Talk:Baseball metaphors for sex

Baseball images
Evrik, regarding this, this and this? I don't see why you think the baseball images improve the article. Like I stated in my edit summary, the article isn't actually about baseball, and the images aren't actual physical positions taken during sexual activity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The images, especially, the one of the man at third base give context to people not familiar with the sport of baseball. --evrik (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Those images don't help to understand this topic at all. Reverted. Do stop WP:Edit warring over this. And people usually know what the bases lead up to -- a home run. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply saying that doesn't make your case. The images add context, especially the third base image. --evrik (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You stated, "Simply saying that doesn't make your case." Look in the mirror. The images won't be staying. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those images are hardly likely to clear up any confusion, as they bear little resemblance to the activities they correlate with in this context. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better selection of images? --evrik (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The single image is sufficient for an article about metaphors. If someone wants to see images of the sexual acts, they can click on those wikilinks.OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions are great, and everyone has one. If you're done driving an edit war. Let's talk about the images in the different sections. The third base one should stay, if nothing else. --evrik (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who's reverted three times in a day. You'll need to achieve a consensus to re-add the images. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I love this comment, " Go away already. You will end up blocked. Your images will not remain. Except it now. If I start an RfC on it, you don't have a chance. Move the hell on." Go ahead and start and RfC, and learn proper word usage. --evrik (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I clearly corrected my typo two minutes after stating "except" instead of "accept." I don't need to start an RfC. You have no WP:Consensus on this matter. And if you continue to try to insert these images, you will be blocked. Coming back every few days or weeks to repeat the process will not help you. Slow edit warring is still edit warring. But, hey, if you want to waste people's time by starting an RfC on this, be my guest. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we agree that the third base image conveys a sense of motion, or progression? --evrik (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see no objections, I am adding the third base image back in. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This was clearly a no. Just like this. That we did not again reply to you to state that we do not agree with you adding any such image does not mean that we agree with you. Obviously. You have just wasted my time because you showed up to do the same thing again when I was about to log off for the day and now I am about to report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. We are under no obligation to engaging you/replying to you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please let me know when you report me, but you could go to Dispute resolution. --evrik (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

redundant passage
In the Views section, both paragraphs mention that the baseball metaphor has been critiqued for encouraging people to think about sex as a game:

"The use of baseball as a sexual script in general, regardless of what each base signifies, has been critiqued by sexuality educators for misrepresenting sex as a contest with a winner and loser"

And

"Others argue that the baseball metaphor reflects U.S. ideas about sex as a contest to be won, rather than a mutual and consensual activity."

In fact, both passages cite the same source.

Does it seem unnecessary to make this point twice? It seems like the ordering could be juggled a bit so that first instance is wiped in favour of the second instance, which makes more sense in context ("There are conflicting perspectives on the use of the baseball metaphor") - matt lohkamp 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not a regular editor, but I thought this was strange and opened the talk page to see if there was discussion of this exact issue. It's odd that the same singular source is cited as "educators" and "others," both plural, when there's no evidence this position is held by more than a single person (who is even mentioned by name in the article). If it's her opinion, it should not be suggested as representative of pluralities of people. The first reference should simply read, "The use of baseball as a sexual script in general, regardless of what each base signifies, has been critiqued by sexuality educator Deborah Roffman for misrepresenting sex as a contest with a winner and loser. She writes ..." The second reference, used as an authority to repeatedly discredit an alternative perspective, is inappropriate. Just move straight to the Scarleteen section, with a transition along the lines of, "Others have suggested metaphors to replace the baseball ones..." 240F:37:A22F:1:68F8:D45A:8BAA:2F98 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)