, so my (then-) active family probably just carried me around sometimes so they could do the things they liked to do without the youngest passing out in a ravine. I was also really light. I think I was still under 100 pounds when I started high school. My four year old is built the same: tall but very waif-like. She's a cinch to carry around if we need to go somewhere fast or heft her over puddles or terrain she can't manage. My two year old is the same weight, so I don't anticipate carrying her around at all for much longer. So really, it depends on the kids.

Regular carrying, though (not just picking them up briefly for convenience or comfort) probably stops around 3 or 4.


I have a blog.  I hate that word.


Utah

Slartibartfast

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11458
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5732 on: September 14, 2012, 05:18:10 PM »
Thanks for the responses! It sounds like it isn't too far off from what I was guessing.

Onyx_TKD wrote:

"Around what age do kids generally get too big to be carried?"

As previous posters said, it varies with the child and carrier, but few people will balk at reading that a child under three years old got picked up and carried, and most will balk at mention of the same for a four-year-old child or older except under extreme circumstances like an injury or a carrier who's been described as strong.  For the year in the middle it could go either way so mention that the child is small (or large) if you bring it into the story.

Virg

So, it would be fairly plausible for reasonably large, physically fit man to pick up a 4 or 5-year-old without undue difficulty, although he probably wouldn't want to carry him around for too long? Say, if the kid was injured, needed to be boosted over an obstacle, was being abducted by a ferocious cave troll in a game of pretend...

I stopped carrying Babybartfast this January, when I got pregnant enough with Bittybartfast I wasn't supposed to carry that much :P  However, Babybartfast just turned four and is not quite 30 pounds, which is in the 7th percentile for four-year-olds.  A friend of mine has a son who was 65 pounds at age three.  My friend lifts Babybartfast up one-handed - I can barely stand when her son jumps on me  ::)

Age 3-4 is when a child learns to actually "heel" (for lack of a better word) and thus doesn't have to be carried all the time when out and about.  Before age three, kids are likely to pull things from store shelves, wander off in the parking lot, sit down on the ground and start eating gravel, etc. instead of following the parent.  By age four most kids would be capable of understanding "We're in a hurry, the cave troll is chasing us, so follow me and we'll run!"

2littlemonkeys

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3492
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5733 on: September 14, 2012, 05:31:04 PM »
Thanks for the responses! It sounds like it isn't too far off from what I was guessing.

Onyx_TKD wrote:

"Around what age do kids generally get too big to be carried?"

As previous posters said, it varies with the child and carrier, but few people will balk at reading that a child under three years old got picked up and carried, and most will balk at mention of the same for a four-year-old child or older except under extreme circumstances like an injury or a carrier who's been described as strong.  For the year in the middle it could go either way so mention that the child is small (or large) if you bring it into the story.

Virg

So, it would be fairly plausible for reasonably large, physically fit man to pick up a 4 or 5-year-old without undue difficulty, although he probably wouldn't want to carry him around for too long? Say, if the kid was injured, needed to be boosted over an obstacle, was being abducted by a ferocious cave troll in a game of pretend...

I think so.  I'm a 5'4" woman whose nearly 5 year old still wants "uppie" when she's feeling scared or unwell (or can't see something).  I can carry her for a while and I'm kind of scrawny.  She's average size.  But I don't haul her around as a rule.  She's under her own power 99% of the time.

Virg

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5870
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5734 on: September 16, 2012, 08:43:13 AM »
Onyx_TKD wrote:

"So, it would be fairly plausible for reasonably large, physically fit man to pick up a 4 or 5-year-old without undue difficulty, although he probably wouldn't want to carry him around for too long? Say, if the kid was injured, needed to be boosted over an obstacle, was being abducted by a ferocious cave troll in a game of pretend..."

That's very believable, especially since you're not talking about extended carrying, like picking up a tired child at a zoo, but just talking about a quick grab-and-lift.  For play or a lift over something (or a situation which would warrant extra exertion like carrying an injured child), it's plausible for average people even up to about eight or nine years old.  For "pick me up, daddy" stuff I'd say that five is about the top limit.  It's not just weight at that point, it's as much because five-year-olds don't tend to like being carried for long distances as much as toddlers.

Virg

jpcher

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8472
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5735 on: September 21, 2012, 08:08:15 PM »
New Question:

Why are you not supposed to serve cheese with seafood?

There's a chef judge on "Chopped" (Scott Conant) who cringes whenever someone sprinkles mozzarella or parmesan or some other cheese on pasta with seafood.

I made some salmon tonight and thought about a pasta with alfredo sauce for a side dish, then I thought about an episode of Chopped where all the judges were yelling "Don't  do it!" when one of the competing chefs started sprinkling cheese on her seafood dish. Scott Conant said "I won't even eat this."

(So I served my pasta side with a pesto sauce instead.)


Why is this taboo?


violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5736 on: September 21, 2012, 08:49:20 PM »
New Question:

Why are you not supposed to serve cheese with seafood?

There's a chef judge on "Chopped" (Scott Conant) who cringes whenever someone sprinkles mozzarella or parmesan or some other cheese on pasta with seafood.

I made some salmon tonight and thought about a pasta with alfredo sauce for a side dish, then I thought about an episode of Chopped where all the judges were yelling "Don't  do it!" when one of the competing chefs started sprinkling cheese on her seafood dish. Scott Conant said "I won't even eat this."

