Talk:cum junkie

RFD
SOP, you can be a junk(ie/y) for anything. —  [Ric Laurent] — 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and compare Talk:travel junkie. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Definition says "person that uses their sexuality to obtain luxuries" which seems non-SoP, but the definitions not really back this up, for example "I never knew Elizabeth was such a cum junkie." does demonstrate existence, but could just mean a junkie for cum. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look through google books, "cum junkie" does indeed mean trying to get luxuries for sex, comparable to sugar baby (the opposite of a sugardaddy).


 * That's exactly what it is. It seems Troy likes to exercise creative license where none is due. I might semi-speedy this one later. I'll give it a bit more time for other comments. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just reporting the definition as the citations showed it to mean, I was surprised by this non-cumslut definition but it was there.Lucifer 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep as alt form of cumjunkie, per WT:COALMINE --Rockpilot 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol I was just about to change my mind and delete it after looking at Talk:travel junkie. I don't think WT:COALMINE was ever meant to make SOP phrases acceptable. Anyway, we don't have cumjunkie, just cum-junkie, which I'm also going to burn. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not but this word does get spelled cumjunkie sometimes which means for certain it meets COALMINE and that cum junkie is simply the common spelling and that is what COALMINE was made for.Lucifer 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be kept, it is a set phrase in line with cumwhore, cumslut, cumrag, cumhole, cumdump, and cum dumpster. It's true you can be a junkie for anything but this is a set phrase, and is a type of person as evidence by the synonyms.


 * A google search makes use of the one word compound form to be pretty common.Lucifer 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly widespread use, which it does have., Usage in a well-known work, it has them, I put in several sources, Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year, again the sources.Lucifer 00:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Restored as it's not an open-and-shut case, should get at least a week and then only delete if there is a consensus to do so after a week, if there's no real consensus either way, leave it at least a month to allow for more comments. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from the junk definition which claims that it means something that it doesn't, how is it any different from Talk:travel junkie? There's precedent for x-junkie not being included. Junk definition aside, this is no different. —  [Ric Laurent] — 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV as not cited; the citations convey meaning, but not the meaning in the entry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you're not going to do this yourself, so I've done it. —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2011–February 2012
Requested at RFD, but not done. Frankly this is a waste of time, you're not going to find a quotation indicating that this means "person that uses their sexuality to obtain luxuries", because that's not what it means. It's simply a junkie for cum (semen), and we have precedent for deleting such entries at Talk:travel junkie. The only reason I'm putting this here is so Martin won't restore it and harp about a proper process. So let's get this stupid, stupid, stupid ball rolling. —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There already is a citation that examples that in the entry.Lucifer 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ONE is not enough. The magic number is three. —  [Ric Laurent] — 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tons of words have just one or none at all. Are you contesting that this is not in actually use? Forgive me if I am wrong, but you of all people seem well versed in vulgarities.Lucifer 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am. I'm not contesting the existence of this term. However, it is a sum-of-parts, like travel junkie, and we don't include those. See Talk:travel junkie. What I am contesting is the definition you gave. If it weren't for Martin, this entry would still be deleted and I wouldn't have started this stupid rfv. Basically, I'm just waiting for a week so I can delete it again, because the definition that you gave is inaccurate.
 * Ideally, all words should have citations. —  [Ric Laurent] — 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm contesting it on the grounds I don't know it and the citations don't back up what the entry says. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This one does: Also known as “cum junkie,” obsessed with enjoying the finer things in life in exchange for putting out.Lucifer 23:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's ONE. You need at least THREE. —  [Ric Laurent] — 00:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well you said I didn't have any and implied I made it all up, on google books there are others that imply or show it being used as more than a cumslut, which there are many that show that use, but there others that show this 'prostitution'-like use.Lucifer 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You should read Criteria for Inclusion, especially Attestation. When an English term is contested, you need three citations spanning at least a year. —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes sir.Lucifer 08:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)