Talk:sexual contact

sexual contact
rfd-sense: "Sexual touching between two organisms." That seems to be covered by sexual + contact. The other definition 'sexual partner' is unchallenged, though I've never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * keep this is a legal term used widely in the criminal code.Gtroy 21:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP--Dmol 21:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, regardless of its legal nature. It's just too sop-obvious. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete if its definition is correct, per nom. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't ignore it because you don't like it. This word is in merriam webster and the english oxford dictionary, you need to give up this obsession with wiktionary technicalities.Gtroy 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Merriam Webster is that? I don't find it in MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 22:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say delete both, the second sense is just a fancy way to say booty call. A contact you have, who you get together with for sense 1. —  [Ric Laurent] — 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it used so much in journalism?like in these articles?


 * 1) * 1983, Kenneth H. Mayer, Hank Pizer, The AIDS Fact Book, page 37:
 * Taking our example a bit further, let us imagine that individual number 4 had one other sexual contact within the last month; and individual number 3 had three contacts.
 * 1) * 1997, Aileen Schumacher, Engineering for Murder, page 69
 * His list of sexual contacts was quite long, and included ladies from some of the ritzier establishments of ill repute across the border.Gtroy 09:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A sum of parts that is used frequently is still a sum of parts. I don't see what part of that is so hard to comprehend. For the most part, we don't do sums of parts here. Some things aren't as clearly sums of parts as others, but this very clearly is. —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Gtroy, msh210 is saying to delete it, how is that 'ignoring' it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean that I am providing evidence to the contrary of his rationale and that s/he is ignoring that, cleared up?Gtroy 09:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * msh's rationale is that sexual contact is a sum of parts. You have provided no evidence to the contrary of that. Perhaps he's ignoring your citations, because they prove his point. Perhaps he's ignoring you saying he needs to get over his "obsession with wiktionary technicalities", because he's smart enough to ignore your whining. Cleared up. —  [Ric Laurent] — 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IT still is like hella totally a word bruhGtroy 03:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks suspiciously like two words (hint: there's a space between them), and I think this is the point that's being made here.   D b f  i  r  s   00:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

deleted entire page. Sense 2 as well is sum of parts, as per contact sense 4. -- Liliana • 16:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)