(So I served my pasta side with a pesto sauce instead.)


Why is this taboo?

I've never heard of such a rule. If that's what you want with your seafood, do it (says she who loves her lobster bisques and her shrimp dipped in Drambuie sauce).
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


JoW

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 811
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5737 on: September 21, 2012, 08:59:29 PM »
There is an old wives tale that eating lobster and drinking milk in the same meal will upset your stomach.  There are at least a few restaurants in Maine that will question you if you order that combination.  (I have relatives in Maine.) 

It doesn't take much to extend that ban to all sea food.  But that doesn't explain my grandfather's milk-based clam chowder. 

dawnfire

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 822
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5738 on: September 21, 2012, 09:02:24 PM »
New Question:

Why are you not supposed to serve cheese with seafood?

There's a chef judge on "Chopped" (Scott Conant) who cringes whenever someone sprinkles mozzarella or parmesan or some other cheese on pasta with seafood.

I made some salmon tonight and thought about a pasta with alfredo sauce for a side dish, then I thought about an episode of Chopped where all the judges were yelling "Don't  do it!" when one of the competing chefs started sprinkling cheese on her seafood dish. Scott Conant said "I won't even eat this."

(So I served my pasta side with a pesto sauce instead.)


Why is this taboo?

I've never heard of such a rule. If that's what you want with your seafood, do it (says she who loves her lobster bisques and her shrimp dipped in Drambuie sauce).

neither have I. hubby makes a mean smoked salmon with a 3 cheese sauce (one has to be blue cheese tho) over a nice fettuccine pasta.

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3866
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5739 on: September 21, 2012, 09:27:58 PM »
New Question:

Why are you not supposed to serve cheese with seafood?

There's a chef judge on "Chopped" (Scott Conant) who cringes whenever someone sprinkles mozzarella or parmesan or some other cheese on pasta with seafood.

I made some salmon tonight and thought about a pasta with alfredo sauce for a side dish, then I thought about an episode of Chopped where all the judges were yelling "Don't  do it!" when one of the competing chefs started sprinkling cheese on her seafood dish. Scott Conant said "I won't even eat this."

(So I served my pasta side with a pesto sauce instead.)


Why is this taboo?

It could just be a personal preference of this particular judge. I have seen cooking shows where a participant has made something (eg spicy) that one of the judges just doesn't personally like. The judge stated that the person should have researched their 'clientele' better and took marks off based on that personal preference. This could have been a similar scenario.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

Cracea

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 625
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5740 on: September 21, 2012, 10:26:29 PM »
New Question:

Why are you not supposed to serve cheese with seafood?

There's a chef judge on "Chopped" (Scott Conant) who cringes whenever someone sprinkles mozzarella or parmesan or some other cheese on pasta with seafood.

I made some salmon tonight and thought about a pasta with alfredo sauce for a side dish, then I thought about an episode of Chopped where all the judges were yelling "Don't  do it!" when one of the competing chefs started sprinkling cheese on her seafood dish. Scott Conant said "I won't even eat this."

(So I served my pasta side with a pesto sauce instead.)


Why is this taboo?

It could just be a personal preference of this particular judge. I have seen cooking shows where a participant has made something (eg spicy) that one of the judges just doesn't personally like. The judge stated that the person should have researched their 'clientele' better and took marks off based on that personal preference. This could have been a similar scenario.

Apparently it's an Italian thing http://www.thekitchn.com/the-fish-and-cheese-debate-the-76178

I would have never guessed there was an issue.

VorFemme

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12228
  • Runs with scissors!
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5741 on: September 21, 2012, 10:27:02 PM »
I had a delicious dish at a Mexican restautant called Flower of the Sea (well, in Spanish).  A bed of Spanish rice with shrimp arranged in a circular "flower" pattern.  The shrimp had been butterflied, stuffed with a slice of either Monterey Jack or Asado cheese, a sliver of pepper, wrapped in bacon, and fried in garlic butter..........

Pure goodness on a plate - if you weren't afraid of the calories, the cholesterol, and the pepper slice (mild pepper - at least as served in Arizona thirty odd years ago - I suppose that how hot the pepper was depended on the cook).
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I say more?

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5742 on: September 22, 2012, 10:16:45 AM »
I've heard about the prohibition about serving cheese with fish and it seems to be an Italian thing.

As it was explained to me, fish usually has a delicate flavor that can be overwhelmed by many cheeses.  Of course, that doesn't explain the deliciousness of shrimp Parmesan. 

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5743 on: September 22, 2012, 10:50:49 AM »
I've heard about the prohibition about serving cheese with fish and it seems to be an Italian thing.

As it was explained to me, fish usually has a delicate flavor that can be overwhelmed by many cheeses.  Of course, that doesn't explain the deliciousness of shrimp Parmesan.

I've found that certain fish and seafood are more delicate than others. For instance, lobster is much more delicate a flavor than shrimp, and tilapia more delicate than salmon. So, it's just a bit of balancing act.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


Bethalize

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4659
    • Toxic People Survival Checklist
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5744 on: September 22, 2012, 11:47:53 AM »
No fish and cheese? Ridonkculous! How could you have cod with cheese sauce, or fish pie, or smoked fish paté if you didn't pair fish with cheese? I guess it depends on the fish and the cheese. I wouldn't put Rouquefort on scallops.