Miscellaneous desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 4[edit]

Baseball metaphor, expanded?[edit]

I'm familiar with the baseball metaphor (which, to my way of thinking, is a useful mnemonic to teach young guys to not go too far too fast with women, and especially to not try to go for full sex before both partners are ready), but I see some possible omissions: specifically, I'd like to ask, where do the following things fit in -- (1) putting one's hands inside the other partner's clothes (without touching any intimate parts, such as a woman's breasts); (2) lying down on top of the other partner or pulling him/her down on top of oneself (without undressing or having sex, just cuddling); (3) discussing in detail what each partner likes in bed; (4) touching the other partner's thighs through his/her clothes (without touching his/her intimate parts); or (5) a fully clothed woman intentionally touching a man with her breasts (e.g. rubbing them against his arm or chest, or pulling his head against her so his cheek rests on them)? Personally, I'd say these are second base or thereabouts (except (3), which would be somewhere between first and second -- waiting until second to do this would be a little too long, because passion might strike suddenly and cause the progression to be much faster than before) -- is that generally close to correct? 2601:646:9882:46E0:E8CD:5F6:7849:92ED (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Assuming good faith] Any such metaphoric details would be entirely subjective for any given individual and couple (or thruple, etc.). There can be no "correct" interpretations beyond that, I suggest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call #1 a balk and #3 a visit to the mound. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

#5 is a "grind" rule double. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

#4 is covered by the in"feel thigh" rule. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for #2, there's no lying in baseball! Clarityfiend (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a useful mnemonic to teach young guys to not go too far too fast with women, and especially to not try to go for full sex before both partners are ready...

Newsflash: This is not a problem unique to young men. You may be surprised to discover that this is no longer the 1950s, and that in 2023, women can "go too far too fast" with men. It might sound like science fiction to you, but it does happen. Granted, women have far more to lose since they can get pregnant, but with access to birth control the dynamic does change and men are no longer the sole, instigatory parties. So you should stop focusing on "teaching young guys" and focus on teaching both boys and girls the same things. Girls should not have to rely on boys controlling themselves, they should be equally invested in their own sexuality. This means not placing the responsibility of sex, contraception, and responsible behavior on only one party, but on both. For example, a woman should not have to rely on a man to provide condoms, just as a man should not have to rely on a woman to use birth control. They have a shared responsibility in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need updated human settlement timeline[edit]

Evidence suggests that the three-mile long area from Moss Beach to Pillar Point was likely inhabited sometime around 6,000-7,000 years ago with coastal indigenous peoples gathering seafood from the offshore reefs, while also hunting rabbits, deer, and harbor seals from the surrounding land.

I wrote this based on sources from 2001, which I think are probably very much out of date. If I'm not mistaken, these timelines have been pushed much farther back and have changed throughout the previous century. To rephrase, in 2001, it was thought that the coastal indigenous people near what is now known as the SFBA, for example the Chiguan Ohlones, were only present there for the last 7000 years. My guess is that this number has been pushed farther back in the last two decades, to something like 15 or 20 kya. Am I mistaken? If I'm right, what's a good recent source that I can use to update this material? I'm writing about the history of the coastal California people near Moss Beach and Half Moon Bay. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively recent article, "Ancient and modern genomics of the Ohlone Indigenous population of California", mentions "a rich regional archaeological record spanning >11,000 y of Indigenous habitation", referencing the report San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4. I did not readily see where the report supports the stated ">11,000 y". --Lambiam 21:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lambiam. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]