Talk:sexual threat

RFD discussion: December 2017–January 2018
DTLHS (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a hot topic in the news doesn't stop stuff being SoP. Equinox ◑ 02:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot grasp any aspect in the slightest why it should not be SoP. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dunno, maybe send to RFV. This phrase has a related but different sense in the PUA scene/seduction community, where being "sexually threatening" is seen as a good thing (the idea is that by giving off a "sexual aura", you never run the risk of being put in the "friendzone") It might simply be a matter of connotation, though: negative for everybody excepted PUA.
 * Here's a clumsy attempt at a definition: "A “sexual-threat”: A psychological concept that if a woman is HIGHLY attracted to a man, she runs the risk of being with him sexually, and getting pregnant and potentially having to raise a child on her own. The woman risks, on an unconscious, survival level, sacrificing much of her life for a sexual encounter with an attractive man who can love her intensely and leave her."
 * I don't know if it's attestable under our criteria. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)