bases

[jester at PANIX.COM]

Greg Downing wrote:
> >(The utility of this system seems open to question.)
> >
> >Jesse Sheidlower
> >OED
> >
>
> Yes, and not just because of the "calibrational" or "definitional" problems
> being discussed this morning. One also has to bear in mind, in the first
> place, the problematic truth-value of not a few of the statements that are
> made by the young folks who commonly employ the "base" system in discourse
> with their acquaintances!
>
> Then again, perhaps the multiple definitions are precisely what is needed,
> pragmatically -- i.e., speakers can exaggerate or give an impression of
> having done more than they've done if that's the effect they are seeking to
> achieve in a particular discourse situation, or they can deny having done
> something by using one of the milder definitional systems if that's the
> effect they are seeking in some other situation. Eventually, they can even

I was referring specifically to the calibrational problem--that
there should be at least reasonably comparable "distance" between
each base, and in a system where kissing is first base and french-
kissing is second base, that leaves a lot of sexual territory to
squeeze in (as it were) to two bases. One would expect second base
to be roughly half as advanced as sexual intercourse, and perhaps
either above- or below-the-waist petting could fall into this
category, but frenching, no way.

JTS